Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla RC3 Released

pjdepasq was one of many reader to submit the news that "Those fine folks at Mozilla.org rolled out RC3 on Thursday I noted. They say it's the last planned release before 1.0, which I'm guessing is right around the corner. As a fan of the project (I'm using it on 3 platforms!), kudos to all of you!" Here are the release notes.

492 comments

  1. 1.0 Release by nervlord1 · · Score: 1

    For those of you getting pissed off about a 1.0 release, dont worry, not much longer, there even planning the parties
    (i wish i could go, but no ones having one in perth ,what about in the spirit of computer-ness they have a LAN party?)

    --
    Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
    1. Re:1.0 Release by VisMono · · Score: 1

      Planning the parties? Lame. Get the release out the door and see how people react to it first, do your party later.

      --
      'There is great chaos under heaven, and the situation is excellent.'
    2. Re:1.0 Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey

      we don,t need a reaon to party here in perth...

    3. Re:1.0 Release by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Then start your own :-)
      http://www.schnitzer.at/mozparty/

      21 already in progress...

      Gerv

    4. Re:1.0 Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey Gerv, you owe me $200, you don't use my whores without paying. Pay me.

    5. Re:1.0 Release by bafu · · Score: 1

      Planning the parties? Lame. Get the release out the door and see how people react to it first, do your party later.

      Ship parties aren't about hugging yourself by celebrating how much everyone loves your product. That, IMHO, would be lame. By the time you can really know how people liked your old release, you should already be working on the next, not having a party. Ship parties are a way for the developers to blow off steam and to celebrate all the hard work that is involved in getting the thing out the door. The first 1.x release on such a large project is a huge milestone, and I congratulate them.

      I'm also a happy user of the browser. I love the tabbed browsing, the javascript controls, and all that jazz. About the only thing I don't like is the file selector, which is roughly as lame as your suggestion (I can't type a path in and use tab completion. I can't make a new directory in it when saving, either).

    6. Re:1.0 Release by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Gah! Two parties in Canada, and they're both in Ontario!! Somebody want to start one a little closer to Saskatoon than Toronto? Toronto and Hamilton are both really bad drives from Saskatoon. How about Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg?

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    7. Re:1.0 Release by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Concerning the file selector: it would indeed help if it had the things you mentioned. HOWEVER, I think mozilla's file selector is about ten million times better than gnome or KDE's. Mozilla's is simple, compact, stretchable. Ever tried dealing with MP3s with 30-character long names using the gnome file selector? It's basically impossible. I forget which, but one of them didn't have a home button either. And the layout was about the least space-efficient possible!
      They could definetly stand to take mozilla's file selector with some minor modifications/additions.

    8. Re:1.0 Release by bafu · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... you are right about that. The moz one has a single display pane w/resizable fields. The one that comes with pan (I assume it's the gtk lib file browser) is fine for me, but is not so hot for your long filename problem. You can make the whole thing wider but it splits the space evenly between directories and filenames, so you don't get that much bang for the buck. The one I get w/Konqueror (I assume that's the KDE lib one) doesn't seem so bad since you can resize the file pane to take up most of the popup.

    9. Re:1.0 Release by nikhil_g · · Score: 1

      I can't make a new directory in it when saving, either

      This is added in the nightlies( atleast on Linux), which are technically the 1.0.0+ branch.

      --
      #include
  2. In other news... by GiorgioG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...The Mozilla crew sneezed today. Come on folks - it's just another build with "RC3" tacked onto the name. Yes, it's good that it's nearing "completion" or whatever that means in software terms.

  3. Mac OS X version... by jasenko · · Score: 0

    ... just as bloated as all previous versions. I like rendering speed, tabbed browsing but something has to be done in bloating department. I haven't tested this version thoroughly so I can't comment much on that other options, but I was a little dissapointed when I saw there was no debugging code in this release and it is still as slow as before.

    1. Re:Mac OS X version... by SimonKeogh · · Score: 5, Interesting


      Bloated? A ten meg download that includes browser, mail, news, irc client? And I don't know what machine you are using, but Moz is as snappy as anything else on my computer. I'm sorry, but nothing about this excellent peice of software seems bloated or slow to me. This is by far the best web browser I've ever used IMHO.

    2. Re:Mac OS X version... by SimonKeogh · · Score: 1


      Oh, damn it. I didn't see the Mac OSX title, I only read the body of your text. I was of course talking about the windows version on my Duron 950.

    3. Re:Mac OS X version... by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      Moz is way the heck less bloated in "complete" form than any similar browser package is.

      And if you want slim and streamlined with all the rendering speed of Gecko checkout Galeon.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    4. Re:Mac OS X version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you want slim and streamlined with all the rendering speed of Gecko checkout Galeon

      Not to start a war or anything, but can we please stop throwing in Galeon whenever Mozilla's beefy size is mentioned?

      Don't get me wrong, I like Galeon, but bloat isn't all about running speed. It's the amount of disk space it takes up, and other things it starts running in order to work.

      What I'm saying is, on some of my boxes, I prefer to have a simple desktop with Mozilla running rather than install all the GNOME stuff (filling up my hard drive) and have gconfd and oafd and icazad running when I just want to view a web page.

      In that sense, Mozilla is less bloated than Galeon.

      MKS

    5. Re:Mac OS X version... by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

      Redundant, I know. But if you want the speed of gecko, with quartz-rendering and tabbed browsing too, you can do worse than use Chimera.

      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
    6. Re:Mac OS X version... by trezor · · Score: 1

      And even then it's as quick as anything else on your PC? You gotta be using slow software.
      Opera [opera.com] has -great- rendering speed. And tabbed browsing which I love :)

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    7. Re:Mac OS X version... by Morky · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and once I even saw Opera render a page properly.

    8. Re:Mac OS X version... by BiggyP · · Score: 1

      the Linux and win32 builds are supper fast in comparison to the Seamonkey days, and as fast as IE at least, and thats on my Celeron500, even faster of course are Galeon (GTK) and K-Meleon (win32) both based on the same mozilla rendering engine.

    9. Re:Mac OS X version... by trezor · · Score: 1

      It did actually get alot better in version 6... but some pages, and I've encountered one (-1-), doesn't render properly. And for the defence... It renders more pages properly than Netscape 4.x :)

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    10. Re:Mac OS X version... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      And that browser (NS 4.x) is how old?

      Chris

    11. Re:Mac OS X version... by mab · · Score: 1

      But to run Galeon you have to have mozilla installed
      so thats more disc space uesd

    12. Re:Mac OS X version... by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      lol OH NO! No 20 MEGA-bytes od space used. Whatever shall I do!

      Ummm...does this minor amount of space really matter on any system built in the last 7 years?

      I mean I was horrified that Wing Commander II used 5MB of drive space. But at the time that was 1/4 of the drive space on my 20MB 386 notebook's HDD.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    13. Re:Mac OS X version... by iapetus · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you already know this, but just to clarify the matter, Mozilla has tabbed browsing too.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    14. Re:Mac OS X version... by Rentar · · Score: 2

      I love Mozilla and use it exclusively at work, but I still have to say, that it's somewhat bloated (it got much better, but it's still bad). This bloat is not bad code or lazy programmers, but by design. A Product that works exactly the same on all platform has to be either very small or bloated. Mozilla has choosen to go the second way. They build an entire Toolkit with an XML-UI-Description language. This Toolkit works on Windows, Solaris, Linux, MacOS (Classic), Mac OS X, HP-UX, FreeBSD, QNX, BeOS and <insert-your-favourite-OS-here-except-if-it-is- CP/M>. This is very, very hard to do in a small & non-bloated way. Luckily I have a sufficiently fast PC to be able to use it nevertheless, the only time the Mozilla-Bloat still hits me is after long periods of not using Mozilla (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76831 for details).

    15. Re:Mac OS X version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloated?

      Now that MS IE is part of the OS it takes about 200MB just to get the Windows default web browser running.

      *That's* bloat.

    16. Re:Mac OS X version... by King+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      It's fast at simple pages. But try saving a 300 comment nested view slashdot page locally, and then view that in Opera or Mozilla. Opera will take _much_ longer to render that page than Mozilla or IE (Mozilla is the undisputed king of rendering speed - it's the interface that's sluggish)

  4. Netscape 7 by mbrix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, Netscape 7 will be based on that. I really hope reviewers, developers and users will take a new view on Netscape so Netscape can gain some of the lost market share. I'm tired of seeing websites which simply don't care about Netscape/Mozilla support...

    And don't start saying "hey, I don't need Netscape, I want plain Mozilla!". You're right, but Netscape is for (l)users. If Netscape 7 has success, you'll also have more luck surfing the internet with your Mozilla browser.

    By the way, MozillaZine is also a great source of information for Mozilla-fans.

    1. Re:Netscape 7 by oever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless AOL really starts using Gecko or Linux becomes bit, there's no big chance of Mozilla regaining the market share Netscape lost.

      It's just too easy for people to use Internet Explorer. Then there's the issue of embrace and extend: it's easy for M$ to implement the same standards as Mozilla. Then they just add a few new features that are not in the standards, but in all the tools to make webpages M$ sells. And people will feel obliged to use IE.

      A few things could help (highly theoretical): lawsuits, ranting users, OSS breakthrough.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    2. Re:Netscape 7 by visualight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And don't start saying "hey, I don't need Netscape, I want plain Mozilla!". You're right, but Netscape is for (l)users. If Netscape 7 has success, you'll also have more luck surfing the internet with your Mozilla browser.

      Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer. The installer gives you a choice of one or the other and if you pick netscape it says it couldn't find it. So I install netscape, install the plugin, then copy the files to my mozilla folder.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    3. Re:Netscape 7 by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Informative

      AOL is using gecko. AOL 7 was switched to gecko, thats also why netscape 6.5 was renamed 7.0

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    4. Re:Netscape 7 by cybermage · · Score: 2

      Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer. The installer gives you a choice of one or the other and if you pick netscape it says it couldn't find it. So I install netscape, install the plugin, then copy the files to my mozilla folder.

      You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. You could either link Netscape to Mozilla or link your Netscape Plugins directory to your Mozilla Plugins directory. If you do it right, you should be able to select Netscape and have it automatically drop into Mozilla instead.

    5. Re:Netscape 7 by ozzimark · · Score: 0

      no, they haven't switched the public version yet, but they have something called aol 7.0 refresh II that is integrated with netscape gecko.
      what's really odd though is that i've always thought aol owned mozilla, but i'm probably wrong...

      --
      C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg
    6. Re:Netscape 7 by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer.
      The Mozilla PluginDoc project was created to help Mozilla users with installing their plugins. Go to that website to get instructions on how to install your favorite plug-in without needing Netscape.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    7. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a Chance, Mozilla is missing tons of stuff that IE has been prefered for. It might gain a little bit ground. It is good for unix users who have been using NN 4.x. For windows users, I doubt masses will move to Mozilla from IE. I like mozilla for example but I always use IE on windows.

    8. Re:Netscape 7 by aengblom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Above is incorrect). AOL 7 is NOT using gecko. AOL is testing gecko with a version of AOL 7, but the 2x million AOL members are still using IE.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    9. Re:Netscape 7 by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      AOL started Mozilla, and they provide funding and support to mozilla, in turn they get a good browser. But mozilla was given its freedom a long time ago. If AOL completly dumped mozilla, it could continue on its own, mainly because a few other companies like SUN are contributing money to it too. Though it would be hurt badly, its not "owned" per say.

    10. Re:Netscape 7 by mattbee · · Score: 3, Funny

      AOL is using gecko. AOL 7 was switched to gecko, thats also why netscape 6.5 was renamed 7.0

      And surely not because IE is 'only' at major version 6, and a version 7 browser has got to be better than a version 6 browser. I'm sure nobody in Netscape's marketing department would stoop to making such a facile point :-)

      --
      Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    11. Re:Netscape 7 by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of seeing websites which simply don't care about Netscape/Mozilla support...

      Heh, that's funny. I'm tired of seeing websites which do care about specific browser support.

      Having made a few websites and web apps myself, I have to say, I just don't have the time (or the will) to worry about how to break from the standards and make a website only work with Netscape or IE. The default, easiest thing to do, is to make sites that with any browser.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice thought, but unfortunately there's certain sites (particularly financial ones) where for some reason they are very concerned about specific browser support.

      On some level this makes sense -- they need to do what they can to ensure that cookie and password handling is correct to keep their systems secure. But most of it is just paranoia and control instinct.

      Good luck convincing them of Any Browser -- I don't see it happening. You could however convince them that Netscape 6+/Mozilla is a popular enough platform that it's worth supporting.

    13. Re:Netscape 7 by Khalid · · Score: 3, Informative

      AOL didn't start Mozilla. The Mozilla project has been started mainly thanks to Jamie Zawinsky Eric Raymond efforts, prior to the AOL take of Netscape.

    14. Re:Netscape 7 by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "It's just too easy for people to use Internet Explorer."

      And some people like me have the opposite problem. Here at the office I am in 100% Microsoft World and I will get in deep trouble if I install another browser on my system. [I will be downloading MozRC3 tonight at home of course.] I suspect that a significant chunk of the MSIE market share comes from people like me.

      Catbert: "The longer you verk here, diverse it gets!"

    15. Re:Netscape 7 by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "So I install netscape, install the plugin, then copy the files to my mozilla folder."

      "You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. "

      This person is using windows. Notice that they say 'folder' as opposed to 'directory' . I find it kind of interesting that you can tell how long ago a person becaue acquainted with computers because if it was post-1994, they say 'folder' because that term became mainstream with Win95. (And rare is the post-1995 user who started on *nix.) Before that, the directories were called directories.

    16. Re:Netscape 7 by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Your right, sorry netscape and aol are all a blur to me latly. Watch out as I next try to claim that AOL created Mosaic (spelling?)

    17. Re:Netscape 7 by Cyno · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure it had nothing to do with how bad a reputation Netscape 6.x got from AOL marketting's poor choice on release dates. If they had release mozilla 1.0 as Netscape 6.0 everyone would think of Netscape differently today. We would perceive it as something new and useful instead of something old and buggy.

    18. Re:Netscape 7 by cybermage · · Score: 3, Informative
      "You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. "

      This person is using windows.

      Windows makes symlinking of folders very obscure, but not impossible. (If anyone knows a faster way to do this under Windows 9x, feel free to follow up):
      1. Using Windows Explorer, locate the item or folder to which you want to link.
      2. Right click the item and select "Send to" then "Desktop." This will create a shortcut to the item and drop it on the desktop.
      3. Go to the desktop and right click the new shortcut. Select "Cut" from the list.
      4. Return to Windows Explorer and locate the folder in which you'd like to place the symlink.
      5. Paste the shortcut into the folder and rename it.


      Follow these steps, and you have a fully functional symlink to a folder. It's way easier with normal files. Seems Microsoft never imagined putting folder shortcuts anywhere but the desktop and start menu. But, the desktop and start menu are just file system folders at the end of the day.
    19. Re:Netscape 7 by KillerKane · · Score: 1

      >>This person is using windows. Notice that they say 'folder' as opposed to 'directory'>>

      Not necessarily. The term "folder' predates Windows 95 by many years on the Mac.

      --
      There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. -- Oscar Levant
    20. Re:Netscape 7 by ipfwadm · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't going to be solved by a symlink, because plugin distributions for Windows generally aren't of the tar.gz format where you just extract the plugin lib, and put it in your plugins directory. For Windows it generally comes with some sort of installation software that is of the "I know better than you do, so if I can't find Netscape I'm not going to let you have the plugin files" type. If you don't have anything to symlink to, there's not much you can do.

    21. Re:Netscape 7 by cybermage · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't going to be solved by a symlink

      Actually, I only said it could save him a step. Currently, he has Netscape installed and adds plug-ins to it and then copies the files. He could remove the netscape plugin directory and replace it with a link to the mozilla plugin directory.

      Depending on how these programs look for netscape, other things might be possible; but all I offered is a suggestion to skip a step.

    22. Re:Netscape 7 by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Follow these steps, and you have a fully functional symlink to a folder. It's way easier with normal files."

      Interesting. I've been doing that for years but I never considered that it was a symlink because you can't do "cd mylink" at the commandline level (at least I think you can't) because the 'link' is really just a file.

    23. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as bad as going from Windows 3.1 directly to Windows 95.

      Whatever happened to the 92 points releases in between?

      Is anyone running Windows 72?

    24. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I don't think Mozilla is quite a full version level ahead of IE, but it's certainly got more features than IE 6.

      - most complete css2 implementation anywhere
      - fully supports transparent png
      - mathml
      - all the features "stolen" from opera
      - the crapload of stuff on the "tools" menu
      - http pipelining

      It's got the stuff.

    25. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a symlink but a "shortcut", which is Explorer's workaround for the fact that native Windows filesystems can't support symlinks. You can use Explorer's API to find out what pathname a shortcut points to, but you can't fopen() a pathname with a shortcut in it and expect the shortcut to be followed, so you won't fool an installer.

    26. Re:Netscape 7 by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      Last night I downloaded and installed Mozilla Build 2002051009, rc2. I'll get rc3 and install it tonight. I downloaded Netscape 7 for Windows, and found it it be very fast on this 200 mhz 128 mb machine. I tried Netscape 7 for Linux, (RHL 7.1), but could not get it to run after installation. The installer said the install was successful, and the install log did not disclose anything that would lead me to the reason why it won't run. I have installed lots of netscape tarballs, and all of them run ok, except for when I tried Netscape 1.22 on a RHL 6.1 machine. Opera also installs very easily from a tarball. Mozilla is pretty much the same thing as Netscape 7 I suppose, so I am not out much by not getting NS7 to run. The Windows experience was so positive, I will always wonder if NS7 is a bit faster, etc. than Mozilla.

    27. Re:Netscape 7 by visualight · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I actually stopped dual booting almost a year ago and do not have any windows boxes at home or office. But I did say "folder" and not directory, perhaps because I first turned on a computer in 1997.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    28. Re:Netscape 7 by cybermage · · Score: 2

      I've been doing that for years but I never considered that it was a symlink because you can't do "cd mylink" at the commandline level (at least I think you can't) because the 'link' is really just a file.

      I tested the first time using the browse feature of the Save window. It went right across the link, and the file was saved on the other side.

      You are right, however: you cannot 'cd' across it. Seems Windows knows what to do, but good old DOS just sees a file. I guess it's not fully functional. I wonder if this works under XP. I have typed some Linux commands at an XP prompt and have been surprised to see them working (e.g., netstat), but I haven't tried ln. Maybe someone with access to XP will chime in here...

    29. Re:Netscape 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mozilla is missing tons of stuff that IE has been prefered for.

      Like popup advertisements? :-)

    30. Re:Netscape 7 by doug363 · · Score: 3, Informative
      As has been said before, that's a shortcut, which does have to be interpreted on a program-by-program basis. Microsoft says that programs should follow them, but you can't type a complete path with a shortcut in it, and many programs don't support them as they should. By the way, you can also make a shortcut from one folder to another by right-dragging the target folder to the source folder in explorer, and choosing "create shortcut here" from the menu that appears. Then rename the shortcut if you want.

      On systems with NTFS v5 and above (i.e. Windows 2000 and XP), there is a symlink capability -- it's called a "reparse point". Microsoft calls them "junction points" when they're a symlink to a directory, and "volume mount points" when they're used to do something similar to Unix mounting (or the old DOS "join" command).

      They work quite well at the command line, but many programs written for Windows don't support them because they assume that a file can only have one name, for example. Or they don't correctly handle symlink loops, where a symlink in a directory refers to one of it's own parent directories. They're not very well documented or supported under Windows 2000 - you have to download some utilities from Microsoft or System Internals or someone - but they're better documented and supported under Windows XP from what I've heard.

    31. Re:Netscape 7 by King+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      Yes. It has go-faster stripes.

    32. Re:Netscape 7 by macosxaddict · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They could be using a Mac. Remember, Macs had folders long before Windows 95 came out.

    33. Re:Netscape 7 by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      all the features "stolen" from opera

      Heh. Except speed and small memory footprint... which are the whole point of Opera.

      Does anyone know if Mozilla has a low-memory (i.e. only-load-the-browser-not-the-whole-kitchen-sink) mode, or if one is planned?

    34. Re:Netscape 7 by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      Here at the office I am in 100% Microsoft World

      Can you provide me with some insight into the excuses IT/management people use to justify this? It doesn't make any sense to me, and I'd like to have my arguments ready for if it happens to me.

    35. Re:Netscape 7 by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      As an interesting side note, Workbench called them "drawers".

  5. Last planned release before release by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, yes. That's what RELEASE CANDIDATES are.

    Sheesh.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Last planned release before release by Kingpin · · Score: 1, Offtopic


      And suddenly I understand your 'ObviousGuy' handle.

      --
      Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
      Geocrawler error message.
  6. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the release that makes mozilla at least 50% the speed of IE?

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's a zillion times faster than IE6 running natively on Tru64, Solaris, AIX, Linux, and any BSD. Or was that NaN times faster? ;)

    2. Re:Hmm by Saloth+Sar · · Score: 0

      Why don't you use a real OS: Window XP.

    3. Re:Hmm by croanon · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha. Ree... Reeeeallll. Reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaal OS is XP shit? Hahahahahahahahahaha. Loosers attacking /. again!

      --
      Dear Bill, do you have a .net tatoo on your ass for marketing?
    4. Re:Hmm by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Mayhappen he doesn't want any GBSoD (Graphical Blue Screen of Death)... but as far as i know... the GBSoD are a myth and fud made by Microsoft competitors...

      But that is bad trading practices... right?

      Cheers...

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get out much, do you?

      *

  7. YAY MOZILLA! by buzzbomb · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mozilla makes me moist. I think it's that sexy green lizard...but it might be the ability to turn off pop-under ads.

    1. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually a red lizard.

    2. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get turned on by them pop-ups, pop-unders are a real nono. Worse than baseball.

      But them sexy, smooth, silky pop-ups; not even Natalie can compete with 'em.

    3. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by mocktor · · Score: 2, Funny

      mmmm, lizards baby

    4. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      You mean the sexy 'red' Leezard right?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    5. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, some bastard pop up ad people have already figured out a way around it. I was looking at foxtrot online (I live in Italy so these comics just aren't available in our newspapers) with my mozilla RC2 with open unrequested windows unchecked, and pow, a popunder. It has something to do with some of this code here:

      well the slashdot system won't let me post it, but if you want a look at it, have a look at the very bottom of the uclick pages right above the end body tag. copy the href and open it in a new tag.

      or I'll email it to you nick at mobilia dot it

      Maybe it's a bug, but I tried multiple times after a reboot, I restarted mozilla, etc, and this is the only site I've seen it on so far.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    6. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the splash screen lizard is green

    7. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by gnugnugnu · · Score: 2, Informative


      You really should report this to bugzilla
      http://bugzila.mozilla.org

      Some sites have made their pop up/under advertisements even more evil and force you to click on a combination link so that to get the page you want you are forced to display both pages.
      Other sites use timer mechanisms and other tricks to display the page.

      Be under no illusion this is an arms race. Advertisers and unscrupulous page designers will conitinue to abuse browser functionality and ram every nasty dirty trick down your thoat and Mozilla
      will continue to adapt (and some days you just really gotta appreciate lynx).

    8. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by selmer · · Score: 4, Informative
      Does the problem disappear when you add:

      user_pref("dom.disable_open_click_delay", 1000);

      From: the customizing mozilla-guide:

      When the dom.disable_open_click_delay pref is set to a non-zero number, window.open will fail when called more than that number of milliseconds after a mouse click.

    9. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking I've come across a more evil version of the pop-up, I did a search in the code, there were no window.open() calls there, and there were no window.open() calls in any of the pages that the javascript ad links called... It seems that the ad virus has adapted:)

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    10. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      You mean the sexy 'red' Leezard right?

      The one in the system tray is a bluish green (or is it greenish blue?), while the ones in all the taskbar buttons (I have 8 Mozilla windows open right now) are blue. Maybe it's really a chameleon.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    11. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Actually, some bastard pop up ad people have already figured out a way around it."

      I believe it is possible to totally shut down popups on a per-site basis. Go peruse the old release notes for previous builds. They explain it.

    12. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's a geko.

    13. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      All of these popup-blocking schemes are doomed to eventual failure. Why? Consider a site that wants to get past Mozilla's popup blocker. Right now most popups are spawned from a new page when it begins loading, so Mozilla blocks these. All a site has to do to get past this is add code to its links that pops up an ad window whenever a link is clicked on, in addition to loading the requested page. This behavior will be indistinguishable to Mozilla to the kind of popups you want, which are also popped up when you click on a link. This is why I am glad Netscape took popup blocking out of their releases - it might go under the radar of most web developers, allowing us Mozilla users to keep blocking popups for at least a while longer.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    14. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a kludge to cover up the fact that the onLoad blocker is half-implemented.

      Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feature -- but it's completely understandable Netscape left it out because from the user perspective it's broken and doesn't work right.

  8. Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Nailer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It uses native widgets. I.e., unlike a lot of other apps - eg, Microsoft's own Office XP - Mozilla actually uses Windows XP's `styles'. If you get rid of the GreyModern / Netscape 4 themes and replace them with the IE theme, Mozilla actually looks and acts like a rather pleasant and featurefilled native looking web browser for Win32. Without the security holes of IE, plus tabbing, popup control, and lots of other goodies IE doesn't have.

    1. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by pmsr · · Score: 2, Informative

      And without the speed of IE too. Honestly, Mozilla (and Netscape 6 for that matter), really redefine the concept of slow and bloated.

      /Pedro

    2. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      On all the Windows systems I run Mozilla on (debug code still in and everything) it runs as fast or faster than IE. Load times are slightly longer, but then again Moz is not built into the OS.

      And Gecko sure as hell renders faster than IE. What build did you last run?

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    3. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      *waits for slash's two minute timer to rundown so that people can flame before he corrects his last post*

      I should define "load times" better. I was not refering to render times. I meant the time it takes to launch the browser.

      IE wins here only because it is integrated into the OS.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    4. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by SimonKeogh · · Score: 0, Troll


      I don't find Moz any slower or bloated than IE. It's a hell of a lot more useable though.

      If it's too slow for you than by a Duron 950 like I did, they cost next to nothing.

    5. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by satanami69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Edit->Preferences
      Click on Advanced
      Click in Enable Quick Launch.
      Click ok.
      Now it'll load just as fast.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    6. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by pmsr · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's throw some brute force into the matter, like Microsoft always does. "Its slow? Not our fault. Upgrade." Sure. And i am also sure my laptop will be pretty pleased with the new Duron. To imagine i can even fry sausages with the heat it will generate ... yummy! Oh and the delightful sound of the cooling will be a nice touch onto the background silence. :)

      /Pedro

    7. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine if Linus had done that. no Linux today i bet

    8. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by SimonKeogh · · Score: 1


      I've been meaning to check out k-meleon again (http://www.kmeleon.org/) it's a native interface to Gecko. It would prolly be inline with IE speed, though I havent tried it for a while.

      Anyway, each to their own. I don't assume Mozilla is the best at everything.

    9. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by pmsr · · Score: 1

      That is a great idea. I have been meaning to try it out. Thanks for the reminder. :)

      /Pedro

    10. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if your going to run it on a slow and bloated OS like winXP you shouldn't be suprised if it's slow..Try it on linux, it's fast as hell..

    11. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Webz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are only partially correct. Mozilla does not and probably never will (in the near future) use native widgets for any OS because of (I think) XUL. Mozilla has its own rendering engine, controlled by JavaScript and style sheets. This allows for mucho customization, by web developers and users alike. It does not, however, earn any brownie points in usability.

      You are, however, correct in that Mozilla on XP inherits the visual style of XP's interface (anything Luna or Classic). But that's all. Mozilla does not inherit the accessibility features in XP. Should XP suddenly support a new input device for navigating sheets (or similar), Mozilla wouldn't have any part of it. The Mozilla team has had many a debate on how to mimic the keyboard shortcuts in Windows since none of the interface is native. For the majority of Windows users, however technical ye are, this is a moot point, because it just looks the same and does its job. This argument is most apparent in Mac OS X, an environment associated with pretty colors and UI guidelines provided by Apple. Many, many OS X users have not used Mozilla because it looks and functions like nothing on OS X. And of course, Linux users either don't care or don't have enough time/energy to choose a standard interface and then care. =)

      Mozilla, in all of its open source and standards-compliant glory, will always be a second-rate browser if not native to each platform of operation. Don't get me wrong, I love Mozilla to no end... I'd just like a native version. (See Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, Lynx, etc.)

      PS - I don't recall any version of Office using Windows's UI controls... Office always shipped with some new, bleeding edge control of its own, often to be reincarnated into the controls of the next version of Windows. Even Office XP, of all things, has no correlation to native Windows XP controls.

    12. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Nailer · · Score: 2

      *Sigh*. I think we're all aware that Mozilla is using XUL and that XUL is an alternative to real native widgets. I also think everybody that read the above comment was knew that by `use' XP vidual styles, I meant `inherit' Windows XP visual styles to the point most users wouldn't notice the difference between XUL and native.

    13. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Speed?

      Speed is a measure of time versus distance in a medium from one place/stage in the medium to another diferent place/stage...

      Please define what the medium is and what is the places/stages that you intend to quantify...

      Otherwise people can't comment your posts correctly!

      Cheers...

      P.S.- I've been using Mozilla since the laters .8 regulary and after the .9, Mozilla become my master browser. I'm a professional web developer... so you can figure it out... [i only use IE for those DHTML which are a must and mozilla can't cope yet - they aren't standard anyway].

    14. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by pubjames · · Score: 2

      And without the speed of IE too. Honestly, Mozilla (and Netscape 6 for that matter), really redefine the concept of slow and bloated.

      Are you using an old 486? It's works fine for me. The rendering is just as quick as IE, if not quicker.

    15. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Make · · Score: 1

      Mozilla 1.0rc3 runs just fine on my P II notebook with 266 MHz and 96 MB RAM. Feels somehow faster than netscape 4.77.

    16. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Quite on the contrary!

      I've got a dual boot Linux/WinXP computer at home. The Linux version of the Mozilla RC2 seems and feels sluggish whereas the WinXP version is really fast.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    17. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Morky · · Score: 1

      I hope you're just trolling. Netscape 6's speed is about where Mozilla was a year ago. Take the time out of your busy schedule and download a Mozilla release candidate. It's fast. Trust us.

    18. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you said it "uses native widgets." I don't know about you, but when I saw that, I thought you meant it uses native widgets. Oh well, I guess I assume too much.

    19. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by gnugnugnu · · Score: 3, Informative

      > I love Mozilla to no end... I'd just like a native version. (See Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, Lynx, etc

      I read that sentence it is a bit misleading, if you want a "native mozilla" rather than just a native browser check out the following gecko based browsers (gecko, the mozilla rendering engine).

      For windows Try K-meleon
      k-meleon.sf.net
      windows look and feel, gecko rendering engine

      For Mac see Fizilla: or, for the boring, "Mozilla for MacOS X"
      http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/

      This page is quite informative
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/distr os.html
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/embedding /examples / ndex.html

    20. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2

      Even simpler, open Mozilla Mail at startup (add a shortcut to your startup folder), and leave it open, minimized. New browser windows will open just as fast as with quick launch. Basically, quick launch opens a hidden window, and then just sits there anyway.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    21. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by DrXym · · Score: 2
      That's a matter of some debate. For me, Mozilla runs at a perfectly acceptable speed, both rendering pages and the UI itself.


      I can't say I find it any more bloated than running IE and Outlook for instance.

    22. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go O brainwashed one. Do you feel supirior as well knowing that your ultra quix browser has all those security bugs :P Like microsoft turned over all the API's :P Oh ya microsoft won that lawsuit too :P Hope your proud :p

    23. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Having run IE & mozilla RC3 alongside each other & doing tests I found mozilla to be quicker.

    24. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XUL is a layout language. It doesn't have anything to do with how the controls look or what controls it uses.

      XUL could just as well slap down windows controls as opposed to XBL controls (It does in some cases too).

      The reason they don't use standard windows controls is the ones that are defined using XBL are stylable via CSS.

      XBL defines the layout of the buttons... for example, XBL is the language which says on a windows scroll bar one arrow goes at the top, one arrow goes at the bottom, and a thumb control goes in the middle.

      XUL tells mozilla where to place that scrollbar in the window.

    25. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Avumede · · Score: 1

      That only solves half the problem. So the UI is native, but the buttons / input fields / combo boxes etc on web pages are still not. So on Mac OS X, a browser like OmniWeb, which is fully native, will always look better than Chimera (the Mac OS X specific Mozilla).

    26. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried Chimera? The controls are native, or a good enough simulation that I can't tell the difference.

      There's still the question of how one maps CSS properties onto a blue gumdrop button, etc.

    27. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by astrosmash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That only solves half the problem. So the UI is native, but the buttons / input fields / combo boxes etc on web pages are still not.
      Buttons, input fields, and combo boxes on web pages can never be native widgets, for two reasons:
      • You can't apply CSS to native widgets. (border colors and sizes, onHover and onFocus styles, etc)
      • You can't control the z-order; native widgets will always be on top of all rendered content.
      That's why mozilla and IE render their own controls, and I'm sure Opera will some day, too. (I've never used OmniWeb, so I can't say anything about that)
      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    28. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by WowTIP · · Score: 2

      But then again...

      Maybe I think that it is more than enough to have one browser preloaded when windows boots. If that is the case it might seem even more unnecessary to me to have two browsers preloaded at startup?

      Hm... If I could only get Moz preloaded and not IE. *sigh*

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    29. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Jungle+guy · · Score: 0, Troll
      And IE redefines the terms "instable" and "buggy". It is a horrible piece of software, that crashes everytime. And when it crashes, it brings the whole OS down, forcing you to reboot. If your are lucky, your unsaved documents won't be lost. And let's not start to mention the security holes in IE - every month six new security problems are discovered.

      I have 128 MB RAM and Mozilla is pretty solid and stable, in Windows I use RC02 and in Linux I use 0.98.

    30. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by scrytch · · Score: 3, Informative

      XUL is merely a nifty declarative way to construct GUIs. There's java implementations of it as well, and there's really no reason XUL couldn't be used to build native GUIs. The fact that Mozilla's XUL currently only targets the gecko engine is simply a consequence of the implementation -- it should be quite possible to make it render into native widgets and have them control mozilla "from the outside" through some sort of COM/XPCOM adaptor. But they really have no reason to -- end users are getting used to applications like mp3 players and the like that look and feel nothing at all close to "standard" -- witness RealPlayer, or even MS's latest windows media player on non-XP systems, for example.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    31. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by nil_null · · Score: 1

      And IE redefines the terms "instable" and "buggy". It is a horrible piece of software, that crashes everytime. And when it crashes, it brings the whole OS down

      I used to feel the same way, but that was when I was running Win98se. Under Win2000 SP2 I've had almost no problems. However under 98se (and probably 95 and ME), IE crashes all over the place, I never ran IE until I switched to Win2k and realized it wasn't that bad.

      I'm trying out RC3 right now. I do like where Mozilla is going.

    32. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      How would i delete the themes in linux? and would i want to, or would it use native X widgets (crapwidgets)?

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    33. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by jtdubs · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Keep talking tough guy. Someone will believe you.

      There's nothing in CSS that would not permit it to be processed in to code in a dynamically interpreted language. Say Python. Using say TCL.

      Or hell, just turn the css + html into C, call the compiler, make it a dynamically loadable library, load it, and use it to render. Yes, this is a dumb idea, but it's just one very obvious way of turning it into native widgets.

      There are many better ways which don't involve the compile/load step, which would be very simple with any dynamic language.

      Anyone who has the attitude that anything will "never" be possible is full of shit.

      Or are you saying that it is beyond the scope of a turning machine to do this kind of thing? In which case you are also wrong.

      Just shut the fuck up and sit down and let daddy do the work for you you incompetant bafoon.

      Dubs

    34. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      sadly, this produces a delay at startup time... It may have something to do with the fact that I use a P4, but I prefer not to use quicklaunch... (plus I get a happy splash screen.

    35. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by dustym · · Score: 0

      Nice troll, but you are obviously an idiot.

      BTW, I hope you meant Turing machine.

    36. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two questions:

      1. Which distro of Linux are you running? That may make a difference.

      2. Which distro of XP are you running? That makes another difference.

    37. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "turning machine"?

      Is this like a butter churn?

      Aside from grammar, spelling, and common courtesy, is there anything else you can't do?

    38. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by JohnKrasnay · · Score: 1
      Or hell, just turn the css + html into C, call the compiler, make it a dynamically loadable library, load it, and use it to render. Yes, this is a dumb idea, but it's just one very obvious way of turning it into native widgets.
      In your zeal to flame the guy, you totally misunderstood what he said. The point was that native widgets do their own rendering, and you have very little control over how that's done. Sure you could draw a control based on CSS properties, but then it's no longer native, is it?
      you incompetant bafoon
      LOL, you misspelled the entire insult! jk
    39. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1
      Let me get this straight: I say that IE is pretty damn unstable and buggy. You reply: "I agree, change your OS to Win 2k".

      Wouldn't it be easier to change the browser to Mozilla (or Netscape, or Opera)? I had Win 98 pre-instaled in my computer and I can't delete that partition and migrate 100% to Linux, so I will keep Win 98, avoid paying MS an update and use Mozilla instead of IE. It's easier and cheaper!

    40. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by superyooser · · Score: 1
      You can get rid of the splash screen by adding a flag to your shortcut like this:

      "C:\Program Files\Mozilla\bin\mozilla.exe" -nosplash

      I think -quiet also works.

    41. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by psamuels · · Score: 1
      and after the .9, Mozilla become my master browser.

      Would that be your local master browser, or your domain master browser? (:

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    42. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by nil_null · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: I say that IE is pretty damn unstable and buggy. You reply: "I agree, change your OS to Win 2k".

      Nowhere in my message did I say "change your OS." All I was saying is that IE isn't universally unstable, with the right OS it is very stable. Nor did I say you shouldn't use Mozilla. By all means, use it! Its a great browser, I use it in Linux, and if I was somehow forced to use Win98 (IMHO a truly awful OS) I'd probably be using Mozilla on it as well.

      My main point is: IE isn't unstable, Win98 is!

    43. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      my name is october and im here to say
      im a communist and im gay
      im looking for some handouts if you give me some
      if you dont mind giving it to a bum
      call the number on the screen!
      i may act like a pussy but in BED im mean

      my name october-communist, and im at the drums
      im looking for some sex amongst the bums
      fuck you you COMMUNIST TERROR SUPPORTING SHIT.

  9. Any ideas as to when... by gusnz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...the DHTML performance will increase?

    The current series has a bad bug in DHTML animation performance that I've noticed -- performance regressed in the 0.97 -> 0.98 release, and ever since then rapid animations etc. have often not rendered correctly.

    Read through the bugzilla entry there -- apparently some experimental builds have 450% increased JavaScript animation speed, some test are linked to try it out yourself. Does anyone more in touch with the Moz project internals than I have an idea as to when this will be integrated with the main branch of the code -- I heard 1.01 was the target a while back?

    I say this as Moz is looking more and more likely to turn up on user's desktops as part of AOL/Compuserve/whatever as they escape from MS's browser licensing terms. Bugs in release candidates are fine (that's what they're there for) but if mass-market NS7 has shortfalls like these, it could spell trouble for JavaScript developers like me.

    Anyway, more power to the Mozilla project! It's good to see a truly free, standards compliant, cross-platform browser out there. Looking back a year, I wonder what it'll be like in a year's time...

    1. Re:Any ideas as to when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patch you are talking about is currently in the Trunk builds, so it will be in the first release after 1.0.

      But, even with the patch, DHTML is still pretty slow. They've got a few more optimizations to do.

    2. Re:Any ideas as to when... by BZ · · Score: 2

      The "experimental" stuff has landed on the trunk. That happened two weeks ago. That means it will be in Mozilla 1.1. It may or may not be in 1.0.1, depending.

    3. Re:Any ideas as to when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed in Mozilla (I always use nightly builds) some pages chew up A LOT of CPU. They're not GIF animations or anything else, you don't even need to be scrolling. My machine was running slow one day nd I took a look at the task list to see what it was, and I was almost shocked to see it was Mozilla. Weird... it just seemed to be a pretty normal page.

  10. Mozilla will make it.. by spacefight · · Score: 1

    .. at least in my team I'm working in. I already convinced one guy with the no-more-unwanted-pop-up-windows-feature (kicks ass) and two other will have a glance at my mozilla installation because I told them horror-stories about dialers etc which are mostly spread trough IE (the crap). Hopefully, the whole company will switch to Mozilla (I doubt it but anyway) sooner or later. what about mozilla in your companies anyway? already in office pc setups included?

    1. Re:Mozilla will make it.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      As far as I know they've already figured away around the no popups, unless it's a bug... It's like a game of chess, move/counter move..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Mozilla will make it.. by spacefight · · Score: 1

      as far as I know, I haven't been on a site with such a chess-move popup :) But I bet that they can't trick Mozilla out... or can they simulate a click on a link with javascript (dunno, don't like js)? my 2 centimes

    3. Re:Mozilla will make it.. by cleber · · Score: 1

      Here in ICMC/USP Brazil (Computer sciences division of University of São Paulo) we are using linux RH + Mozilla.

      Our users are happy, ofcourse.

  11. Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) What version of Mozilla is Netscape 7.0pr1 based on?
    2) Is Mozilla ever likely to support the auto-update function that Netscape has just included? (Being a sys-admin of 50-odd M$ boxes makes it a nightmare contemplating to update them all with the latest release)
    3) I know the party for 1.0 is June 12th but what is the projected/updated release date?

    1. Re:Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by sconest · · Score: 3, Informative
      1) What version of Mozilla is Netscape 7.0pr1 based on?

      As the userAgent string says : "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1"
      Thus on the 1.0 branch.

      2) Is Mozilla ever likely to support the auto-update function that Netscape has just included? (Being a sys-admin of 50-odd M$ boxes makes it a nightmare contemplating to update them all with the latest release)

      It is in the prefs but I doubt it will happen since Mozilla releases are not targeted towards end-users.

      3) I know the party for 1.0 is June 12th but what is the projected/updated release date?

      The usual response: "when it's ready" :)
      But I think it will be ready for that date (pure speculation)

      --
      Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
    2. Re:Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2

      1) 1.0RC2
      2) I don't know, but I can't find anything in bugzilla about it.
      3) Judging from the article at Mozillazine, could be as early as next week.

    3. Re:Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by Voidhobo · · Score: 1
      2) Is Mozilla ever likely to support the auto-update function that Netscape has just included? (Being a sys-admin of 50-odd M$ boxes makes it a nightmare contemplating to update them all with the latest release)
      Here's how I solve that problem at my workplace: I always install the latest Mozilla in a directory on one of our Samba shares. It works beautifully. Unless your network is entirely peer-to-peer based (or non-existent), that should work for you, too. Saves a lot of work. The profiles are stored locally, so usually users don't really even notice the transition.
    4. Re:Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Netscape 7PR1 is based on Mozilla 1.0RC2
      2) Probably not, but check http://www.beonex.org for a version of mozilla which might.
      3) Soon. Really really soon. Some people were given a guesstimate but were asked not to reveal the date. All I can say is the mozilla 1.0 startpage is looking good and is almost done. :D

  12. umm by martissimo · · Score: 2

    sorry to tell you this, but your link to bugzilla is pointless...

    you see they are one of the few sites out there that knows to block referrer hits from slashdot (guessin it killed em once or twice, but hey at least they learned)

    doesn't mean your point is any less valid, just that bugzilla knows better than to be slahdotted ;)

    1. Re:umm by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

      So copy/paste and put it in a new window/tab...it's not that hard. Even better, if you're using Galeon (which released 1.2.2 yesterday), select the text of the link and middle-click to open a new tab and paste that as the location...

    2. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does copy/paste stop working when someone blocks a referrer?

    3. Re:umm by kubrick · · Score: 2

      People can just right-click, copy link address, paste into a new tab or window (all this assumes they're using Mozilla :)

      That way Bugzilla won't get a Referer: header...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  13. Its impossible to have the speed of IE by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Redundant

    When IE is part of the OS itself, and Mozilla is just an application running on the OS.

    I suppose if you code Mozilla directly into the kernel or directly into explorer.exe, yeah it will be as fast as IE.

    Compare the rendering speed of Mozilla and IE and IE is left in the dust though.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah, just stick a

      SetThreadPriority(hMainThread, THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL);

      Somewhere in the startup code. That'll get rid of those pesky timeslices.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



      Yeah it will still be slower than IE because your wholee OS will lag behind your browser thus lagging the browser itself.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatever... ...like you really know what you're on about anyway.

    4. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> That'll get rid of those pesky timeslices.

      whoever modded that as anything but funny has /completely/ missed the point....

    5. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fe fi fo fumm.. i smell troll!

      you begin by saying it's impossible to have the speed of IE, the end by saying that Mozilla leaves IE in the dust.

      you, my friend, are on crack - and I hope you are mod'd as so

    6. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what or where is 'the startup code'? help a brother out by being a little more specific please...

    7. Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't know what you are talking about, are you? IE is embeddeed through explorer.exe, not kernel32.dll. It is NOT part of the kernel. It's part of the shell (equivlent of window manager in X11).

  14. Solution by rafelbev · · Score: 1

    Just copy the URL in your clipboard. Open a seperate browser instance and paste your url there. Hey presto!

    Nothing too difficult :-)

    --
    Dodge this !! --Trinity, The Matrix
    1. Re:Solution by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      copy & paste? Too hard... :-)

      Drag the link onto the tab-bar.

    2. Re:Solution by Pekka+Lampila · · Score: 1

      Or use browser that ain't spyware.
      Referer-header has no other purpose.

    3. Re:Solution by extra88 · · Score: 2

      I hardly consider letting a site know which site a link to them was on as "spyware." If you're that paranoid, copy 'n paste.

      And Referer *does* have a use, particularly within a site itself. If you're writing a CGI and you want to return the user back to the page they came from, you use the Referer URL to Redirect them back. Very simple, very easy.

    4. Re:Solution by Pekka+Lampila · · Score: 1

      Why should Mozilla developers know that I browse Slashdot? No, it won't do me anything bad. But on the other hand I don't tell some random people what TV-programs I watch and when I go to toilet. They really don't need to know. :)

      I'm no CGI programmer, so I don't know about that. But I have been using proxy for blocking referer-header for a few years now, and not once have I found a page that wouldn't work because of that.

    5. Re:Solution by killmenow · · Score: 2

      Or just turn of referrer support. I haven't used Mozilla since 0.97, but I thought it supported disabling referrer logging.

      I know in Opera I can just press F12, then hit the F key to toggle referrer support on|off.

    6. Re:Solution by telbij · · Score: 2

      As a web developer it's nice to know where you get linked from, and which of those links are the most popular. I'm all for privacy, but it just doesn't seem like very personal information to me.

  15. Heres the post everyone should read first by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Informative



    Basically, this is what posts you'll see.

    "IE is faster, Mozilla cant beat IE"

    Lets respond to this post right now. OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS. MSN msger is faster than ICQ and AIM, anything made by Microsoft should be the fastest considering Microsoft has advantages in terms of knowing the source code of the entire OS.


    "IE has won, its too late, Mozilla team should just give up"

    Isnt this exactly what the IE team should have done back in 1998 when Netscape 4 was winning 70-30 in terms of percentages?


    "Opera's done it all first, Mozilla is copying"

    Of course Mozilla and Netscape will copy Opera the same way Opera and IE copied Netscapes Bookmark system.

    "Opera is better than Mozilla and IE because its faster"

    Are you using Windows? Perhaps you should try linux on your 486, its faster. What? You arent using a 486? Well stop complaining about speed, if Mozilla is slow, its because you are too slow to upgrade

    "Mozilla/Netscape cant render page X"

    Maybe it WOULD render page X if you stopped using IE and wrote that same msg to the site owner

    "Mozilla is bloated and slow"

    Try Kmeleon, Galeon, or if both those are slow try lynx.

    "AOL isnt supporting Mozilla, why wont they put gecko into their AOL package?"

    They have. AOL 7.0 gecko beta. Also try Netscape 7


    This ends all arguements you people will have before they begin, the rest of the arguements will be about bugs in mozilla, when will 1.0 release, why mozilla isnt availble for your obscure OS, or why the mozilla team took 4 years to build the best browser.


    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why do I want to run two browsers on my machine when it's already abundantly clear that the one that's already on there now (IE) is faster and more supported by web developers than your POS browser?

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      faster at what? and on what machine?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ressu · · Score: 1

      The problem with all of this is MS-HTML, which is an incompatible subset of HTML. they allow new attributes for tags, and most of MS tools create incompatible html.

      the web developers are making an invalid product if they use some arbituary subset of HTML. i'm really happy that XHTML is coming about, you can finally forget about parsing for bugs, if you parse the file as XML, it will be valid.

      (although XHTML bugs on IE, try creating a document with in the )

    4. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      C'mon troll, why not just answer the question?

      Here's what you said:

      OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS

      Faster at loading, faster at rendering, faster UI.

      On Windows with IE5 or IE6.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    5. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      Why would a web developer be more concerned with standards than with reaching his target audience?

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    6. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by popeyethesailor · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't Mozilla cook my dinner? :-)

    7. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if there are no standards who is to say you are reaching your target audience?

      Standards make things easier for the developer and mean that the user gets the best browsing experience regardless of who is the market leader this year. Microsofts dominance is not set in stone... so surely standards are better as they ensure future compatability

    8. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, yes and no. If you know that some published standard is *not* supported by the market leading web browser (certain XHTML pages I've seen are horribly rendered by IE), why would you persist in writing the code?

      Obviously you would not want to write code that breaks on your target audience's web browser, no matter what the standard says.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    9. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by tyrant · · Score: 1

      Because one of those browsers resembles swiss cheese when it comes to security. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel unsafe browsing with IE, so I never do.

    10. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by AegisKnight · · Score: 2, Informative
      OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS.

      This is something I'm tired of hearing. IE is not built into the OS. It just happens to come with it. It also happens to use a bunch of DLLs that other pieces of Windows use, rather than writing its own (*cough* XPCOM *cough*) And just because something is "built into the OS" doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be faster. On my machine (P2 400, 640 MB of RAM, Win2K), K-Meleon loads a couple seconds *faster* than IE does. It also opens new windows faster than any web browser I can remember. Not all 3rd party software is slower than MS software.

    11. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Nameles · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Mozilla/Netscape cant render page X"

      Maybe it WOULD render page X if you stopped using IE and wrote that same msg to the site owner

      Not really. I have a page that will render right in IE but not in Moz, mainly because Moz doesn't seem to support the backgroung = fixed property. (Yes, I know that's not the exact code, but it's 6.30, and I'm late for work.)

    12. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by croanon · · Score: 0, Funny

      Because it is fucking your wife at this moment. :)

      --
      Dear Bill, do you have a .net tatoo on your ass for marketing?
    13. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if Mozilla is slow, its because you are too slow to upgrade

      You know, there's something appealing about lean code. Yeah I know, machines are getting faster, but I'm a geek and I'm sensitive to what's under the hood.

      Why the hell did someone implement a check so you can't bookmark twice the same bookmark under a different name? I might want to. Unnecessary bloat.

      Why do I get a distracting "Search Google for" below the address bar while I type a URL when there's already a "search" button? More bloat.

      Why can't I reselect a selection within a selection in the address bar or page text? I get a funky drag and drop icon. Bloat. Copy-paste is handled using select and middle-button under linux. No need for a 2nd way that interferes with the 1st.

    14. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Opera is better than Mozilla and IE because its faster"
      >
      > Are you using Windows? Perhaps you should try linux on your 486, its faster. What? You arent using a 486? Well stop complaining about speed, if Mozilla > is slow, its because you are too slow to upgrade

      Or maybe because Opera _is_ faster than Mozilla.

      At least on Linux the mozilla user interface is slower than opera's and I have a 1Ghz processor.
      Especially scrolling pages takes noticeably more cpu time on mozilla.
      It may render lightning fast, but what's the point if the interface is slow and clumsy ?

    15. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      I use invalid products...

      My web editor is... notepad...

      Which is the only editor 100% compliant with all standards... past, present and future!

    16. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You of course, demonstrate the general laziness and arrogance of the so-called community Linux has built. This is not a troll, though I am truly discusted by it. Microsoft has done everything in their power to make their products run on lower-end hardware (I've seen even XP run on a 200mhz snappy-fast!); and even if they aren't the most stable things in the world, they chug along quite well enough for a normal user with little patience and a business user. The fact you think we should update everytime Mozilla (or any other large program) becomes more bloated proves you belong to A) the lazy developer group, can't optimize worth a crap so you just push the consumer to upgrade B) the upper quartile of people who have new systems and are too arrogant to think back on us humble folk.

      In closing, Fuck you.
      Troll me all you like, moderators; all you're doing is proving every word I said to be right.

    17. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe you could submit this "problem" as a bug? Once it's fixed, you'd be a happy camper... http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/bugzilla-helpe r.html

    18. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      IE is faster, Mozilla can't beat IE. Besides IE has won, it's too late, so the Mozilla team should just give up. Not to mention that Opera has done it all first, Mozilla is just copying them. But that's probably because Opera is better than Mozilla and IE because its faster. Then there's the problem that Mozilla/Netscape can't render certain pages. Like I said earlier, Mozilla is bloated and slow.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    19. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey fuck, are you 6 years old or what? Your "rebuttle" sounds like some little kid bickering with another little kid about who's Dad makes more money.

      1) IE is NOT built into the OS exactly. It is built WITH the OS. Apparently you buy into MS's BS about how there is no feasable way that IE can be removed so no bother trying. Most people here that haven't been in cave, unlike you, know that the 9 states contracted a programmer to use embedded-XP to make a modular version of XP.

      2) I'll agree with your second statement. Hell, Netscape shouldn't have bothered since Mosaic was around first.

      3) Never seen anyone say that so I won't respond to it. I believe people have though.

      4) This is where you sound stupid and make little sense. Albeit a semi knee-jerk statement about how Opera and IE are better because they are faster, but not completely invalid. The two primary goals for any browser should be in this order:
      1 compliance with standard
      2 rendering speed.
      If it doesn't comply with standards at the least, then it isn't too good. If it is 100% standards compliant with every ?HTML? spec known to man but it takes 10x longer than an "acceptable" speed, then it is almost worthless too. Mind you, these two goals are for "release" quality browsers not development.
      OSS/FS ideals aside and coming from a purely usability standpoint, Opera and IE are much better than Mozilla. I've used NS6 a bit and Moz only sparingly. I've used Opera (mainly in Linux) and IE 5.5 in XP and I'll say that they are very fast and standard compliant (8/10 Opera and 10/10 IE).
      Now to attack the rest of your moronic comment. Which version(s) of Windows and Linux should I try on a 486? Let's compare Red Hat 7.3 with the latest beta 2.4.19 with XFS and KDE-3. Then I'll run Windows 95 on the 486 with the latest IE I can get for win95. What will win then? Then the rest of your comment is just great. In fact, I'll quote it: "What? You arent using a 486? Well stop complaining about speed, if Mozilla is slow, its because you are too slow to upgrade"
      What the hell? Now it's the users fault that IE and Opera run better on "older" h/w? If Opera and especially IE run faster and very usable on the same h/w that Mozilla runs slow on, isn't it Mozilla's fault NOT the users? You just made the claim that if you are running oldder h/w you should use Linux not Windows. So which browser should I then use on that older h/w? Obviously not Windows.

      5) So if I find a page that Mozilla/Netscape can not render, yet IE can, how does that prove that the bug isn't with Mozilla/Netscape.

      6) What, so are you admiting that Mozilla is bloated and slow. You give two other applications that uses Mozilla's "core" but obviously aren't Mozilla.

      7) I don't know. If what you say is true, then the people that made that comment are truly ignorant or stupid.

      It's "supporters" like you that do projects like these harm. We don't need people who are as dumb and trollish as you. Please, take your toys and go home fucker.

    20. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      Why is this Flamebait? Because this guy took a view that contradicts the parent?

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    21. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      Not to be rude or anything, but why? If Product A tends to perform better than Product B, and I earnestly like Product A better than Product B, why would I go out of my way to inform the Product B development team to have them make their product better? I don't know about everyone else, but I don't actively look to switch out working software, UNLESS the other software already has something that attracts me.

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    22. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by earthpig · · Score: 1

      i'm attracted by the fact that 'it's' not microsoft.

      what ever it is

    23. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried tabbed browsing? You will like it.

      Have you tried the preferences toolbar? http://www.xulplanet.com/downloads/view.cgi?catego ry=applications&view=prefbar

      With the preferences toolbar you can disable image loading, javascript, java, popups, on-load pop-pups, proxies and cookies with a single click. I use it every day because some sites are just annoying with their pop-ups, but I need it for other sites. If I am on a slow modem connection, I often disable image loading and that speeds things up significantly (assuming the images don't contain content).

    24. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Salsaman · · Score: 2
      If IE has won, then by your logic, Opera should give up too.

      So I take it you won't be using Opera any more ? After all, it would be extremely stupid to use a product that you think should die.

    25. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      You know, MS may charge too much for products (but anything that is not free is probably too much for you), and may have security holes (and we all know how security hole free the OSS community is right?), but they make good products. I'm a user, not a politician. And unfortunately, the OSS community (not all, but a large part of it), push politics more than they do software innovation. Who cares? Do your own thing. If someone asks you for a recommendation, make a suggestion. But why does the OSS community need to take over all desktops (and then bitch about the cluelessness of those so-called lusers?)

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    26. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      I personally use Mozilla, and I use IE (really depending on what OS I'm in at the time). I like both, and use the one I deem best on the given platform. Personally, I had always wanted MS to release IE for Linux, but they didn't want to encourage that community, and now I think it's funny that AOL is ditching IE for the "IE-Replacement". In any case, I never knew about that preferences toolbar, and I'll have to check it out (thanks). But the point of my post was to play the role of a realist :)

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    27. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by DZR · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is with IE NOT Mozilla. You could be referring to one of two CSS property/values pairs:

      • position : fixed;
      • background-attachment : fixed;

      Mozilla gets both right. IE/Win has no support for the first, and implements the second incorrectly. The CSS spec clearly states that background images should be fixed relative to the view-port and NOT the element box. IE/Win does the opposite. So, why not take the trouble to know what you are talking about before posting nonsense like this?

    28. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ryepup · · Score: 1

      I use it every day because some sites are just annoying with their pop-ups

      *cough* pr0n *cough*

    29. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Suggestion:
      Do a diff on the original post and mine ... then look up humour in the dictionary.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    30. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Notepad only uses an older, incompatible standard. It does not properly render the EBCDIC standard, only the antiquated ASCII. 100% compatible my ass.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    31. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fundamental problem: IE is *NOT* faster - if you run Mozilla on Win32 with "quick start" turned on, Moz is actually equally as fast if not faster.

      I did an informal comparison with Moz 0.9.9 and IE 5.01 (yeah, I know, it's old - need it for compatibility reasons) - pages rendered at least twice as fast in Moz as they did in IE.

      I saw a blurb as to why - apparently IE automatically loads part of itself into memory and stays there - with Quick Start, Moz does the same thing (probably deeper reasons here, I'm paraphrasing).

      Without Quick Start, however, Moz was considerably slower than IE.

    32. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by archen · · Score: 1

      dude, put yourself out of misery and use a real text editor like Crimson Edit . Microsoft laughs at you every time you use notepad. And yes it's free :)

    33. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by archen · · Score: 1

      Because it is fucking your wife at this moment. :)

      LOL - does this really deserve a -1?

    34. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haven't you read hanzo san's comment? I quote:
      If mozilla is slow, it's because you are too slow to upgrade."

      Remember, ideology comes before usability.

    35. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by ortholattice · · Score: 2
      "Mozilla/Netscape cant render page X"
      Maybe it WOULD render page X if you stopped using IE and wrote that same msg to the site owner

      I have done this a number of times, and the webmaster usually responds (if he/she responds at all) that the percent of non-IE users doesn't make it worth it. However in maybe 25% of the cases they do fix the problem, especially if it's minor and especially if you show them the exact correction needed to their HTML code.

      I suspect their tune may change if and when 30 million AOL users start using Netscape... This would be the best thing to happen to Mozilla, whether you love or hate AOL.

    36. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      That's damn funny man. I wish there wern't 40 posts between the parent and you so that I would have gotten the humor the first time.

    37. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this can't be denied:

      RAM usage with one page open (slashdot):

      iexplore.exe 12,352
      opera.exe 12,860
      mozilla.exe 19,196

      RAM usage with two pages open (slashdot and google):

      iexplore.exe 15,3000
      opera.exe 14,372
      mozilla.exe 20,768

      And it just gets worse the more you surf.

      Mozilla hits 40-50 MB easy.
      Opera usually stays around 20-30

      Don't use Explorer enough to judge.

    38. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this means that, for an additional page (google), the browsers RAM usage increases by

      iexplore.exe 2,948
      opera.exe 1,512
      mozilla.exe 1,572

    39. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by SirEdward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because it's not emacs.

    40. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by proxima · · Score: 2

      At least on Linux the mozilla user interface is slower than opera's and I have a 1Ghz processor.
      Especially scrolling pages takes noticeably more cpu time on mozilla.


      The speed of scrolling is incredibly dependant upon which video card you are using, which version of XFree86 (3.x or 4.x), and the quality of the video drivers. If you can, try changing your hardware or software configuration a bit. It will probably make a noticable difference.

      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    41. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by zootread · · Score: 0

      but they make good products

      I've been a computer enthusiast for the last 15 years. And have never cared for Windows every since version 3.0. However when I started using Linux back in 1994, it was simply a superior OS (to Windows) and I instantly loved it (being a fan of UNIX helped). MSFT didn't make a decent OS until Windows 2000. What took them so long? Sure they may made a decent product here and there, but I don't think they consistently make good products.

      As a computer enthusiast, I want to see technology advance. MSFT has always been good at crushing the truly innovative creations that come along. I don't care whether the innovations are open-source or free or closed, really. But MSFT has always been in conflict with the computer enthusuast, and that's why we seek alternatives.

      --
      Zoot!
    42. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by General+Wesc · · Score: 1
    43. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Fuckin Men. This is one of my biggest beefs with IE.

    44. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen Opera get up to 50 MB (with maybe 6 Windows open) and IE6 get up to 70. This generally comes from clicking the IE icon again instead of CTRL-N. It launches a different process.

      Anyhoe Opera annoys me because it hijacks calls to IE. When I use Dreamweaver to preview a file in IE and I have Opera open, the file opens in Opera. That is bullshit. It also did it in AIM when I clicked on links. Is there any way to turn that shit off?

    45. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cool, you know how to find the specs at W3. Good for you.
      Yes, the specs would prove where the bug lies. However, as you didn't read my response, you will note that I asked how does the fact that Mozilla won't render a page but IE will mean that the bug is with IE? I did not ask how someone could check if a browser was following the specs or not. My god you dumb fuck, READ MAN READ! That is what you were taught in school weren't you? Guess not.

    46. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by macosxaddict · · Score: 1

      The "Search Google for" button is quite useful; I use it all the time. It's faster to use that than to first go to Google's web site and enter the query there.

    47. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      But MSFT has always been in conflict with the computer enthusuast, and that's why we seek alternatives.

      Disregarding the rest of what you have to say (some of which was completely valid, and some of which was a bit off the ball), are you implying that because I don't necessarily seek alternatives (though I do enjoy both open and closed systems), I'm not a computer enthusiast?

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    48. Re:Heres the post everyone should read first by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      If a page displays in IE but not in Mozilla then if the page follows the specs, it's a bug with Mozilla. If the page doesn't follow the specs, the error is in no way Mozilla's fault. Apply the specs to the page, not the web browsers.

  16. How about fixing bugs from 2000? by pepper_pusher · · Score: 0

    Tons of blocker-level bugs unresolved since year 2000. Not s single bug from those I've submitted (about 10+) has been fixed, although many other users have posted the same bug.

    --
    girl
  17. I'm sorry people ... by pmsr · · Score: 1

    ... but whatever you say it doesn't change the big picture. Sure it doesn't run in the kernel, sure it takes more time to load because it is not preloaded - though NS6 can be, and sure it will be slower because that or any other reason under the sun. I am aware of all that. But the performance difference is huge. The interface is slower doing its work, i can even see sometimes the redrawing happening. Some pages are slower to render, i have never seen it render that much faster than IE btw. But even if i can deal with that, there is something i can't deal with. Loading Mozilla RC1 or NS6 with my favourite set of pages plus a Visual Traceroute java applet eats up memory like it was mana. The same pages in IE5.01 eat 29MB ram according to Windows 2000 task manager. When i left Mozilla running it was into 68MB. So, to reply to your comments, interesting as they may be, i will use the words from Galileo - "And yet it moves".

    /Pedro

    1. Re:I'm sorry people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flamebail? what a bunch of morons. yeah this world is in good hands allright

    2. Re:I'm sorry people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nods there aren't about 1000 other reasons why IE sux0rs anyways, but you wouldn't know that, o brainwashed one :P Hi please critique I.E. 3.0 ok 4 years ago :P IE is going down. It's brainwashed too many people to think you like you :P

    3. Re:I'm sorry people ... by yasth · · Score: 1

      Hmmm I just did some entirely unscientific tests, and the rendering speed was unnoticeable on local files. On remote servers it randomly went one way or the other. Mozila might have a few random scattered weaknesses with specific web pages, but not common web pages, and I'm sure IE is the same way. As for Java in Moz well that sucks because Sun's plugin sucks, and as IE will no longer have native Java support, it is/will be irrelevant. As for memmory ussage, that is harder to tell than one thinks because of memmory cahce etc. So let me close by quoting Aristotle, "It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims"

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    4. Re:I'm sorry people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from aristotle to now goes a long time distance. me thinks helenic greek quotes dont apply anymore. ill pick galileo any time. welcome to the XXI century dude

    5. Re:I'm sorry people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah fucking oath it is because its not in the hands of any of you wankers.

    6. Re:I'm sorry people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it.
      -- Anatole France

  18. Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sentime by galaga79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not intended as flamebait by any means, but does anyone know what sort of browser share Mozilla/Netscape have? I have been following and pushing both browsers for the past year, encouraging others to try them out, but when checking the browser statistics for my website they don't have any entry at all. Right now the breakdown for my site is about 97% Internet Explorer 5+ and 3% Netscape 4, which is a real shame. Does anyone out there have any more promising browser usuage stats?

    It is also interesting guaging people response to Mozilla/Netscape on sites other than Slashdot. It seems like there is real anti-Netscape sentiment out there, an example being the response to Netscape 7 at deviantart where there is loads of "Netscape sucks" one liners. I could be wrong on this, but it seems ever since Netscape 4 a lot of people seem unprepared to give Netscape a second chance. Perhaps it is "cool" to hate Netscape because they are owned by AOL, I don't know

    Anyway that aside, Mozilla is great is most definitely stable enough for public consumption as the last few releases haven't crashed on me at all. As soon as I get home I'll download RC3.

  19. for people with 4+ button mice... by Daltorak · · Score: 1

    I'm sure some people reading this have passed over Mozilla in the past because the "extra mouse buttons" as provided on the nicer Logitech, MS etc. mice that were bound to commands such as "Internet Back" didn't work.

    Well, it works now -- musta happened sometime in the last two months, because it wasn't working then.

    This was the last major usability flaw that prevented me from finally switching to Mozilla from IE6. Between that and the "native XP theming" support, this is finally a usable browser for me.

    I'm no Mozilla advocate or anything, but if you are using IE, at least give Mozilla a shot...

  20. Okay how about this? by leihua · · Score: 1
    In Netscape (I'm using Windows 98), you can turn off images, but then you can view the images selectively by right-clicking the space where an image should be and choosing "show image" from the menu that appears.

    I cant get Mozilla to do this. Looks like it's all images on, or all images off, period. I read where this has something to do with ad blocking. Anyway, is there a way to get Mozilla to do the Netscape trick I describe above?

    1. Re:Okay how about this? by pixel+fairy · · Score: 1

      its in preferences/privacy and security/images

      its in there because sites can track you with images. but yes, it is silly to put it there.

  21. I want landscape printing ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May be this is not the most important bug Mozilla still has. However I was really disappointed when I lost this "feature" after the upgrade from V0.9.9 to 1.0rc[123]. I started to unload windoze (maybe is too early ?) from the PCs of my colleagues at work. I am trying to make them switch to linux + openoffice + mozilla. This is a hard task because if people are satisfied by doze+office they aren't eager to switch to another environment that could change, even slightly, the way they do their job.
    When one of them called me saying "I cannot print landascape" after the "upgrade" I thought that such a bug could stop the entire process. Open source software must be much better that doze to make people switch.

    1. Re:I want landscape printing ! by Morky · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Netscape 7 rc1 there is a "Landscape" button in print preview. Margin controls, too.

    2. Re:I want landscape printing ! by Yue · · Score: 1

      Try "Page Setup" from the "File" menu.

    3. Re:I want landscape printing ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not specified the platform, sorry. Page setup from file menu may work under windoze but not under
      linux nor under macosx. There is a bug open (look here).

  22. What's the deal with Phoning Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure , I expected that a Talkback version would
    phone home, but I installed RC 2 on w95b,and
    observed the following:

    That if Installed rc2 with my modem unplugged,
    then when ever I started Moz up , it crashed with
    appcomps.dll causing illegal operation.

    I noticed it always wants to contact Moz org
    when it starts up , when I let it, I could
    finally run Naviagator.

    The mail program would start up without crashing.

    So does Moz need to be activated or something?

    I thought that was a Netscape move

    1. Re:What's the deal with Phoning Home by winne+too · · Score: 1

      edit preferences->mail&newsgroups:
      "mail start page"
      - uncheck "when mail launches, show start page in the message area"
      or
      - edit the url

  23. Because you didn't spend any time searching. by yivi · · Score: 1

    N 7.0PR1 is based on M 1.0RC2.

    Answer to (2), probably not. That code is propietary and belongs to Netscape. But futurology is a very uncertain science.

    There is a thingy called "Roadmap". While there is no definitive date for the final release, it may happen as soon as next week.

  24. Speed by JollyTX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When discussing a new version of a browser, someone always complains about the speed of $NEWBROWSER. I've never had any problems with browser speed, not on any machine (well, except IBrowse on ye olde Amiga, that was _slow_ ;) ).

    Come on, are you guys constantly loading multi-megabytes of HTML into your browsers? I think the biggest problem by far is compatibility and not speed (thanks to lame IE-only sites).

    --
    Can you hear me, Major Tom? I'm not the man they think I am at home...
    1. Re:Speed by cluke · · Score: 1

      Hey, IBrowse is much faster running on UAE than Netscape running natively. And if you have a decent Amiga (040+) it runs faster on an Amiga than Netscape on a high spec PC. Says more about Netscape than IBrowse, I fear.

    2. Re:Speed by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Most probably... the speed problems are mutual and existent in all browsers arround...

      They are triguered by bloatware web sites... full with flash, java applets, huge graphics and the like...

      Cheers...

      P.S.- I prefer clean light designs and without "programs" of any kind... unless they are justified and as light as possible... (and i think the users of my sites also prefer it, even if most won't relate the speed of the site with the care to provide a light but interisting one...)

    3. Re:Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you only have >1GHz machines left? Mozilla is slow as molasses on anything 500MHz, and only barely acceptable even on my 600MHz PIII notebook.Galleon at least _feels_ more responsive, since one doesn't have to wait an ternity for menus to open.

    4. Re:Speed by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I thank you, because nothing pisses me off more when browsing than to get 6 ( count 'em ) extra pop ups telling me to install shockwave plugin, like I did today -- on every single damn page, too, man. I gotta walk over and talk to the guys writing that page and tell them they're killing me softly, with their shockwave -- killing me softly. Which brings up the point : is there EVER going to be a shockwave plugin for any browser but IE? Hell Macromedia hasn't even fixed the remote display bug in Flash that's been around for years.

    5. Re:Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      537MHz Celeron here. Mozilla is fast for me, almost as fast as dillo. No, I'm not kidding. It does load slow initially, but once it's loaded, it's pretty zippy. For the lizard I use rpm binaries.

  25. Blah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a damn ?

  26. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Robert+Frazier · · Score: 1

    My site is not commercial. It is in an academic environment. I get a 3/2 relationship for MIE/NS. Lynx still shows up, and opera is making more of a splash. Surprisingly, or not, various worms are the biggest users of my site.

  27. Slashdot != Freshmeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...subject says it all...

  28. holy moly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow... A new Debian stable and Mozilla 1.0 will be released in the same millennium !!! Ok... It will take Debian another millenium to get Moz 1.0 into stable... but hey.. this is exciting ! And no Woody is NOT officially released yet. They said that is would take a couple of weeks more... that was a couple and a half weeks ago...

    1. Re:holy moly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, where is that Debian?

  29. only with microsoft mouse drivers loaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The back and forward features only work if you're running your proprietary mouse "driver", point32.exe in the case of the Intellimouse.

    As soon as you stop loading that driver, the back and forward mouse buttons stop working. For some strange reason, they always work in IE... *queue x-files music*

    Personally, I prefer not to load the driver because it makes my system unstable when moving the mouse wheel too much.

  30. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by mce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In some markets, there still is some hope, as I posted not so long ago. The good news is that our percentage Mozilla/NS6 using visitors is rising (albeit slowly). The "bad" news is that we definitely are atypical: yesterday we got about 16% non-Windows visitors.

  31. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Drahca · · Score: 1

    I am working on a website in the Netherlands where High School student can check how they made their exams.

    Yesterday 77.000 unique visitors. 98.78% IE, 0.85% Netscape, 0.11% Gecko type browsers.

    Of course these are high school students. I wonder what the stats are for a page like slashdot, or maybe a more independant site like CNN. Has anyone got some info about this?

  32. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hard to tell. Our counter says 97% IE, but our counter officially DOESN'T WORK IN NETSCAPE.

    It's easy to get the results you want, if you don't count those that you don't.

  33. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about Google?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  34. K-Meleon by vrt3 · · Score: 2

    You might have better luck at http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  35. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    I run a little site for translations of a somewhat obscure series of Japanese text adventure games. It kind of skirts the border of being techie in that it's computer related, but I get around 1 in 12 hits from mozilla. I think it's a tad skewed from average though, in that I mention mozilla on occasion and the reasons I use it amid my occasional little speechs after the normal progress reports. Even if only a couple normal users take a look, it's quite likley they'll enjoy it and tell some of their friends, and on and on.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  36. Re:MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by fredrik70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    startup time and bloat is mostly due to the XUL based UI. Gecko in it self is damn quick.

    If you want to decrease startup time just preload the app.

    Mozilla failed?? lacking support of standards??
    yeah, right, trolling aren't we?

    Mozilla might have taken far longer than expected, but it was hardly failed, AOLs switch to Gecko would be a proof of that.
    Gecko is also one of the most standards compliant engines around today

    Don't like AOL 'dirty' games with Mozilla?? Welcome to the real world, at least Mozilla is open source, you can always fork the source and do your own stuff if you think the current mozilla is tainted in some way by AOL

    --
    if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  37. Their planning to release with a big bug still in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yesturday, as rc3 was released, bug ID 82534 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82534 copy and paste - they dont allow links from slashdot) was changed from Mozilla 1.0 to Mozilla 1.0.1

    To summarise, this bug freezes any keyboard input to mozilla under some circumstances - so its kinda major

    It only happens on windows, but is very easily reproducable (there are many examples of how to produce it in the bug thread)

    Two friends of mine tried using mozilla on windows, and both encountered this bug and were stumpped

    I cant believe they are planning to release 1.0 with this bug still in since it will for sure put a lot of people off mozilla for a long time - what with it being a point zero...

  38. Wow by psychofox · · Score: 1

    Its soooo fast!

    On my P4 1.7Ghz work PC, with 100KB/sec capped net connection, news.bbc.co.uk takes about 8 seconds to long. Mozilla does it 1.4

    FEEL THE SPEED.

    Such an improvement since the last time I played with it! I'm very impressed.

    1. Re:Wow by xRizen · · Score: 1

      ... I can load that page in half that time on a machine "half" as powerful (PIII-866) with a downstream of 80KB/sec. I think something is wrong with your machine.

  39. Mozilla CAN'T suck enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and NO i do NOT use IE...

    Bloatzilla is not only insanely bloated, it is U G L Y. and skins do not help, those skins must have been made by near-blind people.

    1. Re:Mozilla CAN'T suck enough by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

      *cough* Chimera *cough*

      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
  40. Re:MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by Explo · · Score: 2

    Whew. You could perhaps divide your text into several paragraphs, it's a bit heavy to read all that banged into one gigantic block of text ;)



    a) startup time is HUGE.


    Starts in about two seconds when run at the first time at my machine. For me that is pretty meaningless, because I keep the machine running quite 24/7 and thus have restarted Mozilla about three or four times during the last month anyway to upgrade between various builds.


    Then you mention that CSS is far away from completed. While it's true that there are quite a few CSS bugs present, I'd like to see some reasons why it's inferior compared to other products. If it's not, it doesn't do worse than any other product and does not deserve to be the specific target any more than the CSS support of any other browser. What are the standards which it has specifically lacking support?


    What does entry e) in your list mean? Examples?


    I do not imply that Mozilla is perfect, but IMO as an alternative browser choice, I think that it's definitely not a failure technically.

    --
    Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
  41. Re:MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

    Please people, ITS A JOKE!. Ya know, humor. This is funny stuff. Now most of the complaints can be marked redundant.

  42. Re:MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by wulffeld · · Score: 0

    Startup time: Use quick launch if you're on Windows.

    Minimize: What? It takes a split second on my 333mhz laptop (64 MB ram).

    UI terrible: Uh what? Why?

    CSS: Support is better than *any other browser* so what's your point?

    Supporting broken table layout: I believe this might be the ingenious quirks mode they have implemented.

    AOL drivel: Then use Konqueror. I personally am aware that many Mozilla developers are paid by Netscape but it doesn't bother me. What's important is to get a standards compliant browser that kicks IE to hell in order to get a balance on the web again. I doubt Konqueror will be able to do that.

    The 4 years: The reason it has taken so long is because they are trying to do it right this time contrary to build something with a bunch of hacks.

    --
    -- wulffeld.org
  43. Galeon by riggwelter · · Score: 1

    The latest version of Galeon (1.2.2) is not source compatible with Mozilla 1.0rc3 - if you're a Galeon user, wait until 1.2.3 before you upgrade your Mozilla version, otherwise you'll break Galeon.

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    1. Re:Galeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And unfortunately, it's not binary compatible either. I know it's not supposed to be, but I thought within the 1.0rc series that Galeon 1.2.2 compiled against Mozilla 1.0rc2 would have a decent chance running against Mozilla 1.0rc3, but it's crash city, immediately.

      Gotta be the shortest lived Galeon release ever. Oh well, hopefully they'll have a patch to compile against 1.0rc3 soon -- the compile failure looked fairly simple to fix.

    2. Re:Galeon by riggwelter · · Score: 1

      According to discussions on the Galeon development list, a 1.2.3 might appear pretty soon :)

      --
      Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    3. Re:Galeon by StarHeart · · Score: 1

      If you check out the mailing list you will see the two required changes to make Galeon 1.2.2 compile and run just fine against Mozilla 1.0RC3. The changes are a simple hack instead of a elegant fix, but is simpler and works.

      --
      Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
  44. a security concern, and a registration question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's with mozilla's/netscape's obsession with always contacting home.netscape.com and home6.netscape.com and internic.net everytime the browser is launched? Is this something to be concerned about? Any way to disable it? Also, why must the browser be registered? For a free browser, it sure doesn't seem very free. When running netscape/mozilla, I get the feeling "Big Brother" is watching. My...better write my own browser.

    1. Re:a security concern, and a registration question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla & Netscape are not the same. Do not judge Mozilla by looking at Netscape.

    2. Re:a security concern, and a registration question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops...if Mozilla doesn't have the above concerns, my apologies.

  45. FEAR the lizard! by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    Mozilla simply rules... even over IE...

  46. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by krmt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With all the IE holes, I've been sensing more and more of an anti-IE sentiment. In fact the only browser that I've never heard a truly disparaging remark about (although I have heard honest testaments to its shortcomings) is Opera.

    And when I show people Mozilla with disabling pop-ups and tabbed browsing, anti-IE sentiment grows where it never existed before.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  47. Completion means... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    Holidays for all involved in the release! And about time i would say (i've been in some software releases and i KNOW how ectick the latest days can be)... Cheers...

  48. Re:MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was funny indeed. You must be using some kind of advanced device to measure the time to maximize/minimize Mozilla? I couldn't count my thumb even - let alone rest of the fingers. On the other hand I have 450MHz screamer machine.

    What part of CSS are you mostly missing? Some of the CSS spec itself is not worth supporting or the spec itself is not perfect. I agree that there are bugs remaining thou, but to dislike Mozilla for that is funny again imo.

    I'm not really sure if your message was humour or not, please accept my apologies if I didn't get it.

  49. IE is built into Windows... by xRizen · · Score: 1

    But far less than Konqueror is built into KDE. ;)
    With Win, I can at least set the browser I want to use. I can't figure out how to make KDE apps use anything but Konq, which really annoys me, because Konq is horrid with css.

    1. Re:IE is built into Windows... by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

      It's much better with CSS in 3.0 than it was in 2.x. There are still some minor glitches, but it's better than IE 5/6.

    2. Re:IE is built into Windows... by Seli · · Score: 1

      > But far less than Konqueror is built into KDE. ;) With Win, I can at least set the browser I want to use. I can't figure out how to make KDE apps use anything but Konq

      Just go to file associations config dialog, and for text/html move Konqueror down or Mozilla up in the preference order. Now press Alt+F2 and type 'kde.org'. Happy now? :)

  50. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    "To summarise, this bug freezes any keyboard input to mozilla under some circumstances - so its kinda major"

    hmmm kinda major ? Depends on the circumstances. If it freezes any keyboard input when it is saturdaymorning, you have 2 socks with different colors on, you twitch with your lefmost toenail and XP becomes OSS, then I don't think you need to worry much...

  51. putting it all together by sdflkgfljdqshgjkqsfg · · Score: 1

    Well I'm just dreaming here, but combining Sim Ant and the Sims and Sim City and Sim Earth would be pretty damn cool IMO. Being able to take the level of abstraction one wanted... playing with seconds/days/months/years/centuries would be pretty interesting I think... Maybe we could simulate this 'ant going this way, causes artctic drift theory'!

    --
    how does one change his /. id?
    1. Re:putting it all together by Salsaman · · Score: 1
      What, in Mozilla ?

  52. Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1, Flamebait



    Damn!! I'm impressed!

    RC3 still has zero support for anti-aliased fonts.. This browser is sure to win an award for Best Browser Of The Year in 1996!

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by riggwelter · · Score: 3, Informative

      RC3 still has zero support for anti-aliased fonts.

      Not true - the packages for Red Hat that are linked to by mozilla.org don't have it enabled by default. It's easy to enable it by editing the unix.js file in the defaults/pref directory of the Mozilla install tree, and setting these prefs:
      pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
      pref(font.freetype2.shared-library", "libfreetype.so.6");
      // or whatever your freetype library is

      Other packages, such as those built for SuSE (get them from ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla) have these enabled by default.

      --
      Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    2. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Diabolical · · Score: 2

      How about starting the development for this kind of support if you so badly need it? You could join the development team without great effort. Just start to code and turn it in to the lead developer for Mozilla or something...

      http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html

    3. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It rather depends where you live. Moz on BeOS has had anti-aliased fonts for roughly forever.
      I presume the same is true for other systems where anti-aliased fonts are pervasive.

    4. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 2, Insightful



      Why bother.. Its pointless to even try. AA "support" for Mozilla already exists, on an "experimental" branch of the CVS tree. You're looking at a group of developers who think that anti-aliasing the friggin fonts should be relegated to an "experimental" branch!

      Now, stop and realize what that means. A feature that every mainstream browser has had, out of the box, since the mid 1990s...and the Mozilla doesnt want to bother to include it. Its like nobody can go the last fucking mile anymore and make something that actually looks good. Personally, I could care less if Mozilla goes 1.0 or not. Without AA font support, people are going to forget about it. Then what will all the work be worth? You guessed it--nothing.

      Why is it so hard for Mozilla, a project that has been going since 1998, to have AA font support, when other browser projects (like Konqueror, for example) took only a month or two to add it? You guessed it -- Retarded leadership. Theyre building a browser for programmers, not for end users. And, until they realize that, and fucking DO SOMETHING about it, people will continue to ignore their work. Then, in the end, itll all be pointless. Theyve built a 5-story catapult for a war that already ended.

      Cheers,

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    5. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla has working AA support. It uses the same antialiasing that IE uses on Windows (only for big text, only slanted edges) and does full antialiasing on Linux and other operating systems.

    6. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by psaltes · · Score: 2

      I have AA working by default on my debian installation of mozilla rc2 and galeon whatever.

    7. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by The+Shrubber · · Score: 1

      Theyre building a browser for programmers, not for end user

      Am i misreading this?

      Wasn't a browser for programmers (and people interested in testing) the whole POINT of the mozilla project? Keep on using Netscape K-Meleon Chimera Galeon Skipstone Konq, then; you'd still be helping the cause of making people write for standards and not for product X.

    8. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Insightful? This kid obviously hasn't SEEN Mozilla. Start your favorite screen magnifying program and compare Mozilla's font rendering with IE's font rendering side by side on Windows: They are identical. Small fonts are rendered without antialiasing, big and bold text is rendered with antialiasing.

      Now do the same with Mozilla and IE on Linux. Mozilla's font rendering is way better there. IE is pretty much illegible on Linux.</sarcasm> If you prefer, compare Mozilla with Konqueror, after you've configured Mozilla to use antialiased fonts: Both render text perfectly antialiased. Some distributors configure Mozilla for you so you may not even need to do that yourself.

    9. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a bitter, bitter man. Lay off the lemon, it makes you bitter.

    10. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      A Five-story catapult would rock!

    11. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow! You manage to bring this up every time they release a "bug-fix-only, no-new-features, release candidate"! And you know it! And you complain anyway, every time! And use exclamation marks, too!

      I shall look forward to seeing your same post again when Mozilla 1.0PR1 comes out, when Mozilla 1.0PR2 comes out, and Mozilla 1.0 Final comes out, too.

      When they said "you're not getting a pony for Christmas. Maybe for Easter," they meant it. Does this suck? Maybe. Do you have to whine about it every time? Apparently.

      Cheers.

  53. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage - Charles Upsdell's site by bunratty · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using Charles Upsdell's Browser News for reliable browser stats. According to that site, Mozilla/Netscape/K-Meleon/etc. browsers currently have a 1.1% share of page hits, IE has about 92%, and Netscape 4 about 4%.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  54. PovRay RC5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think RC3 is such a big event to deserve a Slashdot headline.

    At www.povray.org there is a release candidate 5 of Povray 3.5 out now. It has been in development for three years now.

    Why don't those guys get headlines at Slashdot?

    1. Re:PovRay RC5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because everyone uses a web browser, but only a few people use a raytracer.

  55. Bug #22274 by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

    I design pages and there is a spacing bug related to images that was introduced sometime after 0.9.9 that I reported.

    This affects all platforms. Basically, you will get space around an image that you shouldn't.

    Bug is: 22274

  56. Slashdot Bug by unixmaster · · Score: 0

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146673

    --
    Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
  57. 1.0 will be still full of visible bugs by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    since a bug I submit to Bugzilla is marked
    as targeted at 1.0.1...
    IE may have serious security bug inside, but doesn't have visible bugs in release versions.
    Mozilla version 2 will be something like IE 3.

    1. Re:1.0 will be still full of visible bugs by Quazion · · Score: 1

      I rather have a usable program with visual bugs then with bugs i cant see and cant understand and one that keeps me wondering whats going on.

      Mozilla 0.9.9 which i am still running, hasnt crashed on me yet, and i am using it all the time.
      (maybe cause i didnt use a precompiled bin, cause i heard of some people who had loads of crashes just not me :))

      And security bugs are even worse, although Mozilla had its security bugs like any program :)

  58. Here's to you guys, great job by Conspire · · Score: 1

    I just want to tell all you Mozilla developers THANK YOU! You have all turned a big pile of mush into a very great work of art, and very great code! I love you all. If you ever make it to Shanghai, beers are on me, as in FREE BEER!!!

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  59. Mozilla and acceptance by theolein · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have just read one page of trolls and flamebait and the usual anti Mozilla responses such as it is bloated, slow, non CSS compliant, buggy, no one uses it, etc.

    Consider this:
    1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant. IE's non-standard standards may be de facto standards in many cases, but those pages on the web that do in fact use those are very small in number and are usually on websites which are not heavily frequented, Microsoft's own pages being the exception to prove the rule.
    2.If you use Quick Launch with Mozilla, it loads part of itself into memory and then starts up about as fast as IE does.
    3.It is the *one* browser that renders pages in the same manner across all supported platforms. IE does not do this for example between the mac and Windows. Opera is one version behind on the Mac and it remains to be seen when they get to 6 there.
    4.It is, in my experince, more stable than IE on Win and Mac. I experience fewer crashes with the latest RC's than I do with IE on Win and mac.
    5.It is definitely more secure than IE. It has it's security bugs, but in no way as many as IE does.
    6.You can have an influence in the way this browser is developed. Do you have the same influence with IE or even Opera for that matter?
    If Netscape dies, Mozilla will carry on.
    7.For those who say that the browser share market belongs to IE, I say let's look again in a year. Netscape used to own the market and lost it because of Microsoft's tactics and a poor product that was less standards compliant than IE. This could change again.
    8.For those who troll that Mozilla is only at 1.0RC3 and in one year has only gotten here from a 0.9 version, perhaps you should realise that the Mozilla developers are not in a competition for version numbers with IE. Netscape plays this game and has released version 7.

    All that said, you're free to use whichever browser you like best on your platform.

    1. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by killmenow · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant.
      For everything you say but this, I agree. However, this would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant as well.

      I don't know if we should concern ourselves with a debate over which is closer to 100% compliant. It suffices to say there are at least *two* browsers that are nearly 100% standards compliant...and IE isn't one of them.
    2. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My main complaint is that all of your points could have been accomplished much sooner, and with less bloat (Mozilla uses 17MB on my machine at fresh startup...I know memory is cheap, but *dayamn*, that will never fly on older machines...), if they had not decided to reinvent the world, and come up with some new weirdo GUI component and layout system. Mozilla is a major accomplishment, but I fear it could have done so much more if they followed the KISS rule and gotten some form of final usable product out the door long ago.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by archen · · Score: 1

      .It is the *one* browser that renders pages in the same manner across all supported platforms. IE does not do this for example between the mac and Windows.

      That's one of the big reasons I've totally given up on IE. I made a page where the text size/font was pretty tight and required strict CCS in order to look correct (not smart, but it looked really cool). I tested it on IE to make sure it looked good and well. Only I found that it rendered slightly different on my girlfirend's machine. Exact same version of IE, exact same resolution. The difference: I tested on Win98SE she used WinME.

    4. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by rainwalker · · Score: 1

      This is really starting to bother me...exactly what machine are you using in your daily life that 17MB is a huge chunk of your memory? An Atari? Even my archaic p2-266 that runs as my MP3 server has 192meg. Any machine running a fairly modern OS (ie, any recent version of linux, win98+, etc) with less than 64 meg is going to be almost completely useless anyway. Go buy some memory! Don't have the cash? Check between your couch cushins!

    5. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by frankie · · Score: 4, Interesting
      [opera.com] would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant

      You should read that page more closely. For example:

      We are currently working on DOM [...] Modifying the document structure is not yet possible (ie. you cannot add or remove HTML elements). [...] Opera does not support W3C DOM Core [other than a dozen specific methods]
    6. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by scrytch · · Score: 2

      1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant.

      Hell yes, though I wonder when it'll start supporting COLGROUP in tables (it's HTML 4.01).

      2.If you use Quick Launch with Mozilla, it loads part of itself into memory and then starts up about as fast as IE does.

      Until it swaps out. Takes 30-60 seconds for it to swap back in and respond to anything at all, whereas IE is ready for use in about 10 seconds.

      I still have lots of minor annoyances with Mozilla, but they're little interface behavior bugs (like why is it always warning me on submits even when I tell it to not show me the damn alert again?). Stability's about equal now. It's not like IE doesn't have its own annoyances (like ignoring the fact that I have .java files sent as text/plain from my webserver, but IE always wants to download them anyway).

      Really, the only major complaint I have is how god-awful huge it is in memory so that it's slower than hell to swap in. This is quite an improvement from just a year ago.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    7. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swapping? Perhaps you haven't checked memory prices lately.

    8. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by scrytch · · Score: 2

      Swapping? Perhaps you haven't checked memory prices [pricewatch.com] lately.

      Price it for a Vaio laptop. Just got a little more expensive, not to mention the bother of having to order it, since it's not something I can just walk down to Best Buy and get. I'm sick to death of people excusing waste and saying "RAM is cheap". Fact is, IE does better with RAM, so I don't have to care about price point.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    9. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by argel · · Score: 1
      I know memory is cheap, but *dayamn*, that will never fly on older machines..

      Lets not forget multi-user systems. I'm hoping to replace Netscape with Mozilla on our Sun Ray servers in the future (~40 users).

      --

      -- Argel
    10. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera has ads in it and they charge money for it

      therefore opera is gay.

      Mozilla wins.

    11. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by killmenow · · Score: 2

      I read that page closely. Since you mentioned DOM in particular, have you perused Mozilla's list of open DOM-related bugs of late. 709 open bugs specific to DOM, 57 of which are specific to "DOM Core".

      This is precisely why I said we probably don't want to get into a debate over which is closer to 100% compatible. Opera IS very near 100% standards compliant. One of Opera's stated goals is to BE 100% compatible with W3C standards.

      They are in the same boat as Mozilla as far as standards compliance...they both are NEAR 100% compliance, neither IS, and BOTH are more compliant than IE.

    12. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by frankie · · Score: 2

      don't want to get into a debate over which is closer to 100% compatible.

      As far as the DOM goes, there is no debate. Mozilla is much much much closer than Opera. Pretty much any DHTML effect beyond simple hovers will not work in Opera.

      Don't get me wrong, Opera is an great idea, and I'm glad it's progressing. But from a modern web design point of view, Opera is right down there with Netscape 4.

    13. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The World-Wide Web is client-neutral. No matter how "modern", if your documents can't be read without executing ECMAScript (which CERT has long held to be a security and privacy threat) what you're doing isn't "web design".

    14. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is, for the most part, better than IE in regards to standards, but Mozilla is still better.

      The problem is, "nearly" is not a quantitative word. Both are "nearly" 100% standards compliant. Mozilla is more "nearly".

    15. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by scosol · · Score: 1

      "flamebait" it is not-

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    16. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by scosol · · Score: 1

      "flambait" it is not-

      I have tried to use Mozilla several times over the years, and actually am trying to use it right now.

      A couple specific responses-
      "of course IE will be faster"
      I don't care that IE is built in to the OS- dammit- opening a new window in Mozilla takes a *long* time compared to the same operation in IE.

      Stability?
      You have *got* to be kidding me.
      Mozilla is reasonably stable- but more stable than IE?
      How often does IE crash for you?
      I would say for me- it's about once per month.
      Mozilla crashes far more often than that- tho I will say that it seemed like Java was involved in most of the crashes I've experienced.
      (tabbed-browsing seemed to be a factor as well)

      You know- I *really* hope Mozilla makes it- I *love* using it for mail- and browsing with it is nice as well.
      But IE still just completely beats in in terms of speed and compatibility.
      Additionally- the reliance of Mozilla upon Sun's JVM is a detriment.
      Have you seen the kind of memory that the new JRE2 1.40 uses?
      It's fucking *ridiculous*.
      And it's performance is lacking compared to the MS JVM

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    17. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by theolein · · Score: 2

      IE on the Mac crashes about once a day to once every two days. IE (5.5) on my PC crashes about once evry two to four days. Mozilla on the Mac (OSX) goes haywire about once a week (RC2 is *much* better now and hasn't crashed on me once yet). Moz on my PC has crashed not once. I haven't noticed what you mean by slow at opening a new window because I use the Tabs in Mozilla which are instantaneous.

    18. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by frankie · · Score: 2

      Okay, let's drive this point home. Even if you don't care about DOM scripting, there are other reasons why Mozilla is considered the most compliant of all current browsers.

      FYI, the founder of Opera is also the chief author of the CSS1 standard. So you might be surprised to know that Mozilla has better CSS support than Opera.

  60. Could Mozilla beat IE if Netscape can't? by Plug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who started using the Internet before IE don't mind Netscape and would go back for a previous version. Most of the world see IE bundled with Windows, compared Netscape 4.77 with IE5 and say "IE is better", and don't recognize that Netscape could possibly change.

    Add one part Mozilla and shake.

    The sort of people who would use IE over Netscape because they had a bad experience with Netscape around 4.77 will be impressed with Mozilla, and they don't even need to know that it is based on Netscape! I installed Netscape 7 preview yesterday, which for most people may as well have been a Mozilla skin. Additions: IM, which closes when the browser closes and isn't important in a business environment, and no menu option to remove all those AOL popups.

    We don't need to wait for Mozilla 1.0 so Netscape 7 can come out and compete with IE; when Moz hits 1.0, we should be pitting Mozilla against IE. It doesn't feel signifigantly different, but there are improvements that grow on you quickly - tabbed browsing, being able to selectively disable Javascript - which make people stand up and watch. Netscape will have as many ads and links to AOL in it as IE has to Micrsoft. Mozilla is infinitely more pure! And when the last few bugs are ironed out, I'll look forward to seeing what new innovations the crew have in store. (Remember, as far as most people are concerned, all that changed between IE4 and IE6 was the loading logo and the widgets if you're using XP.)

    That, and maybe Mozilla could end up being the application that make people think "Wow, that open source community aren't so bad after all."

    1. Re:Could Mozilla beat IE if Netscape can't? by N0Nick · · Score: 1

      and they don't even need to know that it is based on Netscape
      Mozilla isn't based on Netscape - it and all of its components were fully re-written by the Mozilla team.
      If anything else, Netscape is based on Mozilla.

      And that's what we should make clear - for all those people you've talked about that would use Netscape because it's bundled with AOL. We should emphasize the fact that Netscape "may as well have been a Mozilla skin". And show the world that with just few clicks they can get rid of the commercialism of MSIE/AOL Netscape.

      But how?

    2. Re:Could Mozilla beat IE if Netscape can't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For people running windows though, there is just NO reason to switch. You've already given MS you money by buying windows, so Runnig Moz in protest is kinda dumb.
      I like and use Moz, but the IE is built it, and 90% of users use it, so why switch?

      People don't care about ideals, they just want to browse the web and get their work done. Its the same reason the linux desktop will never be popular.
      Look at google stats only 1% of users run linux which seems about right.

      I'm not saying Moz and Linux suck are don't matter, I am just saying most people just don't give a crap and have no time for fussing with there computer "just to be different" or to protest MS.

      You may be hearing a lot of ramblings about OO and Moz now, but just like the newest versions of KDE, they bring much excitement to the linux community, but the rest of the world just doesn't care.Sure you may get a high profile defectors, but in the end its a MS world, and there are a lot of more worthy social and policitical battles to be fought.

      When your on your deathbed, do you want to be remembered for fight for free software, or something worthy like fighting for human or environmental rights?

    3. Re:Could Mozilla beat IE if Netscape can't? by Plug · · Score: 1

      You can't deny Mozilla was "based on Netscape" - it looks like Netscape, it has the same components (Navigator/Composer/etc) - sure, it may have been rewritten from the ground up, but that doesn't change the fact that the browser started it's life as Netscape and is still heavily entrenched in that past.

      I might have to DL Netscape 4.77 for a laugh, to see how far we've come!

  61. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by peddrenth · · Score: 1

    At the risk of starting an entire thread on browser stats:

    - MSIE 73%
    - Galeon 6%
    - Mozilla 5 5%

    And Mozilla3, Googlebot, Mozilla 4.x, OmniWeb and Opera each have less than one percent.

    Of course, most visitors to my site come looking for Windows software, so those figures may be a little skewed in favour of windows browsers...

    The stats themselves

  62. Running mozilla on NCD X Terminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone had success with this combo with Debian 2.2 as the host. It just segfaults on me even using the xlib tookit.

    I'd like to get rid of Netscape 4.79 ...

    1. Re:Running mozilla on NCD X Terminals by nuggz · · Score: 2

      I ran it about 18 months ago on a NCD 14b(mono 1024x768).
      It was debian/stable and the corresponding mozilla of the time.

  63. Bah by kraf · · Score: 2

    Mozilla RC3 ?

    1.0 is already on Kazaa !

    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. Re:Wow.. AA font support!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's BEAUTIFUL with AA fonts!

  65. Netscape 6.x is default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been able to get 6.x as the default browser for our entire (small) organization, mostly because of security issues.

  66. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by GnomeKing · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, the bug is classified as severity "major" and has 79 votes saying it needs to be fixed...

    easiest way to replicate (windows only dun forget):
    open mozilla from desktop/quicklaunch icon
    minimize
    open mozilla from desktop/quicklaunch icon again
    FROZEN

  67. My first mozilla /. post by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    After another pop-up hell day with IE, I decided to give Mozilla a try. I must say, not bad at all. Although it's a bit slower than IE, the javascript options are great. Now let's hope it runs stable.

    Of course, disabeling pop-ups is theft, because everything on the internet is so cheap because of the ads. I wonder how long it will take them to figure that out.

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    1. Re:My first mozilla /. post by haeger · · Score: 1

      Slow?
      My experience is that it's much quicker on all sites I visit.
      Please make sure that you don't compare a cached copy in IE with a download from a remote server.

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  68. Still full of major bugs by onlyjoking · · Score: 1

    As an open source/free software devotee I'd love to believe that Mozilla 1.0 is ready for prime time so that I can recommend it to everyone.

    Let's stop pretending. It's still buggy as hell. On Windows 2000 Pro I can't even enter an e-mail address manually within composer sometimes. The Open Web Location box often opens malformed with no entry box and the browser always loses focus when opening a web page, which means you have to keep clicking the page before you can scroll with the down arrow.

    The versions for Linux are, in my experience, even buggier. On Mandrake I have trouble getting any of the Mozilla keyboard shortcuts to work reliably.

    1. Re:Still full of major bugs by taxman_10m · · Score: 2
      There was some bug where my back button would completely stop working after I had used RC2 for a few days. Only way to get it working again was to delete my profile. A browser without a back button is pretty large bug I think.


      I have a p200 with win2k, but god damn is the XUL UI unresponsive and slow. Hopefully, KMeleon will come out ok and I can switch to that.

    2. Re:Still full of major bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that Netscape 4 has that exact same bug. So much for the rewrite..

    3. Re:Still full of major bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all:

      Mozilla is my main browser since 0.9.6. No doubt about it. BUT:

      I dont like finding 63.840 KB of RAM being used by Moz.

      I cant "sell" Mozilla 1.0 to my friends and colleagues if it eats so much.

      Anyway, I keep the faith.

  69. better than explorer by hopey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With pinball theme it looks much nicer than with too big classic theme. Also finally I can switch javascript support and pop-ups on and off by one mouse click with this preference toolbar tool. Tabbed browsing is also great feature. New rc3 starts up and loads pages as fast as explorer. With all these additional features and equal performance with windows native browser I can finally honestly recommend using mozilla.

    hopey

  70. My problem with Mozilla on Mac OS X by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have no problem with it's bloatedness. The rendering surely feels better than IE 5.5 for OS X. However I have one *big* issue will all alternative browsers for Mac OS X.
    You know the OS X has this nice little feature calles "Location" (Apple -> Location), which allows you to switch on the fly from one network to another. Now I use my personal iBook as well as on my home network (with Firewall/NAT) as on the corporate network (with proxy). The Location "applet", allows you to specify the proxies to use (or not to use) when on a certain network. Nifty, eh? Well I love it.

    However there is only ONE browser that fetches this information and that is Internet Explorer. Why? Why? Why? Opera doesn't do it, Mozilla doesn't check it nor Chimera does. I consider all these browsers superior to IE 5.5 You always have to set the proxy information manually! I don't want to do this. Why do I have to change the preferences of the browser when I start it up on another network?

    I can understand this under Linux (no central place to get proxies), or under Windows because it has no nifty "location" feature (a central place is there, if the INTERNEL.CPL applet counts).
    Sorry, but *this* is my biggest issue with Non-IE browsers on Mac. (Posting from Moz RC2 on Mac OS X...btw)

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  71. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/fonts/unix/enablin g_truetype.html

  72. Total cost for developing the Mozilla browser by Stentapp · · Score: 1

    How much has this browser costed to develop? Anyone who knows?

    From what I know, this hasn't been a really resource-effective project. Compare the costs with Opera and Konqueror.

    1. Re:Total cost for developing the Mozilla browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has spent around $2 billion on IE

    2. Re:Total cost for developing the Mozilla browser by Stentapp · · Score: 1

      Lots of money. If it is resource-effective, I don't know...

  73. Are you sure? by N0Nick · · Score: 1

    As far as I remember, clicking "view image" on the right click menu in Netscape 4.x would open the image in the whole window (and not show it inside the page, as done in MSIE). Mozilla has the same behaviour when it comes to this menu item.

  74. Re:Wow.. Still [] AA font support!! by anno1a · · Score: 3, Informative

    As stated somewhere else it's already included. Maybe you should set up your linux and read some howtos before complaining. FUI I've run with anti-aliased fonts on my mozilla since 0.9.9, when I found out it was possible. One reason I could think of, why mozilla doesn't support aa fonts on your system is that you need the damned true-type fonts. That's what did the trick for me. Why doesn't mozilla supply these? Because it isn't their responsibillity. In short: RTFM

    --
    ------- I fumbled my registration and I now must suffer
  75. I don't get it by jonr · · Score: 2

    Why would I have to write AA support into the application? Isn't that a OS feature? Am I missing something?

  76. OpenBSD by lyberth · · Score: 1

    Get it to run natively on OpenBSD, and it will be the best browser arround, because we all know that OpenBSD is the best OS arround :)

    --

    There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
    1. Re:OpenBSD by BZ · · Score: 2

      This will happen as soon as the OpenBSD folks (or anyone familiar with the OpenBSD kernel) write the assembly stubs needed by XPConnect. They have been approached about this repeatedly, and have repeatedly stated outright that they do not care to have Mozilla run on OpenBSD.

    2. Re:OpenBSD by lyberth · · Score: 1

      Witch states that Mozilla has a long way to be the best browser arround

      --

      There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
    3. Re:OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Assembly?!? It's just a Web browser! What they hell are they doing that's so hairy they want help from kernel maintainers?

  77. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it called "enabling truetype?" I haven't followed the steps detailed in the link you posted, but I've used truetype fonts with Moz just like I use truetype fonts with every other X apps. X handles the fonts, what does this "enabling truetype" do exactly?

  78. Sorry, but this is ridiculous! by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

    You are joking I hope? Unless you have a SERIOUSLY broken version of... well.. ANY other browser, there's just no way Moz/NS6/7 are "as snappy" as any of the other players.

    Maybe your 950 duron is super-quick, but on a dual 1ghz P3 it's still horrifyingly bad. Actions as simple as resizing the browser window result in screen corruption as it fails to reflow fast enough to keep up with the mouse. The Javascript/DHTML performance is beyond bad - STILL - in my own tests (I use DHTML heavily) it runs simple loops at less than 5% of the speed of Explorer. When moving layers on the screen IE outpaces it by such a wide margin it's not even funny. Need an example? try this with IE then NS/Moz. Bear in mind that is just raw Javascript speed, the DHTML performance is much much worse.

    I'm no MS lover - I want to see Moz succeed, but lying about its performance is not going to help anyone, and may just turn new users off: "Hey, I was told Netscape 6 was an upgrade from IE5, but it sucks!" is something I've heard from 2 people. From what I've seen of NS7, it's still no better, and neither is Moz. It's fine as an HTML/CSS only browser, but if you try to push it, there's nothing there.

    1. Re:Sorry, but this is ridiculous! by chez69 · · Score: 0

      huh? I use mozilla on a celeron 400 and it's snappy enough to use.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    2. Re:Sorry, but this is ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are my results with the page you suggested:

      Browser, Local , Global
      IE 6 , 0.1 , 0.17
      Moz 1.0RC3 , 0.08 , 0.281
      Netscape 4.79 , 0.11 , 0.791

      PIII 800 MHz
      512MB RAM
      Win2K

      Not much difference in my case for that machine

      Now for the real test. NT 4.0 on PII 233 with 192MB

      Browser , Local , Global
      IE 6.0 , 0.39 , 0.631
      Mozilla 1.0RC3 , 0.27 , 1.012
      Netscape 4.79 , 0.361 ,1.862

      Crap to get past the lameness filter....lah duak sdkfj iwjlk iu3908 sdhhoe, dflkjo dkuu43n] sdfkjo you should drink milk every day. blah blah blah grits hot in your pants. blah blah blah slashdot is so moronic about these goddamn filters. blah. This is a test. A test of the emergency broadcasting system. If this was a real emergency, then a message would follow the tone. # Please try to keep posts on topic.# Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.# Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Who knew that whitespace was junk characters.

  79. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by gaspyy · · Score: 1

    Mozilla/NS6 have about 1% market share (+/-0.5%). It's actually lower than Navigator 4.

    It's a bit depressing, but I still hope that the numbers will increase.

  80. Yea!! except for one little problem by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    Right now, Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 3 looks really good! :-)

    Well, except for one little problem: some web-based messaging systems using Jelsoft's vBulletin doesn't display correctly. :-( I'm a fan of old Disney animated movies and a regular visitor to Disneysites.com, a major discussion board for Disney fans. Unfortunately, the way Mozilla 1.0 RC2 and RC3 formats bBulletin pages causes NO display of bulletin board messages (it just displays top and bottom banner ads on the page only). I checked this against IE 6.0 and IE 6 displays all pages on Disneysites.com's vBulletin BBS correctly.

    Looks like I'll report the bug to Bugzilla and also contact the Disneysites.com webmaster about the problem. They'll have to know, especially when Netscape 7.0 and the next version of the AOL software is released.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
    1. Re:Yea!! except for one little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to be an extra unbalanced td tag on line 263. A quick run through http://validator.w3.org/ is usually a good thing in situations like this.
      If you remove it the posts appear.

    2. Re:Yea!! except for one little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is an extra unbalanced td tag on line 263. A quick run through http://validator.w3.org/ should show it up to you.

  81. mod parent up. by ewan9 · · Score: 1

    I think that is a very good post; comprehensive and to the point.
    I'd mod it up had I not wasted my moderator points on some crap...

  82. Mozdev.org is great! by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    I'll say this: mozdev.org is great!

    Not only did it explain how to set up various plugin programs to work with Mozilla 1.0 RC builds, but also has a lot of great explanations on other aspects of Mozilla 1.0. Whoever runs this page is a genius.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
  83. I have 3 words for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake
    Trojan
    http:/www.moosoft.com

  84. Rock on! by abe+ferlman · · Score: 2

    This is the kind of stuff I love reading on slashdot- informative little tips that make me all googly-eyed over free software.

    That is the coolest shortcut since tabbed browsing.

    --
    microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
  85. Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by dannyspanner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read this document to find out why the spaces appear and what you can/should do to fix it. Nobody said standards compliance wouldn't hurt.

    1. Re:Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      :sigh:

      The page in question is HTML 4.01 Transitional compliant and works in:

      IE (all versions)
      OmniWeb
      iCab
      Mozilla 0.9.x
      Opera
      Netscape 6.2.1

      Here is two URLs:

      http://www.rit.edu/~wjl3191/daemons/
      http://www .rit.edu/~wjl3191/about.html

      Both pages are compliant (iCab is a standards compliant browser), also validated with W3C.

      so, this is probably a bug.

    2. Re:Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      One other thing.

      According to the same document you reference (ironic isn't it?), modern browsers are supposed to use the non-strict rendering mode for Transitional DOCTYPE.

      Frankly, the reason I don't use strict on the page and use CSS in place is pretty obvious. You need the page to work with more browsers (how many people have CSS2 compliant browsers?)

      So, you can be an elitist but, there is the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by BZ · · Score: 2

      See http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/quirks/d octypes.html

      Basically, a parser bug in NS6/0.9.4 and everything before made your page render in quirks mode. Removing the DTD URI from the doctype will make it render in quirks mode again.

    4. Re:Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Oh bloody hell.

      What is funny is that AFAIK, the spec for HTML does not say how to handle spacing. It is left up to the browser (which would mean the old way was also valid but, not invalid either).

      :sigh:

      I am not going to have fun with this.

    5. Re:Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by BZ · · Score: 2

      Of course the spec for HTML does not say how to handle spacing... The spec for HTML does not say how to actually _render_ anything. That's covered by CSS.

  86. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by SpdyVkng · · Score: 1

    Which counter? Is it widely used (ie. in large commercial sites)?

    --
    The Speedy Viking
  87. Mozilla 1.0 RC3 looks great in Win98 by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    I'm running Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 3 under Windows 98 (original release with all Microsoft patches installed).

    I have to say that the Mozilla developers really need to take a bow for four long years of hard work and taking a lot of abuse. It is now an impressively fast browser with pretty accurate page rendering; one really nice thing is that the Mail and Newsgroups module has finally got rid of a lot of the quirks that made the Messenger module in Netscape Communicator 4.x releases a major pain to use.

    Now, I hope Netscape ships Netscape 7.0 in three versions: 1) Base install, which is the web browser and Mail/Newsgroup reader module only; 2) Standard install, which adds JRE 1.4 and Flash 6.0 to the Base install; and 3) Complete install, which adds AIM, ICQ and RealOne to the Standard install.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
    1. Re:Mozilla 1.0 RC3 looks great in Win98 by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, Netscape radio wouldn't work with RealONE yesterday, had uninstall and drop back to rp8.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  88. Either your system is broken or worse. by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1


    This is completely bogus. I am currently typing
    this from the first release candidate on a 550Mhz
    win32 machine. On my machine, mozilla is faster
    than IE on about 75% of all the web pages I have
    tried, and slower, but only marginally, on the
    other 25%. I know because I tried this out with
    our local MS lover. I don't see any problems
    with resizing the windows, javascript etc.
    I don't know where you are coming from,
    but I seriously doubt that your intentions are sincere.

    Magnus.

    1. Re:Either your system is broken or worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so far, I've seen in rendering speed:

      opera 6>konqueror>moz win>opera 5>moz linux>IE 6.0

    2. Re:Either your system is broken or worse. by FyRE666 · · Score: 2


      This is completely bogus.

      Try here, with the Widget example or sprite demo 4, or this Donkey Kong game rendered in DHTML. Maybe the most obvious example is Video pool which is very smooth with IE and totally unplayable with NS6 despite using virtually no code forking. (BTW, I'm not plugging my site gratuitously, it's just that I've written all these scripts and tried to address Mozilla's speed problems. There are plenty of other people commenting on this topic on other sites, eg Scott Andrew who amongst other things writes articles for Apple's website.)

      Don't just take it from me though, Mozilla's OWN developers acknowledge the serious performance problems with DHTML. See here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129115 . I have Mac, Windows and Linux platforms here, and with the exception of Linux (for obvious reasons!) IE outperforms NS by an extremely wide margin with dynamic content.

      Of course, if anyone would provide a link to a DHTML script that runs faster in NS6/7/Moz than IE then I'd love to see it. No? Didn't think so...

    3. Re:Either your system is broken or worse. by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      here's a snapshot of my desktop when resizing Mozilla (latest release). Notice the "artistic" way it renders the page...

    4. Re:Either your system is broken or worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for pointing this out. It really annyos me
      that I can't play JavaScript games with Mozilla.

      And DHTML implementation is certainly a major
      priority of mine as a web developer.

      Oh, wait. You're serious....

  89. One thing I'd like to know... by gusnz · · Score: 2

    What's the status of this vulnerability?

    Basically, it allows reading any given local file and browsing through the local folder tree in Mozilla -- the site mentions 1.0RC1 was tested and affected, it hasn't been updated since then.

    It was discovered on the 30th of March, Netscape was informed on the 24th of April, and hadn't acknowledged the security researchers' notification within six days, so it was made public. (Cue flame war about MS's security woes...)

    Pretty nasty... anyone with the new build care to test it?

    1. Re:One thing I'd like to know... by sconest · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was fixed in RC2 (and netscape 6.2.3)

      --
      Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
    2. Re:One thing I'd like to know... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Did they fix the massive resource leak on Win9* when viewing a largish local directory tree? It can suck resources down to under 10% in a matter of seconds.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  90. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by edremy · · Score: 2

    This is not intended as flamebait by any means, but does anyone know what sort of browser share Mozilla/Netscape have?

    While not hard numbers, check out the Google Zeitgeist, which has graphs of both the types of browsers visiting Google and the OS used.

    Netscape 4 has been on a steady decline for the last year: it's well below all of MSIE 5, 5.5 and 6- totalling those 3 would indicate that Netscape 4's share is pretty minimal. Mozilla isn't even broken out: it's lumped with "Other".

    No idea of the exact algorithm used to determine this, so it's always possible folks have altered their browser ID string to mimic IE to fool sites that won't work otherwise.

    (One other neat observation: note that the % of searches in English has been steadily dropping for the past year. The web is becoming more global by the day.)

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  91. Check Chimera email list or discussion boards by MO! · · Score: 2
    Chimera does fetch the proxie settings from System Preferences. The only lacking part is re-fetching it when you change locations with the browser open. In that case, you Quit Navigator, and relaunch to pick up the new location settings. The developers are aware of this short-coming, and plan to update this functionality soon. You have to realize that Chimera is only at version 0.2.7 - there's lots of stuff that needs to be added. Neverthless, it's my primary browser on my TiBook - I use Mozilla on the few sites I visit regularly that fail on Chimera.

    --
    I AM, therefore I THINK!
  92. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A temporary fix has been released: Just don't do that. (I've been using mozilla on 3 platforms (Win, OSX and Linux) for quite some time, and *never* had this problem on windows.

  93. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

    I've been wondering about this bug since RC1...it has happened on both my Windows and Linux machines. In my opinion it's a fairly major bug, since it you have to restart the browser to correct it (and if you have quicklaunch open you have to close that as well). It's bitten me in the ass numerous times (down to the wire eBay bidding being the most annoying and costly) and I would love to see it fixed.

  94. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by plarsen · · Score: 1

    The same behavoir can be reproduced with:
    Netscape 7.0 Preview Release 1

    ...using the procedure you described. But be sure to not have a "HOME" website that opens a popup window.

  95. Being in the kernel isn't magic by jlusk4 · · Score: 2, Informative
    People make this fallacious assumption a lot. Sure, you get more privilege, and you don't have to worry about timeslicing and competing w/other user processes, but there ARE other kernel "things" going on you have to compete with, and you still have to service device interrupts, in a minimal sort of way.

    Plus, you can still do stupid things with locks and totally throw away your advantage.

    Case in point: I myself did a benchmark of Samba on a vendor's Unix vs. SMB on NT 4.0 SP3 a few years back (on the same hardware, duh). (It wasn't quite formal enough to publish, we didn't get written permission from ZD Labs, etc. etc., you know the drill, but I did spend a month on it.) We outperformed NT by a factor of 2 under fairly high loads (~30 workstations on 3 sublans hitting the server as hard as they could). How could that be, when SMB was a kernel process on NT, but Samba was a user process on our Unix? My only explanation (apart from the possibility that I fucked up the benchmark [pretty small, I had some assistance from our local gurus]) is that NT/SMB do some stupid locking things in the kernel and slow themselves down.

    So, the kernel ain't magic.

    John.

    1. Re:Being in the kernel isn't magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that IE is in the kernel, it's that it is loaded when windows starts.

  96. So chimera does? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
    Well, I'm at work not and I fired it up once again. Nope, tries to connect directly. Okay, I checked the version: I have 0.2.3 so it could be some recent bugfix.
    For Chimera's defense: Internet Explorer is very bad at refetching it too... I can live with closing the browser, but not with changing the settings. My point still stands for Opera (if they add this feature, I buy it...you read this Opera guys?) and Mozilla however.

    Oh, by the way: why isn't Lynx provided with Mac OS X, I just wondered if it would be there and it isn't. They provide emacs and vi (I will never use emacs, and use vi all the time), but not a fancy textbrowser? Lynx has saved my butt a lot of times, especially when installing a Linux machine and having trouble with the XFree config.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:So chimera does? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, by the way: why isn't Lynx provided with Mac OS X, I just wondered if it would be there and it isn't.

      Lynx is GPL, and Darwin, like most other *BSD's, avoids bundling GPL'ed apps with the base OS when practical. That is also the reason why OSX comes with curl installed by default instead of wget.

    2. Re:So chimera does? by MO! · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was added in 0.2.7. Make sure you get rid of your prefs.js or at least remove any proxy settings there when you update. If you leave the proxy stuff in there it wont fetch the System Preferences setting.

      --
      I AM, therefore I THINK!
  97. Now all we need is... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

    For Linux to ship some decent fonts so we can actually read the webpages rendered by Mozilla.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  98. The coders are getting a bit punch though. by frankie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least a few Mozilla programmers apparently are losing a whole lot of sleep trying to get 1.0final out the door. Take a look at bug 110112 comment 62 (paste the link to avoid the slashdot ban):

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1101 12 #c62

    Synopsis: there are various crashes and freezes when using the "ask me before loading an image" option. In a bad imitation of Solomon's judgement, they decided to stop the crashes by eliminating the option.

    1. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by BZ · · Score: 2

      So. You have two options. You can temporarily disable the feature. Or you can rewrite the whole thing from scratch, test it, test its interaction with other components, debug it, fix the issues, test it some more.

      Guess which is more likely to happen in a freeze period right before a release?

    2. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by frankie · · Score: 2

      two options. You can temporarily disable the feature. Or you can rewrite the whole thing

      Truth is a three-edged sword. They could also have removed the button from the prefs dialog, but left the code there. Power users could activate it by hand-editing, with the understanding that it's unsupported and buggy.

    3. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by Fjord · · Score: 2

      Sometimes to meet a release date, you have to cut a non-working feature with the intention of putting it back in later. It seems like a good judgement call to me.

      --
      -no broken link
    4. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by Mike+Shaver · · Score: 2

      If power users want to try their hands with wobbly features and additional instability risks, we have nightly builds of the wild-west trunk for them.

      Mike

    5. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by waterson · · Score: 1

      I posted the comment in the bug after yanking the feature; admittedly, the comment was probably a bit inappropriate.

      Nevertheless, this illustrates just how easy it is to get a poorly designed, marginal feature into Mozilla, and then in short order be able to enforce "squatter's rights" to keep it there. (With wild conspiracy theoretic claims, nonetheless!)

      The "feature" -- and I use the term loosely -- threw up a dialog for each image on the page before loading it. It was implemented without understanding how the layout engine worked, and caused us to crash on all but the most trivial pages.

      For those who continue to thirst for this capability, note that the hooks to implement this feature well remain in Mozilla. And there is plenty of room on mozdev.org for a mixin that would take advantage of the hooks (hopefully, in a more useful way than spamming the poor user with hundreds of dialogs on each page load).

    6. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* I used this a lot. It's the best way I've seen to avoid those nasty advertisments. Now I have to let it download once before I can block it, and that means that all those nice little 1x1 images get to invade my webmail and browsing undetected. Why open up more security holes? I haven't had -any- problems with it crashing, even after multiple requests, except with a few sites (like rcm.images.amazon.com) *bigsigh*

      It was one of the things I recommended mozilla -because- of.

    7. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by frankie · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestion. Where should one go to keep track of what features and what bugs are in a particular build?

      Also, where is this "wild-west" repository? I don't see anything like that in http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/

    8. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by GauteL · · Score: 2

      It is actually good judgement.

      The feature will most surely come back at some time, but if some features requires more work than they are worth for 1.0, then they have to go. I'd rather see them release a very solid Mozilla 1.0 instead of one with lots of half-finished features.

      This is just sane practice.

    9. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by jesser · · Score: 1

      Where should one go to keep track of what features and what bugs are in a particular build?

      Mozillazine build bar talkback,
      Mozillanews build votes, or cc yourself on specific bugs in Bugzilla to find out when they're fixed.

      Also, where is this "wild-west" repository? I don't see anything like that in http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/

      nightly/latest-trunk

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    10. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by waterson · · Score: 1

      Block all images then. And help someone implement the feature properly.

    11. Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though. by frankie · · Score: 2

      If power users want to try their hands with wobbly features and additional instability risks, we have nightly builds of the wild-west trunk

      Hmm...I've been using nightly/latest-trunk builds for the past several months. I'm using 2002052403 right now. It certainly is not my idea of "wild west". In particular, the one unsupported feature that I want (ask before loading an image) was removed from latest-trunk 10 days ago.

  99. clueless mods at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the least "informative" +5 post i've ever seen. it's full of murky facts, stupid opinions, and just plain idiocy. Why does HanzoSan always get modded up with the dumbest comments?

  100. And here are my numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE 0.08 and 0.13

    Moz RC3 0.06 and 0.231

  101. RC2 Bug which confused me by Dacta · · Score: 2

    There is a bug (in the windows version, although the release notes only note it in the Linux version) that might confuse you if you come across it.

    If you have a customised user agent and the java plugin installed, make sure it contains the string "Mozilla/4.0", otherwise you won't be able to start up Mozilla.

    Apparently the user agent is passed to the plug-in, and it doesn't know how to handle unknown user-agents (actually it tries to handle them as Netscape 3 and then crashes). Something (in your prefs.js) like:

    user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98;)");

    should do the trick.

  102. Lotus Notes R5 webmail works! by NKJensen · · Score: 1

    Many warm thanks to you guys!

    I'm using Lotus Notes R5 webmail and the menu system used to crash the older versions of Netscape 6 and Mozilla. It works fine now.

    Once again, warm thanks to all of you in the team.

    --
    -- From Denmark
  103. Problems displaying images by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

    In recent nightly builds going back a few weeks now I have noticed a problem with displaying some images.

    eg. on mozilla main page I do not see the main logo only the alt text. When I right click and choose "View Image" I get the message
    The image "http://www.mozilla.org/images/mozilla-banner.gif" cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

    This has continued with RC3

    1. Re:Problems displaying images by dannywalk · · Score: 1

      I got this problem too. I think it's a problem with the cache. When I deleted the mozilla cache, it all worked fine again. You should find it somewhere like C:\Documents and Settings\user-name\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\something.slt\Cache Close Mozilla, delete the folder, and run mozzy again. Hope this helps. -=danny=-

      --
      Man Needs God Like Birds Need Helicopters
    2. Re:Problems displaying images by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

      Thanks
      I deleted all the files in the Cache folder and that cleared the problem.

  104. Review of Mozilla vs. IE by Zelet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On Windows boxes, I have noticed that since the RC2 Release Mozilla has become much faster than IE in every category except Jave applets. Even then the difference is minimal.

    Another problem with Mozilla that was cleared up since RC2 is plug-in support. Flash and Java were both working perfectly with little hassle (no more hassle than IE) in RC3.

    I think I found my new favorite browser. I was very sceptical about Mozilla being able to out-do IE but it happened, and it happened with an eye on security too.

    Good going Mozilla crew.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  105. anyone else notice this error... by eclectric · · Score: 2

    When I add a doctype to my pages, mozilla doesn't seem to pick up on the style sheet.

    It works fine if I comment out this line in my perl script. Any thoughts? It works fine in IE, so I don't think it's a server issue, but it might be.

    Also, does anyone know when the site navigation toolbar went away? i loved that thing.

    1. Re:anyone else notice this error... by vondo · · Score: 2
      Also, does anyone know when the site navigation toolbar went away? i loved that thing.

      Because it didn't work well at all with tabbed browsing. Basically, the toolbar has to be brought inside the tab to be of any use. If you had a site with navigation links open in any tab, the bar would show up for all tabs, tricking you into thinking you could navigate where you couldn't.

      I turned it off a long time ago because of this.

    2. Re:anyone else notice this error... by Ashok · · Score: 1

      It may be because you're serving them as text/plain rather than text/css, but that's off the top of my head. ISTR the non-quirks mode being suitably picky over this.

      wget http://eclectric.com/style.css ... Length: 1,215 [text/plain] ... 0K . 100% @ 1.16 MB/s 16:42:17 (1.16 MB/s) - `style.css' saved [1215/1215]

      --
      ash
      ... You can call it a wizard once it can do bloody magic
    3. Re:anyone else notice this error... by BZ · · Score: 2

      Release notes are your friend. http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/#devel second paragraph will tell you what's up.

    4. Re:anyone else notice this error... by sconest · · Score: 2

      Iirc, the main reason is that it caused an increase of the load time of a page.

      --
      Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
  106. You can't use native widgets in a standard browser by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    because the style sheets have parameters that are not supported by the native widget sets. So if you want to support all of the standard, you have to write your own widget set.

    What Mozilla does with XUL is use that widget set for all of the browser, not just the web pages.

  107. Stats from Google by Malc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google has some information. Netscape 6+/Mozilla is too insignificant to register in its own category.

    Off-topic aside: when I go to google.com, it redirects to google.ca (hence my link). Google's up to something. They don't know my geographical location from any cookie information, etc as this is a clean install of Mozilla 1 RC3.

  108. Wow this is FAST! by Frobozz0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have liked Mozilla for a long time because of it's feature set, but as of this release the Mac OS X port is VERY FAST to resize windows and reflow text. I never thought I would say it-- but Mozilla is faster than IE on my box at work- a 500 MHz G4. I could not be happier!

    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
  109. Good. by Troller+Durden · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when your website design values "looking cool" over "being useful". Flashy sites (especially FLASH-y sites) may be more fun for the creator, but they all present serious user interface problems and make things extraordinarily difficult for people who had a reason to come to the site in the first place.

  110. Re:"no big chance..." by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess I get kinda weary with the all-too-common notion that things are always going to be the way they are today.

    If market-dominating products persisted in this state due to inertia, or herd behavior, or whatever, then we would still be using Apple IIs, or TRS-80s, or IBM PCs, or CP/M, or Lotus 1-2-3, or WordStar.

    Times changes, things change, fashions change.

    Bill Gates is acutely aware that Microsoft does not have any lock on the future, it's why he fights so fiercely to hang onto nearly all of the marbles.

    If we learn anything from history, its that he won't succeed. Either the crumbs of the marketplace that he does not own will grow into something unimaginable, or some totally unrelated technology will replace the existing computing segment of the economy.

    No rational person believes that 10 years from now we will be using systems and software that are just like the ones today, only fatter and faster.

    Change happens. Watch for it. Making informed choices is the best way to surf the waves of change.

    Just because we're stuck today with IE owning nearly all the browser usage amongst the computing illiterati, is no reason to expect it will be that way forever.

    I suppose you also expect .NET to be a raging success (just like the XBox), with millions of (l)users willingly ponying up annual subscription fees to use their PCs. Myself, I figure that before that happens, millions will abandon PC-based email for cellphone-based email -- all we need to dethrone IE is a viable alternative that is sufficiently attractive to the masses.

    So long as things like Mozilla/Netscape7, Opera, Konqueror, etc, continue to be developed, there is the possibility that they may catch the public fancy and pose a serious threat to IE.

  111. Trying to get sites to fix little problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I come across a site that doesn't work in Mozilla, I always send a note to the links I can find. E.g. Movietickets.com wouldn't work in Mozilla. I experimented and was able to lie to the site through Mozilla that I was using IE and the site would work. I sent many emails about the issue and now the site works without problems for Mozilla.

    The other site I just had a big fight with was Ofoto.com. They print digital photos etc. There site works perfectly in Mozilla except for a little JavaScript dropdown menu that allows you to edit your photo albums. I sent them the code to fix it and they refused to resolve the issue. I told them that I was running Mozilla on Linux and they responded by saying that they don't support Linux. Seeing that it isn't a Linux issue, the fact is that they don't want to fix their site. I could view the page source, get the URL for the link I wanted on the menu and the page would subsequently work.

    Be vigillant people and complain everytime you see little or big bugs.

  112. here's proof by tjw · · Score: 1

    tjw.org/screen/

    Compared are two instances of Mozilla 1.0 RC3. The one on the right is the stock font configuration, the one of the left has hat the following changes made to /usr/local/mozilla/defaults/pref/unix.js:
    pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);

    pref("font.FreeType2.autohinted", true);
    pref("font.FreeType2.unhinted", false);

    pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.enable", true);
    pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.always", true);

    --

    XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  113. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by GnomeKing · · Score: 1

    you dont need to restart the browser

    setting focus on a different application then returning focus to mozilla fixes it

    and if it annoys you, sign up to bugzilla and vote for the bug...

    maybe if there are more votes for the bug the dev team will realise they cant ship 1.0 with it in

  114. SVG by tomer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The most needed feature in Mozilla/Netscape is the SVG support. It's quite terrible that it can't be exist yet in the regular binary builds due to only its license, even that there is "other" SVG plugins.

    Until now, I saw none of sites with SVG support (not including the SVG demos, SVG tutorials, etc.), which move people to think that "SVG is a bloated SWF clone for wimps", which is completly wrong way of thinking. SWF (Macromedia Flash) is good, but still, it's closed source software, dislike HTML, XML, JPEG, PNG, and others. If sites/companies will have SVG support instead of SWF, which is not a big thing to deal with (I guess there are even today SWF2SVG convertors, with full support for SWF timeline), the web will be much more happier place.

    Let's hope for SVG support in the offical 1.O, it's still possible...
    0000B4B5E831
  115. java on Windows by jchristopher · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a working java plugin using Mozilla on Windows? I've installed the latest JRE from Sun and done the trick where you copy the .dll into the plugins folder, but it still doesn't work. Ideas?

    1. Re:java on Windows by bunratty · · Score: 1

      With the latest versions of Mozilla, it automatically detects JRE 1.4.0 and uses it. Try the latest nightly and report a bug if it doesn't work.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:java on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must use Sun Java Plug-in 1.3.0_01 for Netscape, which means you must install JRE 1.3.0_01 prior to installing Mozilla.
      You'll have to search within java.sun.com for the EXACT version.

      This I read and turned to be true as it is my actual setup.

  116. Try GNU Emacs for Windows by yerricde · · Score: 2

    My web editor is... notepad... Which is the only editor 100% compliant with all standards

    No. Try GNU Emacs for Windows. Notepad (at least the version shipped with Windows 3.1 through ME) doesn't support any character encodings other than Windows-1252 (a variant of ISO-8859-1). Heck, it doesn't even allow editing of text files bigger than 32 KB. Emacs, on the other hand, is fully scriptable, allows editing of huge files, and supports many character encodings.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  117. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by 10sball · · Score: 1

    It very much depends on the site and its target (or found) audience. I run a few smaller sites geared towards Web Tech/Design types and in those arenas I see Gecko based browsers anywhere from 3-10%. On much less targeted stuff, that has a more general audience, I see between 1-2%. Some of these #s are up for your perusal:

    placenamehere.com info
    chunkysoup.net info

    --
    [place .sig here]
  118. Re:"no big chance..." by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    "If market-dominating products persisted in this state due to inertia, or herd behavior, or whatever, then we would still be using Apple IIs, or TRS-80s, or IBM PCs, or CP/M, or Lotus 1-2-3, or WordStar. Times changes, things change, fashions change."

    One day, if I live long enough, I may see the light of a new dawn where CowboyNeal is not a standard poll answer. He has a monopoly now, but as you say, things change. </joke>

  119. In other news today.... by filmcritic · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Mozilla Project today announced Release Candidate 28, in otherwords version 0.9999999999999999999999999999. The open source community has embraced this project fully and are doing everything in their power to get it released on time.

    When asked about the timetable for 1.0 release, they stated "We are definately making progress. Look for it soon! Internet Explorer XXXV will go down in flames!!!".

    Mozilla is the open source "clone" of Netscape. Netscape, if you remember, was a pioneer in the early days of WWW browsing. After being bought by AOL-Time Warner, some hoped that the huge cash flow would help the floundering former giant. AOL declared bankruptcy in 2010, bringing down all companies underneath it, including Netscape.

    All in all, Mozilla really does look like a promising piece of software if the Mozilla team could actually release version 1.0. Just wishful thinking on my part...

    1. Re:In other news today.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to boost version numbers. Netscape 5 never existed. Netscape 6 never really got out of beta testing, it was so poor. And now they are working on Netscape 7.

      Maybe after Mozilla 1.0 is released, they should just jump to 7.0, to keep pace with the other big players.

  120. When is SMIL coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need (as does the world) a [good] SMIL browser.
    The web will change forever, and TV will be
    slowly replaced.

  121. Fizzilla vs. Chimera by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    For Mac see Fizilla: or, for the boring, "Mozilla for MacOS X" http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/

    Actually, the two Fizillas are simply carbon Mozillas. For a Gecko-based browser with OS X's look and feel, you should download Chimera, a Cocoaized Mozilla-based browser. Chimera I think is a browser-only version, as is mozilla/browser (for Windows; don't have a URI).

  122. Re:Tech Evangelism bug reports by bunratty · · Score: 1

    It's better to file a Tech Evangelism bug in Bugzilla for sites that don't work. That way, the Mozilla team can track these sites and offer technical assistance to make them standards compliant.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  123. Opera's CSS is incomplete too by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1
    Another important missing feature in Opera:
    # these property/value combination: 'display: marker', 'text-align: ', 'visibility: collapse', 'content: ', 'overflow: scroll', 'overflow:auto'

    You can't do any page layout with CSS-defined scrolling in Opera. overflow:scroll and overflow:auto don't work - try it and you'll get text falling out of your css-defined text block instead of the automatic generation of scrollbars from Mozilla. Even IE5 and IE6 do that ok - to my mind it's a major failing in Opera. And I like Opera.

    I had to redesign pages that I had wanted to do with pure CSS layout rather than tables and frames in order to get independent sections with their own overflow scrolling. They were absolutely fine in IE and Mozilla.
  124. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, it doesn't have to work properly. Ship it with major bugs. It's only open source.

  125. OK... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    I've looked at the Bugzilla reports, and done some google searches...

    How the hell do I disable HTML rendering in the email client? There should be a bloody option for this! It's still not in RC3.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:OK... by sconest · · Score: 2

      It is not yet in the 1.0 branch.
      If you want that you (currently) have to use a trunk build.

      --
      Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
  126. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  127. Solaris still stuck at RC1 ... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2

    The latest version for Solaris is Release Candidate 1. Does anyone know why they skipped both RC2 & RC3? (Maybe RC3 will be out soon, and I'm just impatient :)

    I use Mozilla as my primary browser on Linux & Windows (On a Celeron 366 with 512Mb of ram), and it's great.

    Mozilla on Solaris is about 10 times slower then Netscape 4.7 at everything except rendering an HTML page. On a Sparc 266 with 512 Mb or ram, Mozilla takes 20 seconds to start up, mouseclicks usually take 1+ second to respond,
    etc. It needs alot of work to be usable.

    And I can't get Mozilla or Galeon to compile, so I'm stuck with released version.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  128. Re:fp released too !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "der Meister", you dolt.

  129. Re: Disabling HTML rendering in mail by bunratty · · Score: 1
    How the hell do I disable HTML rendering in the email client? There should be a bloody option for this! It's still not in RC3.
    If you feel so strongly about this feature, submit a bug for it.
    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  130. Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla doesn't start slower when you use quick launch, but it does render dynamic html pages a lot slower than the competition. Static html doesn't suffer from this problem, but lots of sites now use fancy javascript effects, and though mozilla can execute them correctly, it can't execute them at anything faster than a walk-of-the-dinosaurs pace.

    The dhtml problems are being fixed as we speak. One of the most important bugs in this respect was this one, about only updating the screen once when you have lots of javascript property changes to make, instead of one time for each change (also known as "coalescing the reflows"):
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.c gi?id=129115

    Note that it's fixed. It's not in the 1.0 branch though, because the fix is so far-reaching that they don't have the guts to introduce it into the branch so late. It'll go in for the next version.

    And if you look there are plenty of smaller speed improvements going in right now (few of those into 1.0 because the patches haven't been tested enough). There is no reason why mozilla shouldn't be able to be just as fast as IE. The main reason is that the programmers just hadn't gotten around to it yet. They were trying to get mozilla feature-complete and stable before they started optimizing it for speed.

    If you're interested in mozilla performance bugs, just go to bugzilla.mozilla.org, click query page, and do a search for all bugs with the "perf" keyword.

  131. Yep .. AOL bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah CNN, HBO and Cinemax off the air
    millions of homes cable disconnected
    Time, Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated magazines all gone.
    Warner Studios stops releasing movies.

  132. Re: Disabling HTML rendering in mail by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    See Bug 28327, Bug 30888, Bug 69529.

    Why should I add another one?

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  133. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Corby911 · · Score: 1

    Google's Zeitgeist should give you a good idea of what the different browsers' market shares are. Mozilla, Netscape 6, Opera, Konquerer, etc all fall under "Other" unless they're spoofing their browser identification.

    --
    Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
  134. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Rupert · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the link. Obviously many /.ers use Google - Natalie Portman is the #1 search term for the month!

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  135. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE ships with major bugs too, plenty of them. /me points to jscript.dk

  136. Would be using Netscape/Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the other day i downloaded a service pack or something to that effect, installed it, and now netscape 6.1 doesnt run anymore. I havent had time to mess with it, but i did un-install and reinstall netscape, and same thing happens. slash screen for netscape comes up, and then netscape comes to grinding halt. anyone know how to remove windows service packs or other elements? I love mozilla, but I haven't been able to run either mozilla or netscape 6 since I've done this.

  137. what about favicons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since 0.9.8 or so, Mozilla stopped showing favicons in the location bar and in the bookmark menu. Though there's a way to get them to reappear in the location bar (adding a line to pref.js), favicons are still not showing up in bookmarks. I found this be useful on the personal toolbar, because it allowed me to stuff lots of bookmarks on that bar that were easily identifiable by their icons. Will this feature return?

  138. Re:You are an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, most of the mozilla developers are paid by AOL to develop mozilla.

  139. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by Reziac · · Score: 2

    I don't know about that bug, but I've found that js-intensive sites tend to crash Mozilla about half the time (no crashdump, it just keels over and dies). Overall, it is even less stable than NS4.74 and that's not saying much. :(

    Which is a shame because Moz is faster and overall less-annoying than any NS since the 4.0x era, and leaps and bounds faster than IE6 on the same machine.

    Tho I *still* prefer NS3.04 for sheer utility. Maybe I'll try KMeleon now that I tracked down a working download link.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  140. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time Rob would talk about it, the vast majority of /.ers were running windows and IE. Feel free to email him and ask for yourself though. Dont think you'll ever get actual numbers though as this would make /. look pretty bad since most of the users use windows.

  141. Re: Disabling HTML rendering in mail by bunratty · · Score: 1

    Why ask how to do something when you already know perfectly well that there are open bugs on the feature? IHBT!

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  142. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by ziggles · · Score: 1

    What's funny is the people on deviantart hate netscape, but love mozilla.

  143. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by GauteL · · Score: 2

    Remember that Opera and Konqueror (and probably a few others as well) are _very_ often set up masking themselves as IE.
    This increases their market share quite a bit.

  144. Thanks by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    Ah...okay, so I have to use curl instead of wget. I was trying to figure that one out too. Never heard of curl before but the command is recognised! :-) I'm still too used to Linux, I must be a bad OS X user.
    Anyways, isn't emacs GPL too? So why is that one included?

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  145. Mozilla/Browser aka mb by gnugnugnu · · Score: 1

    I am quite surprised that neither mozillazine nor mozillanews have done a story on mb (mozilla/browser) yet, i saw in one the developers blogs (cannot remeber which maybe mpt). There is not much information to be found about it yet, it does not help that google returned mozilla-browser even when i used the advanced search to specify exact phrase *sigh*.

    for those who dont know Mozilla/Browser aka mb
    is the new browser only Mozilla project with a slightly differnt interface (i dont know the details i have not actually used it myself)

    Here is a relevant link from Blogzilla, a blog about Mozilla:
    http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/archives/mozill ab rowser_download.html#comments

    1. Re:Mozilla/Browser aka mb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

  146. Mozilla is USELESS for X terminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For more than a year, a bug in macromedia's flash and Mozilla makes Mozilla/Netscape useless for remote X terminals. When loading a page with exported X, mozilla crashes. They believe it's not so important as not too many people will use remote X terminals.
    To my point of view, Mozilla 1.0 should only be released when this shamefull bug is corrected.
    Everyone NEEDs macromedia flash today.

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5893 7

  147. one word on IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Popups.

    If Mozilla and Netscape make pop-up ads go away, while IE refuses to, then people will start to drift away from IE. Not everyone, but quite a few I'd bet.

  148. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could be wrong, but doesn't Opera identify itself as MSIE 5.0 by default? Does this affect statistics?

  149. Re:Tech Evangelism bug reports by jesser · · Score: 1

    I think it's best to start by sending the site an e-mail. If that doesn't work, file a Tech Evang bug and say that you already tried e-mailing the owner of the site. The Tech Evang team doesn't have time to help fix every broken site on the Web, so the more you can get fixed by yourself, the better.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  150. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by 10sball · · Score: 1

    In the cases where this is skewing reports it is the reporting tool that is at fault in almost all cases. For example, Opera often reports itself as:

    Opera/6.01 (Windows 98; U) [en]
    or, when masking like:
    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Linux 2.4.18-lomo i686) Opera 6.0 [en]

    The latter case is just as easy to detect properly as Opera, however i have seen some tools out there that consider the latter as IE instead.

    As for "quite a bit" I would hardly call 2% total even a small dent, considering the unscientific way these numbers are gathered in the first place.

    --
    [place .sig here]
  151. gecko != mozilla by Mandrias · · Score: 1

    What he said is that he wants a native Mozilla.... I use the gecko based browsers, and they feel nothing like mozilla.. they don't have the features, etc. Think Opera... It's multiplatform, but it's interface is rendered natively on each platform that I've used.

    --
    Use the Z-modem protocol between Information Superhighway routers to compress the plaintext. ~LordOfYourPants
  152. I like by BoneFlower · · Score: 2

    Been using RC3 for about an hour... First thing in its favor is JAVA SUCCESFULLY INSTALLED! I couldn't get it to on 0.9.9 no matter what I did. It installed on RC3 without a hitch and so far things seem stable, fast, everything I expected from an improved version of 0.9.9. Mozilla is clearly the top browser on Linux. Konqueror... well... simply sucks for web browsing... Great for browsing your hard drive and useful when going through local HTML docs and on the web, but for strict web browsing, Mozilla is tops on Linux. Great job, finally Netscapes source code opening is showing something.

  153. Popups Have Problems by tommyServ0 · · Score: 1

    You may want to keep around the install for RC1. . . I have trouble with RC2 and RC3's popups etc.

    For example, when I click on a page that has a popup window with content in it (a requested popup) it doesn't show up.

    I also chose "Allow Javascript to Open Unrequested Windows" too, still no dice.

    Anyone else have these problems?

    --

    Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
  154. My Mozilla's Icons are nothing like the IE by quantaman · · Score: 2

    With apologies to Willian Shakespeare

    My Mozilla's Icons are nothing like the IE;
    China is far more red than her licence red;
    If button mean down, why then she come back up?
    If html be wires, broken wires jut one of her rendering engine;
    I have seen webpages advertising other browsers;
    But no such promotions I see in her windows;
    And in some MS java there is more delight;
    Than in the broken applets that from my browser reeks;
    I love to browse her tabs, yet well I know
    That Netscape 7 hath a far more pleasing interface;
    I grant I never saw OS X though;
    My Mozilla, when she browsers, slumps through links;
    And yet, by Linux, I think my browser as rare
    As any I belied with false compare;

    --
    I stole this Sig
  155. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by HoaryCripple · · Score: 1

    The anti-netscape sentiment present at deviantart.com is caused by 12-16 year old users that don't even realize that it was IE repeatedly breaks standards, and that mozilla/netscape is trying to fix that. Many at devart say that it is netscape that is breaking standards, and that they have to rewrite websites because of this. This is a good example of the brainwashing that Microsoft has performed. I cannot believe the amount of ignorance present at deviantart as evidenced by the Netscape post. We probably need to evangelize to the younger generations that have never used anything but IE.

  156. Re:Their planning to release with a big bug still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, i had been under the impression there was some advantage to open source, and something wrong with what microsoft was doing with ie.