Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out

ferratus writes "The Mozilla organization just released the second release candidate for the upcoming 1.0 due out in a few weeks. See the updated release note and remember to see the mirror list before hitting the main server."

Comments

What gives?..

[Victor Danilchenko]

I just upgraded, and now I cannot select any mailboxes in the Messenger mailbox panel! I can click on it, and the whole mailbox panel gets focus, btu I cannot select any individual mailbox. ARRRGH!

Re:What gives?..

[Victor Danilchenko]

In fact, I cannot select items in a whole bunch of panels -- like in the Preferences dialog, I cannot select anything in the left panel that actually contains preference groups and items. This is fucked up.

Oh yeah, and this is under Windows (yes, yes, I use UNIX at work -- my home computer is a game machine mostly).

I foresee a downgrade for me in the near future...

P.S. Wow, my previous post was a first -- and on-topic, too! Utter kewlness.

Re:What gives?..

[DrPascal]

> (yes, yes, I use UNIX at work -- my home computer is a game machine mostly).

Jesus, is this really necessary? "Hey guys, run Unix really ... can I still be cool on Slashdot?" Grow a spine.

Re:What gives?..

[asa]

Did you install on top of a previous install? If you did then remove that install and start fresh (you won't lose your profile, it's stored in a different location).
--Asa

Re:What gives?..

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jesus, is this really necessary? "Hey guys, run Unix really ... can I still be cool on Slashdot?" Grow a spine.

Are you black enough to marvel at your distinctness in the field of white sheep, bandejo?

I hate windows -- I am a UNIX sysadmin. A number of people who know me will read this story as well, OK?.. I just want to set the record straight; it has nothing to do with being "cool" on Slashdot (somewhat of an oxymoron in and of itself).

Re:What gives?..

[Anonymous Coward]

IE for UNIX? pff. It doesn't run on my SGI IRIX box... *lame*.
\

Re:What gives?..

[Victor Danilchenko]

Aye, that did the trick. That's what I get for not reading release notes...

Thanks.

Re:What gives?..

[Anonymous Coward]

I d/l it today because I reformatted, HOAZ!!!

Re:What gives?..

[BrookHarty]

BUT!

Make sure you keep your plugins... I sometimes forget to do that..

Re:What gives?..

[Razor Sex]

Leave the guy alone, dork. We're not in middle school anymore.

Re:What gives?..

[BigBir3d]

or, you could rename the mozilla folder to something like, mozilla-RC1.

then, the "mozilla" folder does not exist ;-)

Re:What gives?..

[cscx]

I'm trying to make a point. The paranoia around here is pathetic. The point is don't try and be someone you're not. Who cares? Should he get flamed for not using unix? Of course not; that would be totally childish. Shoot, even CmdrTaco uses Windows, don't lynch people over it, geez. There's war, starvation, and poverty in this world, life and death decisions made every day, and this guy's worried about what people might think of him if he's using the "wrong" operating system!

Re:What gives?..

[sbrown123]

I use Windows XP and read Slashdot using Internet Explorer. For fun I post to newsgroups in HTML format. ;)

To not be offtopic, I find this users Mozilla problems rather troubling. I would hate to believe that RC2 would have such problems after the rather stable RC1. Maybe its a build issue.

Re:What gives?..

[spooky ghost]

I had this problem too. Got mine to work by uninstalling completeley and reinstalling. Checking out the first line in the Installation Notes does tell you to install into an empty directory and not over an old installation.

Re:What gives?..

[sjnokker]

Shoot, even CmdrTaco uses Windows

old lady (mumbling): he's in league with Lucifer!
other old lady: I'd say he's got the devil in him!


--- hemaroids are a pain the ass

Re:What gives?..

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you delete the mozilla directory before running the update, it seems the windows installer doesn't do this and it can create problems sometimes. Also sometimes creating a new profile helps especially if you have a much older build installed like Netscape 6.2

Hmm

[loply]

Wonder if it will segfault on me again... Might try it, just for a break from the Konq.

Re:Hmm

[anthony_dipierro]

If you're talking about this bug, it's fixed. The time the bug started showing up on slashdot until the time it was fixed in a nightly was only a matter of a couple days.

Re:Hmm

[aleman32]

Check this out man, <u>try it again</u> and tell the developers if there is a problem. Everybody on this board will see it and the software will <b><i>become</i></b> better than Internet Explorer.

Guaranteed Policy !

According to Bugzilla...

[Bedouin X]

We're going to get an RC3 too.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[loconet]

wow..

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/slashdot/index.html? id =143200

shows:
Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

Slashdot is really the bully of the net

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[cscx]

You want to cut and paste this instead:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi ?id=143200

damn HTTP_REFERRER

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[SteelX]

Ironically I couldn't do a "Copy link location" for that link on parent post and put it onto Mozilla 1.0rc2's URL bar. Hmm.. or maybe it's just my setup.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[edwdig]

My understanding is the tracking bug says RC3, but if no serious new bugs pop up, the next release will be 1.0.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, my Internet Explorer does that just fine!! :-)

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[tftp]

damn HTTP_REFERRER

My junkbuster deletes that header, just as a matter of privacy (not specifically for /. to Bugzilla linking). The link, therefore, worked for me. You probably will benefit from running Junkbuster or a similar proxy.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I only use Junkbuster to follow links from /. to Bugzilla. Although your way sounds more useful.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[RLiegh]

I was able to just fine. In fact I'm able to use the preferences just fine too.

AND I re-installed over RC1, too. :p

The only problem I have is not being able to use the side pane; but I don't use that anyways so who cares.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[RLiegh]

^Btw, this is under win98 fwiw.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[Ilgaz]

Oh you are so clever. don't you get the reason why they disabled it? Because, when you post "look ma, I am so 133t, I found out RC3 ships", bugzilla, their WORKBENCH gets crashed because its planned/deployed for development and bug reporting purposes. Not for 700+ geeks clicking to see 2 lines of text, w/o helping anything.

Slashdot made that fault once, they couldn't CODE /FIX BUGS for hours because bugzilla wasn't able to serve them. Now they took their lesson. Now WWW protocol gurus like you, knowing what referer is, teach them how to "elitely" (133t tone) bypass that "evil" problem.

Oh, btw, Opera has "disable referer" option, evil Anti Mozilla feature? :-)

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[ReinoutS]

The trick is to select the URL and immedeately paste it with a middle mouse click somewehere in the browser window.

Re:According to Bugzilla...

[cscx]

You'll find it amazing that how many people on slashdot actually don't read the comments, but rather just read the headlines, and visit the headline links. Posting something in the comments isn't nowhere near going to get you the same # of hits as is posting a link in the article.

That link protection is most likely to prevent article-linking slashdotting.

Are back menus fixed yet?

[NaCh0]

When you right-click over an image, the Back function on the context menu disappears. This really sucks. Will it be fixed soon?

The same problem exists when text is selected in the html doc.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's by design to reduce the massive size of the context menus.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[DrPascal]

This is to keep those menus from getting WAY too big. IE does the same thing.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[NaCh0]

Well then take off some shit that nobody uses (like almost all of the remaining options) Back is by far the most valuable.

Think about it...browsing the web (like /.) is basically a depth first search. Read down a few pages, back up, read a few more. This is why fast access to back is so important. I may save 1 page out of 100. I seldom bookmark a page. And I *never* "send" a page. Removing back was a really bad decision.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fairly recent change, the back button used to be there in earlier versions whether you were over an image or text was selected. I agree it was stupid to get rid of the most common option on the menu. Bring it back!

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[jonabbey]

I couldn't possibly agree more. Run to bug 135331 and put your vote in on this. One of the mozilla user interface guys, mpt, even suggested that it was a mistake to leave back off of non-link images and that it should be changed, but a lot of the developers seemed to make the new UI spec for context menus holy writ and ignore all the howls of protest over this issue.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Juggle]

Heck I HATE having back there. I map my middle mouse button to back and it's MUCH easier and quicker for me. I actually use MOST of those other options on a daily basis (View Source, View Info, View Image, Save Image As.., Save as.....) the only time I use back from the context menus is when I hit it by mistake :)

I may hate MS software but I have to admit I love their hardware. I don't know how I survived without my newest intellimouse. Far left button is page up, far right is page down, scroll wheel is one line at a time or back if I press it. I never touch the keyboard unless I actually have to type something in. Now that's how a mouse is supposed to work. Tradional one and two button mice piss me off so bad because they require that I keep one hand on the keyboard to get anything done. With 5 buttons and a scroll wheel I have enough functions to get around but not so many I forget what they all do.

The only problem is when I'm on my notebook or someone elses system I get disorienated :)

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[BZ]

Sorry, _I_ use some of those other things. And I _never_ use "back". But then I'm a keyboard-mostly user and I just use alt-left...

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[jonabbey]

Of course, on Linux, the middle mouse button acts as paste in Mozilla, and is the only quick way to jump to a new URL found from a non-mozilla context.

A < 3 button mouse would get around that, but I haven't found such a mouse that I've liked. Microsoft's 5 button Intellimouse Explorer mouse is just too big and awkward for me.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[unhooked]

>Of course, on Linux, the middle mouse button acts as >paste in Mozilla...

sed s/ on Linux/in X-Windows/

>Microsoft's 5 button Intellimouse Explorer mouse is >just too big and awkward for me.

Dexxa makes a nice Optical Intellimouse clone that's
only about $20.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[cscx]

I never touch the keyboard unless I actually have to type something in.

Yeah, neither do most people, unless they are obsessive-compulsive keyboard-touchers.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that bugzilla entry when this came up in a recent Slashback - perhaps last week. Some of the entries in there really bothered me.

I don't know any of the players in this "drama", but some of the people posting to that bug need a serious clue. They are waving around some idea of "what's right" when it should be clear that this behavior is programmed into the wrists of their users, and has been for years. You can't just take something like that away without making people howl.

I see this concept extending to other things within Mozilla. They'll do something, and then claim it's better, and steadfastly stick with it.
It can take a long time for someone to finally come along and set things right. Just look at the mess the favicons almost caused when the damned thing was sucking them down on EVERY PAGE LOAD, regardless of the meta tags.

So, we have Mozilla, and the situation on Linux is about the same as it with Netscape 4.x a few years ago. We have a web browser that basically sucks and crashes, but you have to use it since it's still the best thing around, and that's sad.

Mozilla is not a good X citizen. Look around and see the things it ignores - geometry, window placement, remapping mouse buttons, etc. The rants just go on and on.

Long story short - Mozilla frequently fails my question of "do these guys even USE this stuff?" - just use it for awhile and watch the bad habits you get into to work around something stupid in the design.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Doktor Memory]

When you right-click over an image, the Back function on the context menu disappears.

Er, isn't the whole point of context menus that they're kinda, you know, contextual in their function?

The act of context-clicking on an image most likely indicates an urge to do something with that image, like save, open or deface it. Navigation items are much more appropriate in the context of clicking on a blank area of the page.

Incidentally, Galeon approaches this by taking the navigation tools onto the bottom of the image context menu. It makes for a really, really ugly and annoyingly large context menu. I consider this a bug.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

sed s/ on Linux/in X-Windows/

sed s/X-Windows/X Window System/

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather be an obsessive-compulsive keyboard-toucher than an obsessive-compulsive mouse-toucher.

Besides, can't you get arrested for that in some states?

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[klui]

I don't find the back, forward, reload, stop, and select all very useful. These functions are all available via the keyboard or navigational buttons. Problem with the context menus is that when you're right-clicking on some link at the bottom of the screen, the contextual menu will display with the first menu item above where your cursor is and it slows down selection. It's much better if I use , -, to do these things because these keys never move regardless of where my cursor is.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then take off some shit that nobody uses (like almost all of the remaining options)

Do it yourself!!! ;) This XUL app makes it easy.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[The Pim]

Er, isn't the whole point of context menus that they're kinda, you know, contextual in their function?

There are two responses to this.

1. The browser is the context. Sure, when you intentionally right click on an image, you want to do something with the image. But much more often, you want to do something with the page or the browser, and unless you're very careful, there's a good chance you'll right click on an image or a link or a selection or a frame without even realizing it.

2. Even if showing the back button does break the context menu model, it is worth it. Back is the second most common browser function, after clicking on a link. There ought to be some fast way to do it with the mouse. The context menu is much faster than going to the back button--but only if the back entry is presented consistently.

Re:Are back menus fixed yet?

[wheany]

Then use the Opera way. Hold right mouse button, click left, release right.

Forward is "hold left, click right, release left."

This combined to pages reappearing instantly and smooth mouse scrolling is the main reason browsing with Opera feels so good to me.

Still sucks on os x

[Anonymous Cowrad]

Use chimera.

Re:Still sucks on os x

[danamania]

Agreed in part! There are some minor problems that aren't going away, but on my G3/400 RC2 feels far more usable. Or perhaps it's just the weekend, and I'm in a better mood than when I downloaded RC1.

Chimera is nowhere near as complete guiwise, but it's oh so lovely to look at...

a grrl & her server

Now if only....

[Daelin1782]

And what Beta is MS up to with IE? oh you mean to tell me those were Final versions.....my bad....

Re:Now if only....

[Anonymous Coward]

actually if you think about it MS is permanently in beta

Re:Now if only....

[Anonymous Coward]

kind of like how you're permanently retarded

Missed 1.0

[MrJones]

This should be the 1.0 release, but instead we got RC2. I hope that the 12-june party is still on the roadmap.
http://www.mozilla.org/party/2002/

of course it is

[joekool]

I just upgrade to RC1 a few hours ago, and RC2 wasn't there, so of course, as soon as I get everything running smooth again, BANG here's RC2 for ya!

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[Victor Danilchenko]

Slashdot should post stories on the nightly builds as well.

RC2 is a security upgrade -- previous releases had some sort of hole. This was in fact why I updated -- fired up Mozilla, and there is a big warning plastered on the homepage...

Better story about RC2

[Nicopa]

Mozilla 1.0 RC 2 has just been released and is already available for download. This is what has changed from the previous RC. New stuff include support for "HTTP pipelining", something which can increase performance by 50%! (disabled by default, check the releases notes).

This was the story I have submitted, Slashdot staff is weird, really.. =)

Re:Better story about RC2

[anthony_dipierro]

Can I use your story on my site?

Re:Better story about RC2

[Nicopa]

Be my guest. =) You can include a pointer to my page for installing plugins too (check it out).

Re:Better story about RC2

[anthony_dipierro]

Cool. I also changed "include" to "includes" and "releases" to "release". Hope you don't mind.

Re:Better story about RC2

[foniksonik]

Thanks for the tip on http pipelining... I selected it in the preferences and WOW!!!! what a huge difference it makes on /.

Don't know about general use but it seems to do what you said, if not more (probably a psychological thing though but it seems to fly).

BTW I'm running the OS X binary. With the pipelining enabled Mozilla now give Chimera a run for it's money on fastest browser experience on OS X.

Thanks!!

Re:Better story about RC2

[Cplus]

I thank you kindly for providing such a wonderful service. May the sun shine down on you all day for the wonderful service you have provided.

Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

We hardly knew you. [http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13849 6 - not linkified in hopes of not /.ing bugzilla again]

Back for 1.1, hopefully...

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it damn it damn it

Sure, it was buggy as hell when used with tabs... but on sites that supported it (uhh.. Slashdot, w3.org, my own site...), it could be quite useful. Too bad it was off by default anyway so most people never saw it.

Sigh...

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[mbourgon]

I'll bite... what is it, where is it, and how do I use it?

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[T.Hobbes]

I had trashed my rc1 moz and installed rc2 by the time I read this.. so I dl'd rc1 again and looked around for this 'link toolbar' in the prefs but couldn't find it. Where is it in the prefs? What did it do?

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[rabidcow]

My guess would be in the menus:

View->Show/Hide->Site Navigation Bar

but that's only a guess.

Gives you the ol' "top/up/first/previous/next/last" navigation stuff.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[dimator]

As far as I could tell, that thing was largely useless, but there seems to be a lot of support for it in the bug report. I don't get it...

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[Aanallein]

Since quite a few people do not seem to be aware of what the link toolbar (nowadays called the site navigation toolbar) is, a quick explanation.

HTML includes the <link> tag. This tag can be used for intra-site navigation besides the regular navigation offered within the website itself. For example, slashdot has links to [top] (the main slashdot page), [up] (to articles) and to previous and next (to previous article and to next article). Also, there are [authors] and [search] - which lead you to the list of articles by: and to the slashdot search page.

Other main sites which include such links and thus cause the link toolbar to show if you have that option set (view, show/hide, site navigation bar in pre-RC2) are w3.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org (very handy if you're working your way through a list of bugs).

I never saw much use for this toolbar until I read the discussions about it disappearing. At that point I just turned it on and started looking when and where it was used. In a very short time I've grown quite attached to it. When used right, it's amazingly useful.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[rnd()]

Wouldn't the existence of something like that lead to sloppy site design? I always thought that good websites contained actual hyperlinks to other relevant parts of the site. Why complicate matters with a link tag that isn't fully adopted and that would appear to overlap with the functionality of hyperlinks?

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

My guess would be in the menus:

View->Show/Hide->Site Navigation Bar

That's the one. "linktoolbar" is the developer's name for it. It wasn't much use to most people anyway since it was off by default, but of course this is a step backwards instead of forwards (the forwards step would have been checking in the patch that fixed it with tabs and then enabling it by default - maybe for 1.1...)

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

Try reading a mailing list archive such as the mono mailing lists (linked from go-mono.com) with it enabled.

It's really nice to be able to click "next" and "previous" in a toolbar rather than hunting around for the "next in thread" link buried at the bottom of the message. Especially if you want to skip a message entirely and don't want to scroll all the way to the bottom.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

When used properly, it's a complement to hyperlinks. Most sites already provide links to next, previous, up and top somewhere, but they're in different places on different sites, and sometimes not obvious. Other times you have to scroll to find them - for example on mailing list archives where the "next" link is usually at the very bottom.

Having this in a toolbar makes it available in a consistent place that's always available regardless of how you scroll. It would be stupid to use this instead of proper navigation hyperlinks, but using it as well greatly enhances the usability of your site to people with it enabled.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[Anonymous Coward]

> (the forwards step would have been checking in the
> patch that fixed it with tabs and then enabling it
> by default - maybe for 1.1...)

The problem is to fix the bug, it has to be re-programed using XBL. And the only person who knows XBL well enough to do it is the guy who wrote the language... and he's busy with his Netscape stuff.

So they had to yoink the feature :|

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[rnd()]

but then shouldn't it work based on an attribute of the

<a/>

tag? It doesn't make sense to me that it's a different tag in HTML.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[asa]

If you look at what actually happened this feature was removed for 1.0, not for the 1.1. And if you look even closer you will see that it wasn't disabled because of 1 bug. It was disabled because of performance problems and incompatability with tabbed browsing.

--Asa

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

heh, I know what happened because I filed the bug to remove it after discussing it with you guys (drivers) :)

I don't dispute the decision, although it's not the one that I would have made. I just think it's a shame, that's all.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[asa]

duh. I didn't see that it was you.

:)

--Asa

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[sab39]

Not quite. The tabs bug doesn't involve any XBL, but that's also not the bug that caused it to be yanked. There's a patch for the tabs bug, but it's not done the Right Way, so it's not ready for check in.

What caused it to be yanked was a performance issue: the toolbar causes a 3% slowdown in window-open and startup time, even when it's turned off. This is the bug that requires rewriting in XBL. Bug 102992 has the details of the partial work I've already done to this end (and I'm certainly not Hyatt, the guy who wrote the language!) but there's a long way still to go. The things that I'm too busy with are my real life job and the fact that I have a baby due in a month - I don't work for Netscape.

The feature has only been "yoinked" so far for 1.0, not 1.1; if I or somebody else can finish the XBL rewrite in that timeframe, it'll go back in. Hopefully by then someone will work on the bug that blocks doing the tabs problem the right way, too.

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[Eimi Metamorphoumai]

Galeon still has the link toolbar, and even has mouse gestures (left-down and right-down) for the previous and next links. It's also got one (up-right-up) for the contents link (that goes to the top of the domain if there isn't one).

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[Anonymous Coward]

5, Informative?

What the hell is he talking about?

The link-toolbar ? Where?

The bug at mozilla is equally non-informative...

Re:Au revoir link-toolbar

[pne]

Bummer. And that after I had re-done my website to <link> from one page to another, and enjoying seeing the linkbar come up in my Mozilla 0.9.8.

Re:Download link

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, idiot. That link was in the freaking slashdot submission along with the informative instructions to use the mirrors instead of the main server.

Slashdot's template for software release articles

[red_dragon]

$PackageName $VersionNumber is out

The $OrgName organization just released the $ReleaseOrdinal candidate for the upcoming $NextStableRelease due out in $RandomTimeInTheFuture. See the updated release note and remember to see the $URLofMirrorList before hitting the $URLofMainServer.

Does it respect proxies yet?

[oGMo]

Mozilla is good, mozilla is great. The only thing keeping me from using it over Konqueror right now is the fact it seems to ignore my proxy setting. I use The Internet Junkbuster to remove unwanted (read: all) ads and other things. Mozilla up to RC1 seems to overlook this and I see ads all over the place. It may be due to JavaScript url fetching not going through the proxy, but I'm not sure

And don't tell me to use moz's built-in ad blocking, because I've already got a huge blockfile, I want to block for all browsers across the network, and it usually screws up rendering to use the builtin stuff anyway.

This is a great web browser; it's really faster than other GUI browsers I've used, renders nicely, and has all the features. But until it respects proxies (I use Squid to cache stuff too, helps a lot when all you've got is a modem), I can't use it. :-(

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[MrEfficient]

Junkbuster has a bug. You'll need to go to your preferences, in Advanced, Networking and change your HTTP Protocol from 1.1 to 1.0. Junkbuster should work fine after that.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Nessak]

I had this problem a long, long time ago. If I recall correctly (which I might not) the problem is with junkbuster and not mozilla. I stoped using junkbuster a while ago, so I wouldn't know if your problem is the same as what was discussed. But read Bug report for bug 38488 for more information. As I recall, there was a way around it.

I think mozilla rules. Go mozilla.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[ilyag]

Try BannerBlind. Look at many other useful things at mozdev.org, too.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[jeffehobbs]

i can understand cookies issues and abusive ads, but not ALL ads

All ads, by my argument, are abusive. Just think how wonderful television could have been if they figured out some other way to fund it back in the day -- but they didn't, so now we have such an abundance of wonderful advertainment(TM).

~jeff

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[galaga79]

I am not sure if you have tried this but there is a section in the release notes about using Mozilla with Junkbuster at www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/#general

And here is the text for those too lazy to scroll down....

Mozilla needs to be configured to work properly with proxies such as Junkbuster that do not support the most recent HTTP specification. By default, Mozilla tries to use HTTP 1.1. To use Mozilla with a proxy that only supports HTTP 1.0, edit the HTTP Version from 1.1 to 1.0 in Edit | Preferences | Debug | Networking. (Bug 38488)

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[MrEfficient]

Any while you're at it. Switch to Privoxy. It's based on Internet Junkbuster but has some advanced features like the ability to replace text within the html code itself. I use this to block flash ads on a per website basis.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[zulux]

Mozilla is good, mozilla is great. The only thing keeping me from using it over Konqueror right now is the fact it Konqueror is highly integrated into KDE - everytime I try to remove it, some other app bluescreens and I have to reboot the computer. And this makes Klippy, the helpfull KDE Koffice assistant, very sad.

Actually, joking aside, Konqueror kicks butt. I'm simply amazed what the KDE folks have done with the very little time and resources they have had to make such fine suff. If the Mozilla team was as procudtive at the KDE team, Mozilla would be sentient right about now.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

My argument goes like this - if you don't want people to view your website without looking at the ads, then don't show it to them until you've verified that they've looked at your ads - it isn't that hard to do.

However, until you change your mind, if you watch any tv you are not allowed to use the bathroom or do anything else except sit mutely in front of the televeision screen during commercial breaks.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[alanjstr]

Make sure you properly configure Mozilla to use http 1.0 instead of 1.1. 1.1 is not compatible with Junkbuster. There's a release note about it.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Thomas A. Anderson]

I wonder what a sentient web browser would be like...
maybe it would automatically filter out all microsoft news (cause it just depresses me). And, it only show's the oakland A's score when they are ahead. :)

Back to the original thread, I just switched to gealon yesterday and am *very* impressed at its built in ad filtering options:
1) don't animate gifs
2) only animate once
3) don't show images not hosted on server (the option I use) - very nice!

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

You are again, free-riding. It's an ethical decision. I don't care being moderate to -100 for stating my personal view on this subject.

This guy EXPECTS mozilla to respect it's adkiller tools, yet he doesn't care to even help the sites he is looking at that base their revenue on ads.

If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok. If you are concerned about your privacy is ok. But if you mod me down (go ahead, i don't care) for merely expresing my point of view, then it speaks for the biasedness of moderators.

And beign pro open source and avid slashdot reader, i never trully realized how much this moderation hurts the discusions, putting away all the mess that _we don't want_ to read.

Also, i would like to ask to the guy that uses these adkillers and to the people that modded my initial post down if they are paying for a slashdot subscription (so that they don't see the ads). And if they are not paying it, if they are using it when they visit slashdot. And lastly, if they don't think it's at least one tiny bit unfair to "have the no-ad" version without paying what the site owners.

Eat my karma, i prefer my dignity.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

Let me know where i say that you should be forced to watch an ad. I don't care if you watch it or not, i only care that my website is offered for free as long as you keep it unmodified and view it in the intended way.

This guy which ask that mozilla respect his proxy setting does not respect the website will to display an ad. Can it be technicaly done? Yes. But is it ok? I don't think so.

A note: I don't make money with ads, but i respect a site wich is funded by ads. I don't necesarilly look at the ads, but some times I find them usefull.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Agthorr]

I've been using junkbuster and squid with Mozilla for several releases now. Perhaps you have something configured incorrectly?

-- Agthorr

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't mod this guy redundant.

I've been reading the comments and didn't see anything like it. If Mozilla.org has a warning about Junkbuster, well, someone has first to suspect it.

If the guy is wrong, mod him as a troll, whatever.

Redundant makes no sense, here. He's answering a doubt. He should get +5.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[isorox]

All ads, by my argument, are abusive. Just think how wonderful television could have been if they figured out some other way to fund it back in the day -- but they didn't, so now we have such an abundance of wonderful advertainment.

insightful? What a laod of crap. They did come up with another way of dunding TV back in the day, its called the BBC - no adverts, no product placment, enforce £100 a year.

Do you subscribe to all the websites you go to? Or are you a freeloader?

Oh and to the mods - if you mod me down I've got 47 other points to come back with - and I really dont care.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Like I said - if you don't want people to view your website without viewing your ads, don't serve it to them until they have. You control your web server, it is entirely under your control who you serve pages to. You don't like what people do privately with the IP that you gave them a copy of, then you are living in the wrong country, at least for the next couple of years until the Senator from Disney get's his way.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

I don't want to force them to view the ads first. Content goes first, ads go second. Should i force everyone to download an ad because of the guys riping them off? No

Anyway, i already stated that the problem is not technical or wheter i can force them to load the ads. It's the attitude. I find this usefull but i don't care if you can survive or if i am helping you just by loading this ad.

This is the same exact reason loki and many other great companies got broke. While some people helped, the mayority just though they could get it for free (as in no contribution at all). A shame.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a troll :-) What I found funny about the moderation was that I was modded redundant based on comments that were made after mine. Apparently, I'm some sort of time travelling redundant poster.

I had this problem for a long time before I finally came across the answer somewhere, I don't remember where. I kept thinking it was a problem with Mozilla because junkbuster worked fine with all the other browsers I tried. But now that I know how to make it work, with Mozilla and Privoxy, I'm almost 100% ad free. If you're not blocking ads, you should try it. You wouldn't believe how much nicer the web is without all that flashing.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[oGMo]

First of all: you guys rule, the HTTP 1.0 thing worked great. I'll have to see if I can make Junkbuster HTTP-1.1-aware sometime.

Second: free-riding. Well, it goes like this. I've always ad-filtered since I discovered Junkbuster (and will soon try Privoxy, because I've wanted HTML-filtering for awhile too), because ads are annoying and are the largest consumer of my meager 2k/s bandwidth. So screw ads. Web pages look lots prettier without them.

That said, I have nothing against supporting sites I like, especially this one. I support IGN but subscribing to IGN Insider. for over $20 a year. You know what? It was the best $20 subscription I've ever bought. IGN has lots of content, up-to-date stories, the IGN Unplugged PDF magazine (free for insiders). $20 a year for daily updates is great.

What's the difference? IGN's subscription is value-added. I pay to get stuff I didn't have before. Slashdot's subscription is stupid: I pay to not get something I had. In fact, since there's junkbuster (the geek solution; isn't this a geek site?) I'm paying for not getting something I already didn't have. Kinda silly.

When slashdot starts offering exclusive pay-only features with enough value-added pay-only content, you will see me being the first to pay $20 a year to subscribe. Spellchecked and slightly edited stories would be kinda nice too.

Think of it like this. If the RIAA started giving away CDs (ok, implausible, but follow me here ;-)) that had ads between tracks, and offered ad-free versions for $20, would you pay or just rip and skip those tracks?

Add value, ask money for it, I'm there. Otherwise, something strikes a sour note in my geek side for paying for not getting something I could avoid anyway.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[awptic]

Junkbuster is broken, it doesn't implement HTTP/1.1 properly.. Unless you force mozilla to use HTTP/1.0, it will think the proxy server does keep-alive and will continue to request files in the full HTTP://www.somesite.com/whatever form, which would really be getting sent to the website, hence the reason you still see the banners, and most pages probably break too.
I'm actually working on a proxy server myself which resolves this problem, and is much faster than junkbuster (does keepalive and is multithreaded). check it out, the url is in my sig &lt/PLUG&gt

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

Slashdot's subscription is stupid: I pay to not get something I had. In fact, since there's junkbuster ... I'm paying for not getting something I already didn't have. Kinda silly.

It truly confirms my views. I'm glad I've been moderated down on this one, just to remember me beign more doesn't mean being right (i had forgotten that).

And by the way, I still do not know how can your post be insightfull if you where just plain wrong, blaming the great mozilla for a problem traced to your particular adkiller software?

Trully awakened now...

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

Slashdot is asking that you either watch the adds so that they can finance the bandwidth and other costs, or to make a little contribution.

The subscription money is not to block the ads, but to fund the website. Seen you are a huge fan of Slashdot (you have a userid of #379) i cannot really believe you don't find value added in slashdot.

Regarding the support of "IGN", I opted to support the FSF with a $35 donation. And i get a value added from them, they protect our rights. Yes, your rights as well as mine.

Good luck!

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[plover]

If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok.

[ First, I use both Mozilla and IE (my employer has pages that are designed only for IE, and it's their computer anyway, so fine.) I have Mozilla running through the Proxomitron filtering out ads, but I have IE running straight. ]

Anyway, I accidentally went to some news site on the IE browser. O My God! It has been literally years since I saw crap like that on my screen. These giant flashing blocks of color went sweeping across the screen, swooping up to an advertisement. The banner ads across the top were flashing contrasting colors so violently and rapidly that I had to scroll them out of view before I could focus on the text. I then closed IE (and the pop-unders it had left behind) and brought the same news site up in Mozilla behind the Proxomitron. I'm very serious, all I could see was the news article, but all I could feel was an overwhelming pity for folks who don't have blocking software.

Am I taking a free ride? I have certain sites that I frequent in my Proxomitron bypass list, and occasionally click on an ad just to give them a hit or two. (Hi Thinkgeek!) I pay for the shareware I use. I support faqs.org via the Amazon Honor System. The next time I use sneakemail, I'm sending them $12. Others (such as that news site) inspire me to implement and even write new filters. But is it a free ride?

So now I have other questions. Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows? If you don't own a ReplayTV, do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape? Do you wait for the end of a TV show to go to the bathroom, or do you temporarily forget your ethics, sneak out and do it while the commercials are on? Are you taking a free ride then?

It gets even more absurd: does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper because you feel you have to read all the ads before you read the comics? Do you read every flyer tucked under your windshield wiper? Of course not! Nobody does. But where do you draw the line? So, then what makes it OK to dodge this ad because it's on paper or videotape, but not duck that ad because it's on the web?

Ads on TV still hit lots of viewers -- those who are watching real-time, those who can't afford a VCR, those who are watching a TV not under their control. Ads on the web still hit lots of viewers, too -- those who aren't savvy enough to realize they don't have to.

My vote is this: advetisers that are patently offensive (flash, animation, javascript, DHTML, motion or blinking all qualify to me) should be blocked on principle. For example, I haven't felt the need to run out and write a 'Google Sponsored Link blocking filter,' but I sure devoted time to wipe out a handful of obscene javascript and flash tricks. I view ads on a few selected sites. So, am I free-riding? I've finally decided that I don't care if I am.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Saeger]

These companies rely on adverticing...

No, they rely on a certain percentage of people being susceptible to ads. There's all kinds of "consumers" and I'm the cynical variety that does these companies a favor by not wasting their (and my) bandwidth, time, and aggrivation on useless ads.

Implicit in being subject to advertising is that your opinion can be engineered to favor buying Company X's product. I abhor this idea that someone (a website, whoever) gets paid to spew propaganda to mold my mind. I prefer to do my own thinking/research/price-comparison and this makes me a bad "consumer" to begin with.

Those who blocks ads are most likely not their intended audience; the "idiot" who doesn't care is.

Hell, it's gotten to the point that I don't even buy my Mom the obligitory Mother's Day gift anymore BECAUSE the commercialization has pissed me off so much! The message is that I'm just EXPECTED to buy flowers or some other bullshit on this "special day" in order to prove to everyone that I care. Instead, I call her and say, "I love ya Ma"

--

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

"Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows?"

I would, but if everyone used ReplayTV, there would be no free channels whatsoever. So I do undestand I am killing their revenues and my favorite shows as well.

"Do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape?"

Of course is skip them, I paid for movie and that's how keeps movies alive (i sometimes watch them thought, to see the new movies trailers).

"does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper"

No. I am not saying you should pay attention to any ad. Just read the paper, if an ad happens to catch your attention, then great. If not, then that's ok. Same with the TV, you don't NEED to watch the commercials. But completely baring them from existing (ReplayTV) will kill your shows. And if it does not, it means that a lot of people are supporting the show (by not using ReplayTV).

ReplayTV is great. But those shows are paid by companies that (to fund the shows) expect you see one or two ads from time to time.

"But where do you draw the line?"

IMHO, where you have drawn it seems fair enough (to sometimes block some ads from high polution sites, but with a caring attitude)

Thanks for your post (you seem to care).

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Bostik]

Yep, Privoxy is great. For most users, the fact that it supports HTTP/1.1 is enough. What's a real killer, is the ability to to modify the block/rewrite rules via the built-in web interface.

The new configuration file formats are not altogether clear, nor are they concise. For lazy users, getting their blockfiles updated without the need to edit those files by hand is a blessing. Especially getting the blockfile rulesets right takes a good amount of time, because there are so many options to choose from. Not to mention that the default behaviour (so far) has been to accept all cookies by default.

I have also encountered two websites that show an empty page through Privoxy, although the action log doesn't state that anything was blocked. Once I find a third one, I'm going to report that behaviour to the development team so they have a good set to work with. But other than these few glitches, it works absolutely great.

Yes, I do miss the simple "prefix address with tilde to let it through" blockfile format. I also understand that the new features allow for much more and hence require a bit more sophisticated configuration format.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

Those who blocks ads are most likely not their intended audience; the "idiot" who doesn't care is.

Oh, i see. I'd tend to think that it would depend on what is beign adverticed. And not the fact that advertisement is for idiots and that free-riding is for the EliT3z.

Sure, i'm tired of the casino ads and shoot the monkey. No, i don't think that means adverticing is a bad thing per se.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah Blah Blah... karma karma karma... Geez, if you don't care about karma so much, why do you make such a big deal about it?

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[QuantumET]

So now I have other questions. Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows? If you don't own a ReplayTV, do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape? Do you wait for the end of a TV show to go to the bathroom, or do you temporarily forget your ethics, sneak out and do it while the commercials are on? Are you taking a free ride then?

The crucial difference here is that it doesn't cost the TV station any money to broadcast to you; they're sending the broadcast out to everyone already. You watching or not watching the ads will not incur additional costs on them.

However, you visiting a website incurs a cost to that website, for the bandwidth you use. This,
in my mind, changes the ethical argument significantly. As long as your use of the material doesn't cost the provider anything more than it would have had you not used the material, I see nothing wrong in skipping ads. But if they incur a cost to provide me the material, and expect me to see a few ads to cover those expenses (and many web sites are currently just trying to make enough to stay online), I have ethical problems in blocking the ads from the site.

Granted, that doesn't mean I want the ads to be giant flash-popup-steal-focus-fullscreen-fullsound-all-
singing-all-dancing-extravaganza (I block javascript popups in Mozilla), but standard banner ads are in my mind reasonable.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Ed Avis]

If all you have is a modem, then wwwoffle is an even better proxy server than Squid, because it knows about 'online' and 'offline'. If you go offline then the proxy server never tries to download anything - it always serves the page in the cache without checking the (unreachable) server for a new version. So you can browse through already-visited sites without any hassle.

More than that, if you visit while offline a page you haven't seen before, then wwwoffle returns a message saying 'I don't have this page, but I will fetch it'. Next time you go online, you can run 'wwwoffle -fetch' and all the queued pages will be fetched. So in effect you can keep browsing while the phone line is disconnected, and then 'catch up' afterwards.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[dimator]

One thing I don't like about the stuff I install off of mozdev.org is that I have to reinstall everything whenever I upgrade mozilla. With plugins, I can at least use a symlink to keep the same ones installed throughout, but I don't know the equivalent trick with mozdev.org type stuff.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Darren Winsper]

Konqueror has its fair share of limitations though, such as bugs in fixed positioning and a slightly weaker DOM than Mozilla.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have "no free channels". I pay $35/mth for cable, of which I watch maybe 8 channels. They rig the feed so that each block of channels has only one good one. You want the good ones, you gotta get ALL of the blocks.

As for advertising.. Well. It USED to be useful. You know, describe the product, it's benefits, show a picture. That's it. Let the people know that the product exists and that's that.

Today, products are manufactured in such quantity that supply is never a problem, so what do they do? They CREATE a market for themselves by ramming this fucking shit down your throat every minute that you are awake. No matter where you are, what you are doing, you are likely seeing some ad that attempts to convince you that "you are NOT okay! You NEED this product to correct your problems!" It doesn't matter that the product is essentially useless, that it harms the planet with it's waste, or that you're better off without it. You know why? Because they NEED to profit. Nothing else matters but their profit to them. Not your health, not the world around us, not common sense, but only one thing. Money.

And should you decide to oppose this methodology, you are labeled a "thief", a "cheapskate", or here on slashdot, a "communist". Yes, labels are a nice way of painting your critics without having to put up a valid argument yourself and let slip to everyone the real truth.

Fact: You are lied to by advertising approximately 3600 times per day.

Fact: This DOES have an effect on you, consiously or subconsiously. Anyone who says it does not... is already putty in the advertising industry's hands.

Take your life and your buying habits into your own hands and put a stop to this crap. Use ReplayTV - cut the commercials. Use junkbuster - kill the ads. Use Mozilla - kill the pop-ups.

Maybe when/if advertising comes back down to earth, we'll pay attention. Till then, we'll take up technological arms and play the game by our own rules.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[awol]

advertising is bunk. I never cease to be amazed that the people who tell corporate spenders about how effective their advertising is the advertising industry _HELLO_ can you say vested interest.

There are some legitimate and effective purposes to which advertising can be put. For example "new product" awareness but the whole visibility == sales mantra is a crock. If you want to find out haw good a brand of car is, you dont ask the manufacturer you look for an independent source, why should it be any different with advertising. The nearest thing advertising has seen to a scientific proof of its effectiveness is well,... nothing.

The proof in what I say is the death of the banner add revenues. The corporates found (surprise fucking surprise) that not only did not page impressions correlate to sales, but not even click throughs corellated to sales. An independent monkey could have told 'em that. So there is no such thing as the "free ride" of which people speak.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[rnd()]

I think you are taking a free ride, and at the expense of those who do not use blocking software.

The best strategy for everyone would be to click through on as many ads as possible, thereby creating the impression that the ads are working. This would drive their price up, and the content providers would not need to find every possible annoying way (such as flash) to make us watch the ad, they would just be happy charging top dollar for a simple banner.

The only acceptable alternative would be if the ad blocker programs visited all of the small and inconspicuous ads (behind the scenes, of course), so that over time the advertisers would 'discover' that small ads were actually more effective.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[sdtll]

I started blocking ads a couple of years ago, when I noticed more and more websites took longer and longer to display. All because of waiting for some ad on some other server which particular routing was going halfway trough the globe. Some of the servers were even unreachable and I would end up waiting 2 or 3 minutes for a web site that was already fully loaded except for the ads(I was on dialup, btw). It could be argued that it is the HTML rendering engine that was at fault, but blocking the ads is much simpler than fixing the browser. That said, I don't mind the least seeing ads on web sites, as long as they dont interfere with the purpose of the site.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but if everyone used ReplayTV, there would be no free channels whatsoever. So I do undestand I am killing their revenues and my favorite shows as well.

While free channels would come to an end, televised entertainment would not. They would adapt by becoming pay channels. That would bring many advantages.

There's a reason many of today's best shows, like "The Sapranos" and "Sex in the City", are on pay channels. Those channels are responsible to thier viewers, not advertisers. This would benefit "cult" shows.

With ad based TV, budget is always in proportion to popularity. With pay TV you can make less popular, high budget shows by charging the viewers more.

Perhaps the biggest advantage is people will be exposed to fewer commercials, thus reducing consumerism.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does work. Use HTTP/1.0

Look at this:

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does work. Use HTTP/1.0

Look at this: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38488

I have been using it happily for ages.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[scm]

Yep. I used to use Moz + IJB over a year ago, and it should still work unless they've broken it.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you have no idea how the end-user's user agent works, there's really no way to absolutely verify that they've seen the ads, only that they've downloaded them or accepted the cookie or whatever. Think of spyware that places other ads over your ads.

I suppose you could quiz them about ad content before letting them in, but that's more of a social solution than a technical one.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[plover]

You raise an excellent point. However, I have found that it's tough to tell the banner-shaped static ads from the banner-shaped blinking and flashing ads.

Hmm. Maybe should adjust it to pass banners, yet somehow prevent the cycle of animations. I wonder if I can selectively do that in the Proxomitron...

Thanks for the insight.

Alternate Mail Handlers

[geoffsmith]

I'm dying for this feature. I don't install messenger, and I use sylpheed as my mail client. I'm sure lots of people are using other handlers like mutt, outlook, evolution, etc... In the old and netscape they had this API where you had to write a C program just to use an alternative handler. Seems pretty crazy to me. All I want is a text box like:

Mail Handler : sylpheed -to %email

Or something to that effect. Maybe a substitution for ?subject= as well.

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon

Re:Alternate Mail Handlers

[cscx]

Even better would be to include also something like IE, a combo box that queries the MAPI clients on the system, and providing an automatic list. Who wants to go looking up command line arguments anyway? They might as well make the users use lynx if they wanted a command line!

Re:Alternate Mail Handlers

[StarHeart]

Check out Protozilla. It is a project over at mozdev.org that lets you use mailto to other mail clients, in my case evolution. It is planned to be included into Mozilla in the future, but probably not till after 1.0 because of the api havoc Mozilla is still going through.

Re:Alternate Mail Handlers

[Anonymous Coward]

See this post and the Bugzilla bug it references for how to make the prefs changes.

Re:Alternate Mail Handlers

[Fnord]

Galeon supports it. In fact galeon will use your gnome default mail handler (if its set). Which nicely pops up an Evolution send window for me.

woohoo

[moosesocks]

I can simultaneously induce releases by downloading them. I just downloaded RC1 yesterday. I installed RH 7.2 HOURS before 7.3 was released.

Such irony!

Re:woohoo

[Cyph]

Well, um, install a Duke Nukem game then, maybe Duke
Nukem Forever will get released. *grin*

Re:woohoo

[Phexro]

Screw that. Start playing DOOM 2.

Somebody should pay me...

[gregm]

to download mozilla. That way there'd be a new version released in less thna 24 hours.

LOLOLOL!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes fun of Microsoft! HAHAH! +5 Funny!!!
...jackass

Re:Slashdot's template for software release articl

[doob]

And standard template for many of the comments:

Do we really need to know about every release of $PackageName? What do i care about $VersionNumber of $PackageName? Can't we have a separate topic for $PackageName so we can at least filter it out? Is this news for nerds, stuff that matters?

Answer: We do care, we don't need topics, and it is news for nerds!

Here's a suggestion then

[Anonymous Coward]

Close down mozilla.org and just use slashdot for release info.

If people CARE they go to the respective site.

Sometimes I wish stories had a (-1, Redundant) moderation.

Bug list too big for prime time

[Animats]

Mozilla's known defect list is way too big for prime time.

Especially obnoxious are bugs like trashing the preference files on upgrades from Netscape. If they can't do that right, they shouldn't try to do it at all.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're using Nutscrape you deserve to lose your configuration. Biggest pile of shit browser ever made. It doesn't render *anything* properly. I love developing my web pages, which look great in IE and Mozilla, only to find out they suck ass in Netscape.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Jerf]

Perhaps they should just hide it and hope it goes away.

I wish I could show you the "known defect list" for the software on your computer. I don't care what it's running. It's long.

Software sucks. Mozilla less then most. And this is the big run up to 1.0, after all.

Do you expect perfection? Are you prepared to pay the millions of dollars it costs you? (And still sometimes lose the rocket to a small, small bug...?)

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Animats]

I expect all trashes-persistent-state bugs, and all crash-type bugs that show up during testing, to be fixed before release. And that's a minimum.

If it doesn't work, it should be turned off in the released product. For example, ChatZilla probably shouldn't be in 1.0, because it doesn't work yet. It should only be in some later beta.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for this is we are still using languages that were great for creating operating systems (because of the low level manipulation they allowed), but often fail in providing an easy way to produce good, stable software quickly. There are several languages and technologies that are very well suited for this task (Java, NeXT/Cocoa). While it is of course still possible to create buggy programs with either, they both promote methods of developing software that is modular, well documented (at least with javadoc), has standardized APIs, and has reusable components.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[bunratty]

I expect all trashes-persistent-state bugs, and all crash-type bugs that show up during testing, to be fixed before release. And that's a minimum.

Whoa! Can you name a 1.0 release of any software whatsoever that has lived up to that standard, much less an open-source project? If not, get real!!!

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[jejones]

Do you actually have a known defect list for another large piece of software as a basis for comparison?

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> If they can't do that right, they shouldn't try to do it at all.

I've seen this in a film with Danny DeVito, let's do the same:

You convince MS about this idea, then I'll help by talking to the Mozilla guys.

Now, seriously, I can't even use Mozilla regularly (machine smaller than minimum requirements). But today, I upgraded to Opera Beta2 and it stopped (I picked the wrong version).

No problem, I thought... But neither Netscape 4 nor Links would download another Opera. I then fired Mozilla and downloaded Opera with zero surprises.

In the next 2 months I'll get me a heavier machine and Moz *will* be an option. It's that simple.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

quit being a jackass John.

There comes a point in software life cycle when you have to make the choice ---- you release with a given bug or you have to DELAY things. And depending on the nature of a bug, that can be a huge delay. If there is a crash in a small unused corner of the software that hardly ever touches, and to fix it would be a huge code change that would be massively destabilizing - you know what? YOU SHIP WITH IT. Thats how the world works. If you don't like it, fix the bugs yourself or use another browser. Fixing bugs can/does cause other bugs. Either something new, or it exposes some bad behavior that was masked before.

You can't make a judgement call just because it has X bugs active. Thats obtuse and ignorant. And if you saw the bug list of almost every major piece of software out there you'd know I was right. I'll tell ya, I could care less about the contents of bugzilla. It's just if moz works for me or not. And generally it does. Not quite as good as IE, but it's damn close - and has some goodies that IE doesn't. If there is a bug in the software that i never touch - its not a bug as far as I'm concerned. Pull your head out of your butt.

Or at least quit talking out of it...

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[uebernewby]

I just read through that list, and I can't say I've ever experienced *any* of these bugs, Linux or Windows. So I suppose they only occur under special circumstances. I've been using Mozilla as my main browser since .9.9. and it's been a smooth ride all the way

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold your horses. He was probably referring to Netscape 6.x, which is an excellent, standards-supporting browser. As you know, NS6.x is an earlier version of Mozilla that was polished for production release.

Unfortunately, it also means that if you try to install Mozilla 1.0 RCx over NS6.x, then you have the same problem with the preferences, as you have when installing over any earlier version of Mozilla. It's better to rename the old preferences directory out of the way before installing.

If they had it to do over, I'll bet the Mozilla developers would have put a version control mechanism on the preferences, since it has been such a major source of confusion.

Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[anthony_dipierro]

From the release notes: "xxxxxxxx.slt is a randomly generated directory name. It's an important security feature."

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post seems to be cut off because it never got to a point.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Nicopa]

That's not the right conclusion. That measure is taken in addition to many others. And is designed to protect your profile from attacks to other software too!

Suppose your profile were stored in a fixed well-known location like c:/program files/mozilla/profiles. Suppose you still used outlook (eew!). A worm which gains access to reading files could easily get your profile! And there was no security bug in mozilla in that. So randomizing the directory avoids some kind of attacks. Everything counts!

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah. Was just a lame attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor. But I do still use Outlook (Express). Haven't had any problems with it so far. At least none that I know about! :)

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[ahaning]

But, if most people use the username "Default User", the script could simply, for example, do:

cd ~/.mozilla/Default\ User/ [ENTER]
cd [TAB] [ENTER]

Tadaa! It's found your user directory. Most everything from there is standard.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

If the script can actually run through a shell and do tab expansion, it could just format your hard drive and get it over with. This is pointless. Name mangling protects against attackers that haven't rooted your box and are exploiting smaller flaws in programs- such as reading a file from a given path.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[thegrommit]

Such a short memory....

Netscape 4 had a bug a while ago where it was possible to access the users profile due to a predictable path. This is a reasonably elegant way of avoiding that.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[flacco]

Yeah, this is "security through obscurity" like my obscure password is "security through obscurity."

Please, take a nanosecond to think, or at least to ponder the definition of the term you use, before you post something.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[fferreres]

That's security and it's not by obscurity. It's a precaution. It's plain and simple. Your idea of security would imply sending passwords in plaintext or having the password widgets echo what you type.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[gotan]

Choosing non-obvious path-names is one security concept (and a very simple one at that) to deflect the most blunt attacks. Any half decent trojan/virus/worm/whatever could either deduce or simply look up the relevant directory (hey, mozilla has to find it too) and then wreak havoc there. Obscuring the Windows directory by renaming it was one security tip for windows (some years ago) AFAIK.

Note, that many attacks are really primitive, and against those blunt attacks simple measures do help, so why not employ them?

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad you got modded down to a -1. everything you said was true
too bad i;ve had too much o drink tonight . 10 mgd's will deifntely affect you r spelling and grammar.
oh well

ps - no shitty posts about how guinessis better. i know. 16 bucks willonly get you so far.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

And there was no security bug in mozilla in that.

There was bug that can read local files, it is corrected in recent (read since 2002-05-02) builds.

See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141061 for more.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[marcovje]

That is security to hamper virus scripts. Problem
is that if they somehow get activated, inside Mozilla, or an application, they run in your
context, you more or less agreed with them being
run.

Standard dirs are then an easy prey for them, both
to find data, and to infect.

Don't want to send mail to all people in your addressbook, don't you?

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, people are too negative these days. I still do not understand pushing a post at -1 when it's no flame or troll post (real flame or troll).

Can we live in peace?

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true that scripts usually can't do tab expansion. However, since the "random" directory is usually the only one there, doing something like /path/*/whatever may just work.

Get Mozilla Now!

[cymraeg]

I'm stuck on a Windows machine at work, and I've been using MSIE 6.0 to surf, and once I learned about Mozilla's ability to block pop-ups and the tabbed browsing feature, I switched, and I'm not looking back. It's about time someone added these features. I just wish I had learned about them sooner. I was actually beginning to dread getting online because of pop-ups, but now I can surf with impunity again.

If you are in the same situation I was, download and install Mozilla now. You'll thank yourself later.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same functionality Opera has been offering for a long time?

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, ya run WinX and don't run PROXO ?!?! Ya fool ya deserve *nix and Mopz.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[magnified_plaid]

Almost everyone who ever looks over my shoulder and sees the tabbed browsing becomes a mozilla user. Add the ability to prevent webpages from opening unwanted windows, and most people are converted entirely.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[acebone]

Opera is a sympatic project (or rather venture)

however I suspect that it is in reality an evil ploy to bestow NS 4.7x upon poor webdevelopers again

- Remember the resize bug? Well you don't have to miss it - Opera is there...

- And the way it notoriously hangs when fetching simple GIFs (Windows)

- And if you zoom in it has trouble rendering when switching windows

- And it's unstylable input elements

- And it can't move a layered iframe

- And the banner-top that steels way more screenspace than it actually occupies?
The advertising thing is OK - but certainly not the way it is implemented here!

- And won't let you write innerHTML

I am, as you may have guessed, rather tired of Opera.

Mozilla however is gem, I love the way the pages just morphs instead of blinking when you change location.

It's sheer joy to write javascript for Mozilla, and it has a great implementation of the DOM.

It does have a very nice zoom feature, it only zooms the font-sizes, but it works great.

It still performs rather slow when you move divlayers around - but it seems to be getting better slowly

Hmmmm... I'll stop babbling

Mozilla is cool.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[hkmwbz]

It is good that Mozilla is finally about ready for prime time. However, that doesn't mean that spreading nonsense about competitors is a good thing.

The best way to spread the word Mozilla is to talk about Mozilla's good sides. Or someone could go into Bugzilla and list all of Mozilla's problems. It backfires you know.

Please, do everyone a favour and spread the word the right way, and not like a zealot.

however I suspect that it is in reality an evil ploy to bestow NS 4.7x upon poor webdevelopers again

If only "webdevelopers" could start following the specs rather than write proprietary code, this world would be a lot easier for everyone. If only they could free themselves for writing for one particular browser first, and then try to make it work in other browsers later.

You see, if you write a page for Mozilla, you will notice all the differences in other browsers. If you had written a page for Opera first, you would have noticed all the problems in Mozilla and IE. It is a flawed argument, and only backfires.

- Remember the resize bug? Well you don't have to miss it - Opera is there...

"The" resize bug? A single, simple bug is not enough. I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla. Perhaps you should explain to people what "the resize bug" is as well.

- And the way it notoriously hangs when fetching simple GIFs (Windows)

I've never had this problem. Perhaps this is a case of PEBKAC?

- And if you zoom in it has trouble rendering when switching windows

Not at all. It works beautifully.

- And it's unstylable input elements

Which is basically useless anyway, and a breach of operating system guidelines. It is a nice fancy extra, but not really something which makes or breaks a browser.

Hey, neither Mozilla nor Opera can style scrollbars. That means they are crap? (Yes, I know it is not valid CSS.)

- And it can't move a layered iframe

And let's have a look in Bugzilla again.

- And the banner-top that steels way more screenspace than it actually occupies? The advertising thing is OK - but certainly not the way it is implemented here!

Since you need a beefy system to run Mozilla anyway, you should at least be running in 800x600, in which case the ad screen is not a problem. In 1024x768 and above one doesn't even notice it.

- And won't let you write innerHTML

Which is a proprietary MSIE-thing.

Please, do yourself and Mozilla a favour and focus on the good things in Mozilla, rather than talking about specific problems in other browsers. Mozilla has its share of problems too. Do you want me to start digging it up?

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[bradasch]

You know, there are ways of getting popups off in IE. Get Pop-up Stopper.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[jesser]

Opera does not have pop-up blocking. Opera has an option to disable the window.open function, which breaks legitimate sites almost as often as it blocks pop-up ads. You can re-enable window.open temporarily by pressing F12, but you have to know that the site is broken because Opera thinks it's trying to open a pop-up ad before you can use the workaround.

Mozilla's pop-up blocking isn't perfect, but it's pretty close to Just Working.

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[acebone]

>Please, do everyone a favour and spread the word the right way, and not like a zealot.

I am not 'spreading the word' in here - nor am I on any crusade against Opera, it just irritates me right now, and if I can't share my thoughts on working with the browser in here - where can I? The tone of my letter implies that I am talking to other developers, not a broadspectered public.

>If only "webdevelopers" could start following the specs rather than write proprietary code, this world would be a lot easier for everyone.

I totally agree, I hate it when somebody shows me something cool they can do with IE, when they could have made it work in more browsers if they had done it the right way. But then again that requires standard specs all the way 'round which IE is becoming (much) better at. Opera is way behind on the DOM.

>If only they could free themselves for writing for one particular browser first, and then
>try to make it work in other browsers later.

That I do not do, NEVER EVER NEVER - I constantly check everthing in Opera, Mozilla, Netscape 4.x and IE - In my current project I've skipped NS 4.7x though....

>You see, if you write a page for Mozilla, you will notice all the differences in other
>browsers. If you had written a page for Opera first, you would have noticed all the problems
>in Mozilla and IE. It is a flawed argument, and only backfires.

Again I agree totally, but I didn't introduce that argument - you did...

> "The" resize bug? A single, simple bug is not enough.

Not enough for what? - It is certainly enough to drive me up the walls sometimes, and it is certainly also something that can increase development time considerably, depending of course on the bug.

> I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla.

Mozilla is at 1.0 RC2, Opera is at 6.01(windows) - That was a flawed argument, and it backfired.

>Perhaps you should explain to people what "the resize bug" is as well.

I am talking about the way Netscape 4.7x looses attributes for absolutely positioned elements - In Opera they become invisible upon resize, and you have to move them to where they are (!), but then it screws up their z-index. You can work your way around this, but it takes time (can you hear the Boss screaming 'OPERA !?!, What the fsck is Opera? write for IE that is enough').

>>And the way it notoriously hangs when fetching simple GIFs (Windows)
>I've never had this problem. Perhaps this is a case of PEBKAC?

You are lucky, a non-techie but curious collegue of mine once gave up on Opera because of that, and I experience it every day.

By the way what is PEBKAC? Perhaps you should explain to people what "PEBKAC" is as well?

>> And if you zoom in it has trouble rendering when switching windows
> Not at all. It works beautifully.

What OS are you on ? I use windows for desktop purposes ( you see, I have to write for IE ) and it sure enough (has and) has had that bug ever since I registered it back in the 4.x days

>> And it's unstylable input elements
> Which is basically useless anyway, and a breach of operating system guidelines. It is a nice fancy extra, but not really something which makes or breaks a browser.

Useless ? The input elements or the ability to style them ? Sure it breaks OS system guidelines for design - have a look at win98 and tell me that its a bad thing. As long as widgets looks and behaves like widgets, I think you should be able to remove and ugly border or give it a nice background color

>Hey, neither Mozilla nor Opera can style scrollbars. That means they are crap? (Yes, I know it is not valid CSS.)

Nope - but it would be nice if they could though.... Nice to hear that you know something.

>> And it can't move a layered iframe
> And let's have a look in Bugzilla again.

With RC2 it actually moves it, but it has to think for along time before it returns :) But if your point is that it is okay that Opera can't do it because Mozilla can't either then I must disagree. Are you by any chance from Norway?

> Since you need a beefy system to run Mozilla anyway,

Mozilla has become less resource hungry, but it is no way near as sleek as Opera. Which is why I use Opera when I browse documentation.

>In 1024x768 and above one doesn't even notice it.

That is a matter of opinion, and yours so clearly differ from mine in so many respects.

>> And won't let you write innerHTML
>Which is a proprietary MSIE-thing.

Oh what a biggot you are - Let me rephrase it - It won't let you change the content of certain elements in an already loaded page - Which both Mozilla and IE does, and both can do it by way of standars (and by way of innerHTML). This would be a lesser pain if you could style the widgets, but you cant (an example of how usefull styling widgets could be).

>Mozilla has its share of problems >too. Do you want me to start digging it up?

Please do, and submit it to bugzilla - if it's new I'm sure they are interested. For the record - I focus on the good things in Mozilla (and in Opera as well for that matter), and if I can't talk about specific implementation problems in a developer forum, would you please tell me where to go then (and be polite about it too :)?

Re:Get Mozilla Now!

[hkmwbz]

> I am sure you could have a look in Bugzilla yourself for plenty of bugs in Mozilla.

Mozilla is at 1.0 RC2, Opera is at 6.01(windows) - That was a flawed argument, and it backfired.

What has version numbering got to do with anything? Version numbers are extremely unimporant in this case, as they are used differently from browser to browser. My point was that Mozilla has plenty of bugs, and it will never be bug-free. Just like Opera.

By the way what is PEBKAC? Perhaps you should explain to people what "PEBKAC" is as well?

"Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair" :)

As for OS, I use Windows and Linux regularly.

>> And it can't move a layered iframe
> And let's have a look in Bugzilla again.

With RC2 it actually moves it, but it has to think for along time before it returns :) But if your point is that it is okay that Opera can't do it because Mozilla can't either then I must disagree. Are you by any chance from Norway?

Am I from Norway? Why?

No, my point is that all software has bugs, and one can easily dig up a few bugs from Bugzilla to show you that Mozilla isn't bug free either. I am not talking about resize bugs in particular.

It won't let you change the content of certain elements in an already loaded page

According to people in the opera.* newsgroups this will come in Opera 7.0, which is just around the corner apparently.

>Mozilla has its share of problems
>too. Do you want me to start digging it up?

Please do, and submit it to bugzilla - if it's new I'm sure they are interested. For the record - I focus on the good things in Mozilla (and in Opera as well for that matter), and if I can't talk about specific implementation problems in a developer forum, would you please tell me where to go then (and be polite about it too :)?

I don't think I quite follow you here. Is this a developer forum?

Icons?

[rbeattie]

Does anyone know if Mozilla plans on using different icons for Mail, Chat, Browser etc.?

I use Mail all day and open several browser windows and if I'm not careful to open the Mail app first, I can never find it because all the icons are the same!

Here's another weird thing - When I open my Mail first, it always opens a browser window trying to find: something and forwards to www.oingo.com owned by IdeaLabs. Do I have some sort of spyware on my computer or is this normal? I can't find anything in the prefs.js file... I'm using RC2 right now and it seems to do the same thing...

-Russ

Re:Icons?

[cscx]

It's open source; don't complain, submit new icons yourself!

Re:Icons?

[rbeattie]

Oh Christ. What a dumbass reply. I hope that you were trying to be funny because if not you're a total moron.

Get a clue... I was asking whether or not this minor detail will be addressed in the 1.0 release. I'm quite sure no one wants the crappy icons that I would come up with anyway (I'd probably just copy Netscape's like I did for my toolbar...)

-Russ

Re:Icons?

[txsable]

Here's a starting point for Mozilla icons (these are the ones I use....
http://www.lotekk.net/index.php?page=moz&sub=icons

This is a link that will auto-install the icons (and some additional ones including for "mail compose" and bookmark windows) into Mozilla for the title bar:
http://www.grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml

Lotekk.net has a few other useful Mozilla tricks, like some alternative Splash box graphics and a couple of search engine additions to the sidebar.

Google Search can get you more references as well.

Re:Icons?

[rbeattie]

YYEEEEESSS!!! These are GREAT! Thanks!

-Russ

Re:Icons?

[WhiteKnight07]

If you want to check your system for spyware get yourself a copy of Ad-aware. Its great.

Re:Icons?

[rbeattie]

I have, and I don't have anything that it can find.

I'm actually chatting on irc://moznet/mozillazine right now and I just confirmed that other people go to oingo.com when they type "find:" with some text in their url bar. like "find:blabblah".

That's very interesting. Now I just wonder why it does this when I start the mail app with the mozilla.exe -mail command...

-Russ

4.79 communicator for me

[statichead]

Does anyone else but me find mozilla, or netscape 6 for that matter, painfully slow? I'll try moz again in 6 months.

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[mobets]

Actualy, I find that it gets a little faster w/ every release, and has been acceptable since around 0.9.8 RC1 was very fast, and with HTML pipelining, I think RC2 as gotten slightly faster. What was the last version you tried?

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[statichead]

Yea I found Moz is getting faster too. I currently have .9.9 for moz and netscape 6 as well. I find them both dog slow compared to netscape 4.79. My system is reasonably speedy, dual celery 500s and 512MB ram X4.2.0, custom kernels, it books on most everything else. I don't understand the slowdown with the latest browsers.

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[mojo-raisin]

Yep - On XFree, screen redraws have gotten quicker, but is still *much* slower than NS4.7. I wonder if the mozilla hackers will ever be able to make screen draws fast, or if we'll all have to upgrade to 2GHz machines to make it more usable?

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[ozzmosis]

> ...mozilla, or netscape 6 for that matter, painfully slow?

try galeon.

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Mozilla on Windows (K6-3 450 w/ 448 megs of ram), and it's quite speedy. So, maybe you should switch? ;-)

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[mnordstr]

I dunno what you've been doing, but MZ renders pages withing milliseconds for me. It's amazingly fast!

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest builds of Mozilla are 30% faster than version 0.99 . The speed issues are being quickly sorted out.

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[OklaKid]

slow??? it launches fast and loads web pages fast for me, how old is your computer??? if it is older than 2 years old maybe it is time you buy a new one with over a 1gig CPU & 256 megs RAM, people bitch about software and never consider the hardware it is installed on...

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[Dr. Evil]

For me the performance is varied. There are some things which are much much faster than they are in Communicator, like rendering complex nested tables. On the other hand, some things are dead slow, like opening huge lists or even huge plain text documents. Under IE, I can open up a local thousand-message Hypermail index page almost instantly, probably in under a second. Under Mozilla, the same list takes several seconds, and even then, the Back button is iffy as to whether it will put me in the right place.

This kind of speed problem means that where IE can be used to just click the links and navigate, Mozilla can't. When it takes Mozilla 5 seconds to render a page, and it takes 5 seconds to launch IE, it's obvious what is easier to use.

Also, from what I can tell, there is also a problem with the aggressive swapping to expand drive cache space in Windows. It seems to swap out Mozilla. On my 850MHz PIII w. 256MB of RAM, it can take up to 20, --*TWENTY*-- seconds to pull Mozilla out of swap.

That problem is hardly as pronounced under Linux, but Linux by default doesn't dump all not-recently-used pages of RAM to the HDD.

From what I can tell, Mozilla is better under Linux because of this, but surprisingly Galeon makes a big difference. Large lists are still slow, but the footprint and performance is a little better. It bridges the gap between bad and tolerable.

The anti-ad features are killers in Mozilla though. I use it exclusively now. But then, I never really used IE. It's too evil. I still remember where I was when I heard the news on the radio that Microsoft was going to bundle IE into Win95.

If it weren't for Mozilla, I would be stuck on IE, and I wouldn't be using Linux at home. It is a very important project for the Internet as a whole... and it is almost too late.

Re:4.79 communicator for me

[statichead]

Personally I'm not on the hardware upgrade path to enlightenment. I run Return to Castle Wolfenstein with no problems. In fact I have no issues with most other software. Its only a web browser. Like I said before "dual celery 500s, 512MB ram, custom kernel, X4.2.0, Xfree screams BTW. Now a 30% increase over .9.9, I'm downloading now! ummm.. I wonder if I can get the spellcheck working this time around.

T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[flacco]

If they don't sell some goddamn Mozilla t-shirts when 1.0 hits, heads must roll!

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[tempest303]

Agreed! And no restricting it to just namby-pamby cheesy looking cheap white shirts with flimsy looking text and a lame graphic - I want a QUALITY black shirt featuring that big, red "Commie" star on the front, with the lizard's head in the middle, and something simple on the back; maybe just "mozilla.org" in a kickass font or some such.

The world is riddled stupid looking cheap, white software promo t-shirts. Mozilla folks: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't do this. Charge the whole whopping $2-$3 you'll need to make it a NICE shirt.

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[flacco]

And no restricting it to just namby-pamby cheesy looking cheap white shirts with flimsy looking text and a lame graphic - I want a QUALITY black shirt featuring that big, red "Commie" star on the front, with the lizard's head in the middle, and something simple on the back; maybe just "mozilla.org" in a kickass font or some such.

ABSOLUTELY PERFECT MY GOOD MAN! EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND!

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[cobar]

Umm, that's what the Mozilla.org t-shirts look like.

A red star with a red dino in the middle all on a black t-shirt. And below the star, the word: Hack, subtitled "this technology could fall into the right hands".

Unfortunately, the only time they're given out is at the developer conferences for $10/a pop (where I got mine).

What I'd like to see is a commemorative CD with the 1.0 releases and source code on it.

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[alacqua]

Actually, I need a polo (a.k.a. "golf shirt") so I can wear it to work.

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[Deziex]

I'd love to have some of the original old Dave Titus illustrations of Mozilla-I'd kill for those!
--
"All hail... the FRIDGE!"--Terrana Seyath

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[Deziex]

I mean, on teeshirts. D'oh.

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[JPriest]

Slashdot should post stories on the nightly builds as well.

Yes but with Mozilla finally rounding off to 1.0 after so long this is somewhat of a geek new years countdown. We could break out some cases of Jolt(TM) and drop a retainer with a wired LCD mod to celebrate the occasion. We should have plenty of band members and I can sing a mean Karaoke. I could even bust out my AYBABTU sound track.
I think it's past my bedtime...

Where's the criticism?

[goldspider]

If this was supposed to fix a security hole in Mozilla RC1, why isn't everybody jumping down their throats as they certainly would if this were the latest release of IE?

I hate to sound like a troll, but there's an obvious double standard here.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[asa]

This doesn't fix a security hole from RC1. RC1 didn't have that security hole (it was obscured by the entire feature not working). Mozilla 0.9.9 did have the hole and it's now fixed in RC2. But this is not a security release. This release didn't happen because of the security fix (you could get that in a nightly builds many many days ago). This was a planned release based on feedback from RC1. We fixed 270 bugs between RC1 and RC2 including the most frequently encountered crash and hang problems.

--Asa

Re:Where's the criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't fix a security hole, than why, when I was using RC1 and went to the start page has, did it tell me that the version I was using had a security flaw and to upgrade to rc2?

Re:Where's the criticism?

[akintayo]

RC means Release Candidate, which means that this is beta software so bugs etc. can be expected.OTOH, release software is not 'supposed' to have bugs.

In other words an IE release should be held to a higher standard than a Mozilla or IE RC.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[bogie]

Why are you comparing the one recent security bug of Moz with the flood of IE holes?

Someone found a security bug, moz fixed it quickly end of story. This is how open source works. There was no denying by moz developers of the bug and it was fixed, what else do you want?

Why should we jump down their throat?

There is a big difference between this and MS's efforts to deny and then blame eveyone else for their secuity holes. Do you know how many billions of dollars were lost last year because of shoddy MS security? Over 10 billion. Only a few months ago did they announce that they are "serious" about security. Not to mention their attempts to destory linux, the gpl, and the rest of the software industry. Did I mention Handhelds, gaming consoles, and set top boxes. Did I mention they have broken numberous laws and are using a illegal monopoly to squeeze money from the entire planet.

Now Troll, you were saying something about how we should root against Moz and treat MS with respect?

Re:Where's the criticism?

[morningdave]

This isn't a double standard at all. We're talking about a fix to a security hole in a RELEASE CANDIDATE for version 1.0. If Mozilla is riddled with security flaws by the time it's at version 6.0 like IE is, I'm sure people wil be jumping down their throats as well.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[asa]

Because the page that comes up comes up for all previous builds. They all suffer (except RC1) and it was easier this way.

--Asa

Re:Where's the criticism?

[cscx]

Do you know how many billions of dollars were lost last year because of shoddy MS security?

Hey asshole,

I think that would be due to lax MS admins and not software itself. It just so happens that *nix admins are more whacko-paranoid about security than your average everyday whistle blowing wallet-card MCSE.

Any system can be secured. Period. Any system can also not be secured. It's what you make it.

My IIS box: Never rooted, never will be.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[darianx]

This is true...but really, how many people are using the fine pile of code called mozilla anyway? Few...very few. Less than the number of people who use NS6 (the only NS that renders tables right). So it's kind of a moot point.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were 400,000 downloads of Mozilla 1.0 RC1.

But those are just the people who went out of their way to test 1.0. There are many more Linux users, who are running whatever version of Mozilla comes with their distribution, not to mention Windows and Mac users who downloaded an earlier version.

I would hardly refer to those one-or-more millions of users as "few...very few."

Oh, and let's not forget that those NS6 users are also, in reality, running Mozilla.

Re:Where's the criticism?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > Do you know how many billions of dollars were lost last year because of shoddy MS security?

> Hey asshole, I think that would be due to lax MS admins and not software itself.

Wow. You really are incompetent.

If you actually knew what you were doing, then you would be aware of the fact that MS software has had many security flaws, over the last year, that made even up-to-date, fully patched systems vulnerable.

You would be aware that even the best Windows administrators -- Microsoft themselves -- can't keep their systems secure. You would know that Hotmail has been cracked, MSN has been cracked, Passport has been cracked, and the parked websites, that Microsoft converted from Unix to Windows, were cracked.

You would be aware that a recent Microsoft security patch actually re-opened some old security holes. (Did you apply that patch?)

You would be aware that Bill Gates himself recently admitted that Microsoft had been ignoring security flaws (but he says they're commited to security now -- ha, fat chance).

And, lastly, you'd know about stories like this one from last month:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/66019_msf tp atch11.shtml

> Microsoft is hit again by security flaws

> Microsoft Corp. released a patch yesterday to fix 10 newly discovered security flaws in its Web server software, the most serious of which could let a hacker take over someone else's server.

> The flaws affect the last three versions of Microsoft's Internet Information Server and Internet Information Services software, which are run on millions of computers worldwide.

> Security guru Marc Maiffret, who calls himself eEye's chief hacking officer, said more weaknesses have been discovered in Microsoft's IIS Web server software than in the software of some of its competitors, which could "make it a little bit scarier running IIS."

> Microsoft released a patch in December to fix the flaw, which could allow hackers to steal or destroy a victim's data files without the user's doing anything more than connecting to the Internet.

The last quote is my favorite. Was your Windows server connected to the Internet? :-(

Now if only it'll remember my mail settings

[Anonymous Coward]

Running XP (yeah I know... boo, hiss) and thus far no version of Mozilla of Netscape 6+ will remember my mail settings. Sometimes it'll make you have to go thru mail setup each time you launch the program, and sometimes it'll remember the settings for about 3 or 4 restarts of the program.

Mozilla and Sharereactor

[s2r]

Does anybody know if the problem with "download all files from the realease" in sharereactor is fixed?
In rc1 it didn't work.

Re:Mozilla and Sharereactor

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmmmm..sharereactor is GOOD. I sure as hell hope it works!

Bugzilla

[N0Nick]

The place to report/suggest stuff like that is Mozilla's excellent Bugzilla.

There's actually a filed bug for seperate icons for the different components (Bug 47779). Sign up for Mozilla and vote for this bug. The more votes for a bug, the more "important" it is considered.
My guess is that this will only be fixed in 1.0.

Regarding your 'oingo' problem: I suggest you report it and see if that's a problem with the browser or something in the configuration.

Odd problems

[archen]

Anyone else have a problem with Mozilla restarting their computer (Win2k)? I have no idea why, but sometimes - around once a week or so - when I close mozilla it takes my entire computer with it instantly. It wouldn't be so weird in itself since it could be a bad win2k install, except that I've had it happen at work as well (again under Win2k). The only hardware the machines really have in common is the main board. Unfortunatly when this happens it also seems to completely wipe all my settings (bookmarks/history/mail/prefs). Other than that things look good. Hopefully RC2 will fix that problem with JavaScript changing the status bar text (in chinese) and using 99% of my cpu...

Re:Odd problems

[Jucius Maximus]

"Hopefully RC2 will fix that problem with JavaScript changing the status bar text (in chinese) and using 99% of my cpu..."

Just a side note ... did you ever get a message saying "Hacked by Chinese" ?

If so, you might want to look into a firewall...

Re:Odd problems

[Jucius Maximus]

"Anyone else have a problem with Mozilla restarting their computer (Win2k)? "

Never with mozilla (pre RC2) but I did have such problems that I traced to a large hosts file.

[N.B. I am sure someone's reading this and thinking that I should be using junkbuster or proxomitron. I know about those tools but there is a specific reason I chose the hosts method. In some cases I do use the proxomitron. Thanks for reading.]

Re:Odd problems

[archen]

Um... no I didn't, besides which I've always thought that a firewall is just a bandaid fix for not running Apache or Boa... Actually I put a page similar to the "hacked by chinese" one up on a test server at work, and I thought my boss was going to have a heart attack. Well I thought it was funny at least :)

Re:Odd problems

[Jucius Maximus]

"Actually I put a page similar to the "hacked by chinese" one up on a test server at work, and I thought my boss was going to have a heart attack. Well I thought it was funny at least :)"

LOL, I know what you mean. Once time in high school I wrote a program that faked the formatting of a machine's hard drive and a teacher almost had a heart attack, teehee. </offtopic>

one website that screws it up

[Micah]

I just came across a cool looking site FindYourSpot.com that asks you a lot of questions and supposedly recommends a good place for you to live.

Mozilla (even RC2, I just tried it) hangs when you're almost done answering the questions on the third page.

Konqueror 3 seems to have a problem with the Next button -- it just clears the radio buttons and returns the same (first) page.

Amusingly, i got through the whole thing with Links!!!! But due to the lack of Alt tags, I couldn't figure out where to go once I got through it.

I'm not sure if I can bring myself to fire up Netscape 4.79. Aaaaugh, the pain of even THINKING of using that peice of junk again!

Re:one website that screws it up

[bunratty]

I just came across a cool looking site FindYourSpot.com that asks you a lot of questions and supposedly recommends a good place for you to live.

It works great for me with the latest nightly trunk build. Try it -- in my experience it's better than the 1.0 branch builds!

Re:one website that screws it up

[evilquaker]

Mozilla (even RC2, I just tried it) hangs when you're almost done answering the questions on the third page.

Must be something specific to your setup, because I just finished the whole thing with Galeon 1.2.1 (based upon RC1).

Just for the record, it suggested for me to live in Boise, Idaho. (Which really seems pretty reasonable to me...)

Re:one website that screws it up

[jejones]

Eh? I'm using RC1 under RH 7.3, and it handles FindYourSpot.com without complaint or hang.

Re:one website that screws it up

[caferace]

chuckle. I bet you all just gave this troll a meager slashdotting.

I ask you, if you got an email that started "I just came across a cool looking site..." would you go there and look at it? I didn't think so. In your efforts to help QA Moz, you just handed this guy (or his buddies) a few hits.

Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

Re:one website that screws it up

[Micah]

You're being paranoid. :) I have nothing to do with the site, I just saw it in a link list yesterday and thought it was kind of cool. Except that it doesn't work for me. :(

Re:one website that screws it up

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're not the only one with that problem... Moz hung in the same place and somehow I stumbled thru it with links...

After I signed over the rights to all my future children it suggested a few reasonable spots, although I've recently moved out of the vicinity of several of them...

Re:one website that screws it up

[Nakago4]

I just went through the entire site with RC2 on win2k and it worked fine... I was even surprised with some of the results it gave me :)

Re:one website that screws it up

[Micah]

well I just got through it with (gag) Netscape 4.79.

Hmm if it works in Galeon but not Mozilla it probably has nothing to do with Gecko. But it DID hang BOTH times I tried it with Moz, roughly at the same spot (no pun intended).

And for me it suggested Spokane and Anchorage. They both sound good to me.

Re:one website that screws it up

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you have a good troll detector cause you're UID 442? Just remember that he's UID 278! :)

Re:one website that screws it up

[blasphemi]

Yep, didn't work for me either with RC2 under w2k. First time I did it I thought about the answers and it just got slower and slower so I checked task manager and it was using more and more CPU (until it hit 100%) and more memory by 10KB/s or something.

Next time I tried I did all the questions fast and no problem then.

Re:one website that screws it up

[esarjeant]

Just went through it with Mozilla RC2... looks like I'm moving to North Carolina!

Re:one website that screws it up

[caferace]

Sorry about that then. As the A/C said, perhaps I shoulda noticed the UID. Us three digit folks should stick together. :)

-442 (trapped helplessly at the karma cap forever)

Re:one website that screws it up

[Micah]

Hey we should plan some big party only for those with 3 digit Slashdot UIDs. That would really rub it in. :D

Re:one website that screws it up

[caferace]

Yeah. Then when all the AC's got pissed off, we could sell our UID's on eBay for thousands! hehehe.

Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

I just installed Mozilla RC2, when I type http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com in the address bar nothing happens.

Re:Windows Update

[Nakago4]

That's because Microsoft blocks all browsers from windows update except IE

Re:Windows Update

[xer.xes]

Weird, I can even go there with Galeon 1.2.1...

Don't know where you get your information from..

Re:Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

uhno. this is a lie.

crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?"

[danny]

All versions of Mozilla since around 0.9.7 have been incredibly unstable for me. I have "Accept all images" set, but with "Ask me before downloading an image" checked, and I mostly say "No"... but about one time in twenty when I do that, Mozilla crashes. Is anyone else using the same image acceptance settings and seeing anything similar? (I'm running Red Hat Linux 7.2.) I'm using a talkback build which is reporting each time it crashes, so I'm hoping this will be fixed before 1.0.

Danny.

Re:crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you make sure you removed all of the earlier Moz installs (not your profile information!) before installing the new versions?

Re:crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a known bug, addressed in the "Make RC3 Not Suck" bugzilla thread. The bug report itself is here:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1078 06

Re:crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?"

[frankie]

Is anyone else using the same image acceptance settings and seeing anything similar?

Ah, my old pal the rcm-images freeze. Bugzilla is an awesomely useful community service -- see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107806

There is a workaround: edit your permissions file manually to block (or enable if you want) rcm-images.amazon.com, which is the site that sends the malformed javascripted image code which causes the crash.

Re:crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?"

[danny]

I don't think that's the bug that's getting me. Firstly, I get crashes, not a hang. Secondly, if I restart Mozilla and revisit the page it crashed on, it works fine - my crashes are NOT replicable with particular pages they seem to happen randomly.

There seems to be some connection with pages that load images from many sites - the "allow" dialogs kind of pile up and I can sense the crash coming. When I revisit the site, presumably there aren't so many dialogs because I got through some of them before it crashed.

Danny.

Re:see the hipocrats

[fferreres]

I don't know if illegal. I'd say it's selfish. Because if something is funded by ads it's because people are not willing to pay. But they are not only NOT willing to pay and go to the extend to blocking the ads. Their proposal is hipocrat one. Let the stupid watch the ads, i get it for free.

Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...

Re:note

[fferreres]

This was a correction to my previous. I wanted to make it anonymous, but what the hell. Thanks.

Re:see the hipocrats

[isorox]

Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...

really fferreres? really?

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[archen]

Yes but with Mozilla finally rounding off to 1.0

If Mozilla goes into RC3 I'm going to start a betting pool to see which rolls over to "1" first. Mozilla, or 32 bit UNIX time()

Mozilla Has Finally Crossed The Line

[Jucius Maximus]

...and that line is the line between 'betaness' and production quality software.

[This is not intended to be a karma whore message. These comments are my honest reactions to RC2. I have already hit the karma cap.]

In my humble opinion, based on the speed of this browser, the overall feel of the menus, the way the messages in the status bar work, the handling of text boxes in forms, the (much improved!) snappiness of the menus, inclusion of CCS2 and overall feel of the way everything fits together, this browser is finally in a position to be called "Ready for Primetime."

Past builds, even RC1 did not have the menu snappiness. There was a noticeable lag when changing menus and cancelling out of the preferences. The messages in the status bar would stutter. Pull down menus did not pull down as fast. My 0.99 would crash every 5 minutes on linux but not windows.

To the Mozilla crew: This is fantastic. Finally there is an open source windows browser that is ready to challenge IE. Great work everyone and kudos to everyone who helped the project. If things stay on track, RC3 should be amazing. I now will seriously consider this browser to be a viable recommendation for an alternate to MSIE for non-technical users. After some more testing, I may rank it (in my head) above opera.

Re:Mozilla Has Finally Crossed The Line

[bogie]

Yea I noticed how snappy the menus are as well. Especially with regards on my windows machine. On this box the imported IE favorities took forever to load. You would mouse over the Imported IE favorites bookmark folder, and it would take forever for the bookmarks to come up.

Also they FINALLY fixed the cut and paste bookmarks bug, which really annoyed me. Good thing I keep a backup or else I would have lost tons of bookmarks trying to cut and paste them.

Overall RC2 works great.

CSS rendering bug

[CoughDropAddict]

I have zero experience with Mozilla's development, so I thought I'd ask for advice before spamming bugzilla...

Mozilla incorrectly renders this w3c CSS1 "float" test. How do I determine if this is known: what kind of bug do I search for? If it is not known, where and how should I file it, or should I report it to a Mozilla insider to file for me?

Re:CSS rendering bug

[Anonymous Coward]

Most float bugs in Bugzilla have "float" in the Status Whiteboard or the Description, and they're in the Browser: Layout component. You can search on these criteria using . There's quite a few known bugs on floats; I wouldn't be surprised if this was already reported.

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

The page uses no doctype, so is rendered in "quirks" mode by Mozilla instead of "standards" mode. Testing standards support in a mode that purposefully violates some standards to be compatible with existing content is silly...

That and the failure of any test of standards to validate in an HTML validator kinda casts doubt on the validity of the test...

Re:CSS rendering bug

[CoughDropAddict]

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I made the mistake of assuming that w3c would know how to write tests of their own standards...!

Re:CSS rendering bug

[pacman on prozac]

they do :)

this page is their test and it complains about the missing doctype too.

You have to put the url in, slashdots crudbuster wouldn't let me post the complete addy.

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

OK. I have now had time to investigate the first testcase in detail. Its author committed a major error. The testcase sets the margin on the

to 0, but does not change the padding. In Mozilla the margin is already 0 by default but the _padding_ is not. As a result, the
ends 40px wider than the testcase thinks it should.

This is an authoring error, pure and simple.

Looking at the second testcase now.

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

Here is the mail I just sent the testcase author about the second testcase:

The second testcase [2] has the following style rules:

DIV.left {
float: left;
width: 70%;
}

DIV.right {
padding: 2%;
margin: 2%;
float: right;
width: 25%;
}

The expected "correct" rendering is to put the divs side-by-side.
However, just adding up the widths gives us:
70% + 2% + 2% + 25% + 2% + 2% = 103% > 100%
Therefore the two divs cannot possibly fit side-by-side and
conforming UAs should show the "right" div below the "left" div (but
floated to the right).

Similar problems happen with the two divs with class="pointers" --
the widths of those two divs (including margins and padding) are
36% each, which, when added to the 33% of the DIV.right means those
three divs cannot all fit side-by-side either (as the image
indicating "correct" rendering would have them do).

Re:CSS rendering bug

[CoughDropAddict]

This is an authoring error, pure and simple.

Looking at the second testcase now.

Since you're in the know, could you explain this to me while you're at it? It validates as XHTML 1.0 strict, but its behavior doesn't make sense to me.

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

Well... the padding on the

is completely under the float. So the rendering is almost correct (the overlap of the float and the bullets is an error).

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

er, padding on the "ul"

As a note, putting borders on all the elements involved should make it clear what's going on.

Instability post-Moz

[thegrommit]

Anyone else consistently get crashes in games under Windows 2000 after running Moz? Running a game without having launched Mozilla beforehand works fine. Running (and closing) Moz results in the machine locking up a few minutes into a game. This has affected UT, Dungeon Siege, MOH:AA, RTCW and AOE2.

Quick launch is off, nvidia drivers 27.20, DirectX8.1

Re:Instability post-Moz

[bunratty]

Just a guess, but you might be experiencing a GDI problem reported in http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133132

Re:Instability post-Moz

[cscx]

Didn't Microsoft just release a fix for GDI?

Re:Instability post-Moz

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get instablity, but I get an enormous amount of thrashing as Mozilla is swapped back in after running a game.

I'd run MemTest and see if you have a bad RAM stick.

I don't need Viagra

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried Mozilla 1.0 RC2 and it gave me a boner.

Re:see the hipocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...

Woo, there is another! I thought I was the only one who needed protection from a medical practitioner who is regarded as the father of medicine.

please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[Kunta Kinte]

AFAIK, there is no talkback nightly for linux. There's no unstripped linux nightly either.

I still get random crashes with mozilla now-and-then ( very far inbetween, but I'm in mozilla all day, everyday, so I see a few ), but without even a coredump file, how am I going to report it?

Usually, I'm not doing anything special or at an elaborate site.

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[bunratty]

AFAIK, there is no talkback nightly for linux. There's no unstripped linux nightly either.

Looks like you're right. However, a talkbalk RC2 build is available for Linux. Use that to report the problems you're having.

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[Kunta Kinte]

There's a talkback for this release, but not usually. That should be the norm, just as with windows nightlies. Are linux bugs less important than others?

PS. I feel both unstripped and talkbacks should be available. There are a lot of cases where talkback will not be of use, because the crash didn't seem to trigger it's start. I'm sure you've seen cases where mozilla dies and you never hear from talkback. And the thing is, building a unstripped distribution would be much additional work at all. It would literally be modifying a single make file to set STRIP=false, make, then reset strip and make again.

But still, a nightly linux talkback build would be great.

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[asa]

There are talkback nightly builds for linux. If you can reproduce a crash consistently then file a bug. You don't have to have a stack if you can repro regularly. If it's reproducible then someone else can get the stack.

--Asa

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[Kunta Kinte]

There are talkback nightly builds for linux. If you can reproduce a crash consistently then file a bug. You don't have to have a stack if you can repro regularly. If it's reproducible then someone else can get the stack.

That's exactly the problem. Mozilla is very stable now. Most crashers seem to be entirely random. On the other hand, If the build had symbols, you can get the bug on a single crash.

PS. Where are those talkback nightlies for linux? I would love to see them.

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[No_Weak_Heart]

The easiest way to grab the nightlies is to go to Mozilla.org, scroll down to the bottom, look on the right hand side where it says:

"Nightly Builds Created most weekdays from the previous day's work, these will probably work, but maybe not. Use them to verify whether a bug you're tracking has been fixed. MacOS 9, MacOS X, i386 Linux, Windows, Linux PPC, Solaris, FreeBSD, Irix, BeOS, HPUX, OS/2, BSD/OS, etc"

and click on the link for the OS you are using. Or, you can look straight at the ftp directory here[ http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/ ]

For the RC2 and Talkback enabled builds go to the releases page.[ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ ]

Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly

[BZ]

A unstripped mozilla build would be well over 90MB in size.... fairly prohibitive as a download. Furthermore, the Linux kernel does not create core files for multithreaded programs. So even if it were unstripped there would be no core file.

In my book...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla 1.0 RCn is just Mozilla 0.9.9.9...9 with n+2 nines.

Use Xprint for printing in UNIX

[KidSock]

If you want nice printouts in UNIX use Xprint.

Xprint replaces the underlying XFree86 drawing primatives with ones that generate PostScript. Mozilla has the necessary code to support this and it can easily be activated. This results in printouts that look almost exactly like the display. It will even print wacko fonts by downloading them or, as a last resort, embedding them as bitmats. If you have good Type1 font's it looks pretty good. It is very popular with non-U.S./Canadian users for just this reason. There's minor setup but it's all explained in detail here:

Using Xprint with Mozilla

I'd like to see this developed further so the distros catch on and support it. Spread the word.

Re:Use Xprint for printing in UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this interact with CUPS, or is it a replacement for CUPS?

Re:Use Xprint for printing in UNIX

[KidSock]

How does this interact with CUPS, or is it a replacement for CUPS?

Xprint is not like CUPS or lpd or LPRng. It just generates better PostScript. Xprint will feed this output to the lpr command (i.e. CUPS). Jus read the first paragraph on the page cited.

It would be like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like VHS. You start the film and it's no stop till the end. At some time you can't delay any more going to the john, then you pause the not always interesting show, get your blessed pee and then it's coach time again.

I disable Flash ads here, for performance reasons. Maybe that's your case, too. With a very low-spec machine or lame connection (i.e., modem), disabling ads could be a major boost.

Nonetheless, IMHO, ads are not only important, they are a joy. How many times have I seen an ad about a free resource? Yes, there are ads of free-things, like Gnustep, Crystal Space etc.

Ads are also glimpses about real-life...

Also, did you ever saw those old-time ads? I mean real old-timers, like from 1940 or 1950. If you're young, that's a great chance to know how some important products started. If you're "seasoned", you may get some dear memories of things you heard while dating your long-time wife -- amazing how stupid things can be touching sometimes...

Have a nice day/night, wherever you are...

(im)proper HTTP header spelling

[valmont]

it is actually HTTP_REFERER

with only one "R".

The original writers of the HTTP protocol were somewhat careless spellers, but the protocol got adopted "as-is". it's really moot but this may confuse you when configuring your httpd.conf or writing CGI code and looking for a slightly-misspelled http header :)

cheers!

Re:see the hipocrats

[fferreres]

Nice quote :) I was beign honest though. I'd agree that we always fall in the "hippocrats" category at some point in life.

Download Manager

[teslatug]

Does Download Manager still come up by default on all downloads? It is VERY annoying and there is no GUI way of removing it. Anyone know how to remove it through prefs.js or some such? Is there a page on Mozilla.org that has all the preferences that can be used (for RC2 not some long-forgotten release)?

Re:Download Manager

[bunratty]

Bug 132440 has been filed for a UI way to disable the Download Manager.

Re:Download Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

If its added to Netscape 6.x or 7.x (commercial one) even getting more advanced (such as mirror searchs/multiple source downloads) it will be a great thing for user privacy.

Nr2 spyware distrobuters after P2P ones are "download managers", if you check download.com , you can figure how popular they are (and the spyware they include of course)

Opera has a likely same feature since 5.x versions. A simple download manager can RESUME easily (50% wants resume only).

Oh btw, I know there are non-spyware alternative download managers, I am talking about the ones popular.

IE,Netscape uses same download mechanism,UI since they launched. Its time to change. There are 40MB game demo downloads in todays Internet. Believe or not, they download them...

Re:Download Manager

[sconest]

Do as it is shown here

Egads... twidle dee dum trolls away...

[Vicegrip]

What is with the freaks twisting a well defined, and widely understood, concept so that they can feel better about the way their favorite OS does things.

Security through obscurity defines the act of concealing flaws in the hope that since 'nobody' knows about them an expoit won't we found by crackers. This well established Microsoft practice has done little to shield them from the major exploitation of the security problems that plague Windows whilst the open approach of such systems as Linux have yielded very robust and securable platforms.

I must assume you are trolling in the hopes of either gathering attention or spreading FUD. I hope you enjoy looking like a moron.

Re:Egads... twidle dee dum trolls away...

[Junta]

Actually this is still security through obscurity. It doesn't have to be source code obscurity for this to be true. The misconception presented here is that you should never do security by obscurity, and that is not true, the caution is that the approach should never be the *only* protection used.

i've got the same problem

[Reality Master 201]

on both my XP box (grrr. Work.) and my FreeBSD boxen (4.5, 5-current). I only noticed it in .9.9 on, though. That's probably my sole issue with the application; that and occasionally it doesn't render something right the first time. Oh, and sometimes my pr0n doesn't show up.

Re:i've got the same problem

[mickwd]

"Oh, and sometimes my pr0n doesn't show up".

Perhaps you're going blind ?

No source RPMs for RC2?

[molo]

Mozilla 1.0 RC1 provided source RPMs for their RH 7.2 RPMs (see http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozill a1.0rc1/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/ ) .. But RC2 seems to be missing this. There are binary RPMs, but no source. I need the source to build for other RH versions/archs. (see http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozill a1.0rc2/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/ )

Re:No source RPMs for RC2?

[vondo]

Wait a while. Usually things like this and builds for other platforms show up a few days later. In days past the binary RH RPMs took a few days to show up.

Re:No source RPMs for RC2?

[Papineau]

Actually, the SRPM for 1.0RC1 is a very good starting point if you want to do it yourself. The difference between the spec from 0.9.9 to 1.0RC1 are very minimal (mostly resulting from the renaming of an secondary source file), and I didn't find any in the other source files. Get the 1.0RC1 SRPM (if you don't already have it), replace the tar.gz by the new one, change the spec file accordingly, and fire it up.

When (if?) the SRPM shows up on mozilla.org, you can compare the 2 spec files (along with the rest of the source files) and if your setup is correct, you'll already have it.

And remember, if it ever breaks, you get to keep all the pieces...

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[Hitokage_Nishino]

RC2 is not a security upgrade. It contains fixes and enhancements for all aspects of the browser, and that security fix is only one of them.

Slow down, please

[Anonymous Coward]

You open source hippies are only a few years behind schedule!

1.0 Really?

[checkitout]

My user agent has shown Mozilla/5.0 for a long time now. Even Netscape 4.7 is really Mozilla/4.0 :)

Re:1.0 Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

doh!

Check out this great Mozilla easter egg!

[Flarners]

I was looking through the Mozilla source, and I nearly laughed my ass off when I saw this bit of code in the XUL source :-) It's a cute little thing that should make even the most die-hard Linux zealot crack a smile. It's only compiled in Linux and FreeBSD builds by default, so if you're running Mozilla on one of those platforms, fire it up and check this out:

1. Open any page in Mozilla.
2. Click on the little icon to the left of the URL in the address bar, and drag it onto the Bookmarks menu in the Personal Toolbar.
3. Hold it there until the text in the button changes colour.
4. Release the button.

Isn't that great? :-) It should work in all versions of Mozilla on Linux since 0.9.6, including 1.0RC1 and the newly released 1.0RC2.

Re:Check out this great Mozilla easter egg!

[Junta]

On my 1.0RC1 all that happens is that the menu gets stuck in the open condition stealing focus until you initiate a drag of another object in the ui, guess it is time to upddate to rc2.

Re:Check out this great Mozilla easter egg!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just thought I'd jump in with a me too...

Same version, same symptoms, same likely resolution :)

Re:Check out this great Mozilla easter egg!

[Anonymous Coward]

What r u talking about? I grab the icon drag it to the "bookmarks" part of personal toolbar, the Bookmarks button turns blue, I release, nothing happens.

Are you just some troll are what?

Re:Check out this great Mozilla easter egg!

[HoaryCripple]

I see right through your ruse. This guy is trying to cause a crash in mozilla for the linux users. This is bug 96504. Too bad it's been disabled for RC2 and will not cause a crash. Cute comment about looking through the source.

Again: RC2 is not affected by this.

Privoxy is junkbuster.

[Inoshiro]

Stephen Walderr (probably spelt that wrong :)) created a fork of IJB 2.whatever which used blank GIFs in place of the broken icon or IJB logo. Then his project grew and continued. Everyone reported ads to the communal blocklist, which could be easily synchronized with a cron job. It was the best ever.

Then his site seemed to stop updating, and many people wondered what had happened :-(

But soon, the software was brought back by some great efforts by other people. It has many features I like. However, there are still bugs keeping it from 3.0:
* It stops responding after a few days unless you HUP it.
* It doesn't re-gzip data after it's been deziped and filtered.
* The re_filterfile code sometimes doesn't work (I use it to filter Google's link-wrapping, which I feel is a big of a cheater's way of looking at what I go to)
* Some minor HTTP 1.1 unhappyness.

All in all, a good piece of software -- just not complete (yet).

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[Misch]

Try MozillaZine for information on nightlies, and daily status updates. Or, you could add the MozillaZine Slashbox to your homepage.

plug-ins

[miro2]

This is my first time with Mozilla. It seems great. Can someone point me to a place to get the best plug-ins for multi-media files. Or perhaps a review of various plug-ins. Thank you

Re:plug-ins

[Joe Tie.]

I can't think of any links off hand, but mozilla hopefully should direct you to download sites for the appropriate plug-in if it encounters something it can't handle. Usually it's going to be a netscape plug in, and you might have to point it to mozilla's plugin directory yourself. I've been very happy with the behavior of those I've had installed with RC1, so hopefully things should go well. You might want to take a look at mozdev.org for some mozilla specific stuff. The spellchecker is my favorite of the projects there. I think it's fun though even just browsing through them all. I mean a rpg engine made with my favorite web browser is just plain nifty.

Re:plug-ins

[fczuardi]

http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/

Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

It still doesn't install under Windows 95.

US control?

[quantaman]

This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports (including Denied Parties, entities on the Bureau of Export Administration Entity List, and Specially Designated Nationals).

Considering the fact that Mozilla is under the GPL and the mirrors are not in the US I don't see how the US has the right to claim jurisdiction over the code. Also add to this the crucial fact that many of the programmers involved do not live in the US. What happens to contributors who happen to live in one of those countries? I know that it is just blowing smoke, there is no possible way to enforce this blockade on software but where does the US get the legal, or ethical right, to control the distribution of the Mozilla source code which is an INTERNATIONAL effort.

Re:US control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fact that Mozilla is under the GPL and the mirrors are not in the US I don't see how the US has the right to claim jurisdiction over the code.

Probably because Netscape is a US company and it must abide by the US Export Regulations on encryption, thus its products that use strong encryption (including Mozilla) are no exception, even if they are GPLed.

Re:US control?

[dvdeug]

where does the US get the legal, or ethical right, to control the distribution of the Mozilla source code which is an INTERNATIONAL effort.

It makes no claim to control the distribution of anything not originating in the US. If you want to put a server under US jursidiction, then yes, the US will restrict what you can export from that server, and to where.

Re:US control?

[gilmae]

Well, it depends where the central repositry is. Where do the developers check their source into? If it is a server in the US, if all the mirrors get their source from this central source, then yeah, the US have the legal and ethical right to control the distribution of the Mozilla source. The GPL doesn't really even come into it, seeing as how it relies on rights granted by US law (or is copyright in the COnstitution? not sure).

RC1 was a terrible release.

[burtonator]

Here are my thoughts:

By now I am sure most people have seen that Mozilla RC1 has been released .
The press has picked this up and now there are a number of reviews .



They all fail to compare RC1 to the last release (0.99) which leads to almost
all positive feedback.


The truth is that Mozilla really screwed up their release process. This is the
worst stable Mozilla build I have tested in the last year. They litterally
broke every rule in the book:


- They introduced major UI changes which are incompatible with all of the builds
since 0.80 or so.


- Saving files locally (at least on my system) is totally broken. Want to save
a PDF file locally? ... Too bad!


- They have completely changed around a lot of the preferences. Where did
these come from?


There are also numerous other small bugs.


RC1 should have been 0.99 with *only* patches to fix critical bugs. How many
release candidates do they expect to have?


Will there every be a Mozilla 1.0 or is it just going to be asymptotic to 1.0?

Re:RC1 was a terrible release.

[lux55]

I'd say I have to agree with some of this. Moz 0.9.9 was a freakin' rock on my machine, but rc1 has crashed probably close to 100 times since it's been installed. Same machine, nothing else on the machine has changed for a while, so I have a tough time justifying the "ah, it's just windows again" excuse on this one.

Just finished downloading rc2, so there is hope. *crossing my fingers*

Re:RC1 was a terrible release.

[Anonymous Coward]

you actually use mozilla? I have no objection to netscape or even konqueror, but mozilla?

The mozilla solution to fixing bugs is to make the browser even more sluggish, so the users won't care any more. Once you've waited 2 minutes for a page to load, any response seems fine, even if it's completely wrong.

Re:RC1 was a terrible release.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother linking to it if you're just gonna paste it in anyway?

Watch out for flaky skins! (emergency fix)

[dstone]

I installed a skin called LCARTrek from the recommended Mozilla skins site. I restarted Mozilla (RC2, full Win2K install) to see the effect and it cause Mozilla to hang during startup (at the splash window). Killed the task. Re-ran Mozilla. Same hang. Anyways, in case something like this happens to anyone else... what I did to get past this was delete a file called Chrome.rdf somewhere within "Documents and Settings\username\Application Data\Mozilla\". Sorry for the somewhat vague instructions, but I'm sure you'll figure it out if you need to. Naturally, I'm a little reluctant to try and other skins with RC2 now!

Use the mirrors they say!

[wackybrit]

Instead of going and downloading it from the main site, I decided to be kind and find it on a mirror this time. So I went to their mirrors page.

I went through EVERY .uk mirror and all of them only had RC1! So I went through the .fr mirrors, ditto. How slow are these people?

DHTML compatability is perfect

[rufusdufus]

I wrote 3000 line javascript program that uses fairly sophisticated logic with dhtml objects, frames and forms. I have battled every browser I've tested it on until now; it worked the first time with no problems at all.

Of course, this code has already been carefully constructed to be compatible with NS4,NS6 and IE, but still, I'm impressed.

Re:DHTML compatability is perfect

[turtlendogrmusd.net]

I'm having trouble getting RC2 to work with my drop-down navigation found here. Does anyone know the trick (or see my mistake)? Occasionally, I can get Mozilla to open a new tab (using both mouse buttons at once) but often while trying this Mozilla takes off looking for 'www.php.com'. Is it trying to validate something?

Tabs rock!

Re:DHTML compatability is perfect

[jesser]

Since you wrote your code to work with NS6, it's not surprising that it works with Mozilla. NS6 is just Mozilla with Netscape branding, a spell checker, and an AIM client.

Re:DHTML compatability is perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a version of Mozilla from nearly a year ago though. A lot has changed since then.

cZ WORKSFORME

[yerricde]

For example, ChatZilla probably shouldn't be in 1.0, because it doesn't work yet. It should only be in some later beta.

In 1.0 RC1 and 2002050208-trunk, on Windows 98 and 2000, ChatZilla WORKSFORME when I hang out in #tokipona or #everything. Do you have a Bugzilla ticket number for your problem?

Or perhaps the problem (which I ran into while composing this comment) is Slashdot's filters removing the slashes from irc: URLs in comments?

Re:see the hipocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have thought after the medical practioner joke you would have realised the word you were after is perhaps "hypocrite". Unless your meaning is that at some stage we are all medical practitioners who can be regarded as the father/mother of medicine.

MOD PARENT DOWN [TROLL]

[quannump]

this is a known bug in mozilla 1.0 RC1 that the parent poster describes. it will do freeze your browser or something. NOT an easter egg

I want it to run on OpenBSD

[lyberth]

Then it will be the greatest of all browsers, but sins it doesn't, it isn't

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[ZxCv]

What about OpenBSD prevents it from running on there?

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because OpenBSD is only for embedded systems.

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you trying to run a web browser on a server OS?Seriously that's like trying to run a browser from DOS. YOU make get it working, but its a waste of time since all the BSD's suck ass as desktops. You end up running all the software through "emluation". That's pretty sad. If you want t nix desktop with native support from actual commercial companies, use linux or OSX. If you want a regular desktop use XP.

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[nicarley]

Why not download the source and compile it?

Nicolas Farley
www.nicarley.tk

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[lyberth]

Sadly it doesn't compile on OpenBSD

Re:I want it to run on OpenBSD

[Sits]

I know there is a port to FreeBSD... are Open and Free so different that this doesn't help?

No source code... yet

[m0RpHeus]

Hmm... the source code is not yet available for download. I've been looking for it (even before the announcement on Slashdot). I wonder why the source is not available. People like me prefer to use the source for further optimizations and to enable some features not available on the downloadable installers, tgzs, etc, like SVG support to name one.

Re:Watch out for flaky skins! (emergency fix)

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a warning on that page which says that these themes are compatible with RC1. Might want to give the theme creators a little time to update, k?

Redbricks online community

[thegoldenear]

its not a (hyper)link if its not within an tage is it? so Mozilla doesn't pick it up

(I keep meaning to search for a bug on this or file a new one)

Re:Watch out for flaky skins! (emergency fix)

[dstone]

Heheh, right you are. The ironic thing is choosing "Get New Themes" from the RC2 Mozilla menus takes you to that very page.

Re:see the hipocrats

[darien]

Not Hippocrates - hipocrats. People who think we should all be ruled by horses.

what about the mirrors?

[Anonymous Coward]

eh

Re:What gives?.. ASA look here.

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh I'm not the only one :-)

I used to rename the moz folder do a fresh install from zipped trunk and copy over plugins when done.

Now I download the seamonkey 10MB installere file from trunk and simply install it over the old installation, because I got fed up with the copy stuff.

I'm looking forward to the day it is possible to simply click update browser from within the browser and it installs the components updated in binary form.

I'm aware of the security implications involved, but there must be a smart way to do this, such as something that checks for file originality and the likes.

I know that would please me mum as well and with the constants updates of a webbrowser due to standards evolution, it would be a nice thing to have.

Re:What gives?.. ASA look here.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the smart update feature, it doesn't necessarily have to be trunks that it updates.

It would be awesome if you could configure the smart updater in such a way that it let you chose from what three to do the updates, chosing from;

* 1.x releases only
* 1.x and 1.x.x releases
* nightly

I think you get the picture.

Re:Better story about Pipelining

[frankie]

New stuff include support for "HTTP pipelining"

Not really. Pipelining has been sitting in Preferences --> Advanced --> HTTP since at least 0.9.8 (that's when I started using it). Pipelining definitely speeds things up, but it's a little bit buggy, which is why it's disabled by default.

Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[smagruder]

As a web site developer who needs to test his web sites on multiple browsers, it would be nice if Netscape 6.2 and Mozilla 1.0 RC2 could coexist on the same machine. But they don't. Image display and CSS utilization goes awry. CPU utilization is high. Mozilla's quick loader cancels out the one for Netscape.

However, when I installed Mozilla on a system without Netscape, I could only see one bug: Named anchors without an href got the CSS a:hover setting applied when hovering, even though that shouldn't happen.

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[Anonymous Coward]

I could only see one bug: Named anchors without an href got the CSS a:hover setting applied when hovering, even though that shouldn't happen.

Um, actually that's supposed to happen. a:hover applies to all <a> elements. If you want it to only apply to the elements with an href attribute, your CSS selector needs to be a[href]:hover

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[OklaKid]

i rather have mozilla than Netscape anyway, it does not have the AOL crapware & that SmartUpdate...

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[bunratty]

Named anchors without an href got the CSS a:hover setting applied when hovering, even though that shouldn't happen.

According to bug 143676, Mozilla has this right. It's all the other browsers that have it wrong.

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[rabidcow]

Except that breaks IE because IE doesn't support attribute selectors.

Maybe a:link:hover and a:visited:hover?

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[Anonymous Coward]

Technicality is not always a higher value than compatibility with the rest of the whole freakin' world. What's the point of a hover setting for a link-less anchor?

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[Qwaniton]

Did you report the bug?

Re:Still incompatible with Netscape 6.x

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Tim Berners Lee got it wrong. Having the same tag for links and anchors was stoopid, as this bug proves.

Plugin support is still broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Plugin (java, flash, shockwave) support is still broken for the most of latfroms.

Either no way to install plugin, or it will crash your browser.

By the way, be careful with all that XUL stuff. It's another way to crash your browser.

I think, Mozilla is still only for old-fashioned HTML sites. It has great ideas (XUL is the best of them!), but it's still just for hackers.

Anyway, great job! Hope that Mozilla 2.0 will be less hacker-oriented :)

Slowness

[Trevin]

I normally use Communicator 4.78, but I tried RC1 a few days ago after reading a recent review of web browsers for Linux.

It has a number of new features (relative to Communicator) that I like, and I like the layout better than Netscape 6. I didn't get to do much testing for reliability on many web sites, though, because it has one major shortcoming:

It's dismally slow!

Granted, I didn't use a stopwatch on it, but it felt like mozilla was taking 1.5-2 times as long to respond to user actions as Communicator does. I don't think I lasted an hour before my patience wore out. I've gone back to Communicator.

What are the odds of speeding up mozilla's responsiveness in the future?

Re:Slowness

[bunratty]

What are the odds of speeding up mozilla's responsiveness in the future?

100%. Mozilla generally gets faster and uses less memory with each milestone. The biggest speed problem is actually RAM usage -- if your computer is low on RAM Mozilla will cause lots of disk swapping. I'd recommend at least 128 MB of physical RAM for decent performance for now.

Polos

[macdaddy]

I'd rather have a Polo than a T. I could wear that to work then.

Yes - it can cause Win2K to BSOD - Re:Odd problems

[Malc]

RC1 has been causing the BSOD on my machine. There's a discussion in the group news://news.mozilla.org/netscape.public.mozilla.wi n32 - look for a thread started on the 4th May entitled "Win2000 system crashes with 2002050306-1.0 branch?". My contribution is here: news://news.mozilla.org/3CD6E0F6.C4C33025%40yahoo. com

There is also a bug on it. The bug has been marked as INVALID because the powers that be deemed it impossible for Mozilla to crash Win2K. If it's valid to your situatiom, please comment on it, and perhaps it will get re-opened.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Just to keep us more informed

[Anonymous Coward]

MozillaZine hasn't been updated very frequently lately.

Redrawing Bug Re: Yes - it can cause Win2K to BSOD

[bunratty]

It's possible that the BSOD bug is related to the bug on the screen redrawing problem in bug 133132. If Mozilla stops redrawing part of its windows or images turn black-and-white before Win 2K crashes, it's probably due to bug 133132.

Re:Yes - it can cause Win2K to BSOD - Re:Odd probl

[David Gerard]

"There is also a bug on it [mozilla.org]. The bug has been marked as INVALID because the powers that be deemed it impossible for Mozilla to crash Win2K."

Er, no. I was the reporter of that bug and I marked it as invalid because it happened to me on one day and hasn't happened since, and I hadn't received confirmation of it happening for others.

I have just reopened the bug and it is now back to 'UNCONFIRMED' because, er, it is so far :-) Out of memory conditions aren't the bug I reported.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1422 57

OT: Lameness filter rant

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

You have to put the url in, slashdots crudbuster wouldn't let me post the complete addy.

This brings up a good question....Why is /. stil using the lameness filter? I don't post that many posts, but I have encountered the lameness far too may times, and I have read so many comments that have complained about the lameness filter.

You see, the idea of the lamness filter, is to filter out lame comments. The reason for this is to improve the quality and usefulness of the /. forums....Right?
OK, sounds great. But don't you think it's time to trash an idea when it starts to become the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do? That being the fact that it's stopping people posting good comments.

As far as I can see. The lameness it doing more harm than good. I have yet to see a troll post in atleast a year (while browsing at score:2). But I have seen plenty of people pissed off with the lameness filter. It's lame, and should really be filtering it's self out IHMO.

I Corret myself

[acebone]

No-no-no that's not the way you spell it! I spells 'correct' and why the capitol C ?

The quick 'IFrame in Layer move' test I did when I wrote this response was not carried out on RC2 but in fact RC1. Which, to be constructive and positive about it,only goes to show that RC1 is almost as good as RC2, can't wait to see 0.98 :)

And the reason it had to think a lot when moving the layer was actually a javascript recursion error - my fault, not Mozillas. Now *I* have to think :!

no, but

[Reality Master 201]

the tube shaped callouses on my palms are thick enough to stop bullets. Almost like a super power, but stickier.

I can't use the save function in RC2

[Daveykins]

Looks like I'll be waiting for RC3 to make the upgrade. In RC2 all save functions are disabled, which is a vital function for my use. I wonder how the Lizard dudes let that slip.

Back and Forward permanently unhighlighted.

[cathryn]

Is this just me? When I upgraded my .99 to 1.0pre2, the Back button and the Forward button became permanently unhighlighted. Nothing I do seems to bring them back or make them show up.

Re:Back and Forward permanently unhighlighted.

[bunratty]

Sounds like bug 143602. Needless to say, the vast majority of Mozilla users do not experience this bug!

Automated installation of Flash and Java plugins:

[jonasj]

http://mazinger.technisys.com.ar/pruebas-nick/mozi lla/

There is a unstripped Linux nightly...

[Sits]

Take a look at The nightly directory. Inside it you will find mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz which is a nightly build with talkback enabled and it's not stripped. I'm guessing you haven't seen it because of the strange filename...

Re:Better story about Pipelining

[IncohereD]

Links to bugzilla from slashdot have been disabled, so it's best to avoid including them in your posts.

Cheers,

First Mozilla party t-shirt

[driehuis]

I've got the commemorative T-Shirt *and* CD from the first Mozilla party. The CD, of course, is for history only. It does remind me of how far it has come in the mean time...

The t-shirt is gorgeous, black fabric, the industrial backdrop with the star, and the text "Mozilla party member".

Both are prized trophys!

FUCK!

[Anonymous Coward]

lozxdgfxmcfnhusvnkswtilnywctnytanyilnlticsgrksrawr avaebtebthul;sebthul;sebthul;sbthulsebthul;btbtuls btbtsbtsebtsebtsebtsebtbtzvmkl;ct4lscnhusejwas$UIa wvfrnza,lsefkDJIsgm,zmskgumi c,smuetnrq2eu4cg5ykh;a68kiwugt5husgmvchyuncuawnkov 6aihl;aw.