Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla RC3 Released

Posted by timothy on from the moz-developers-deserve-laurels-and-gold dept.

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.

4 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. MOZILLA IS DYING READ THIS::: by ElCagado · · Score: -1, Troll

    ok, let me explain, than. There are several reasons why _I_ do not support Mozilla, or don't like it as a product. Technical ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) startup time is HUGE. b) minimize/maximize time is enermous c) User Interface is *terrible* d) CSS support is far away from being completed e) Mozilla supports broken Netscape table alyout (HTML) Political ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) Netscape (AOL Time Warner) is backing Mozilla, and *uses* Mozilla for own *games* AOL needs to protect "icon on genuis Microsoft Desktop"? Let's threat them [MS] that we will use Gecko/Mozilla as an engine in next AOL browser. Again, it's fine with me if AOL or even MS will use Mozilla - but not for *dirty games*, please!... b) Mozilla developers are often paid by Netscape, and those developers do not respect *normal* Mozilla users. To understand it better - compare Mozilla-layout list with, say, KFM-devel, (or Konq-bugs), where key Konqueror developers (and advanced users) are subscribed and *answer questions*, including "what will be in next version" and "when it will be released" Business reasons ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) Mozilla is in development almost 4 years but results its developers achieved are not impressive, at all. Again: Mozilla is slow, bloated, consumes a lot of memory and lacks support for many important standards (partially implemented standard can't be called "reference implementation" or "standard compliant implementation") b) it's time to recognize (in case there is a least one Real Manager behind this project) that Mozilla project failed. :-(( It's really a pity, but you can't ignore facts. c) unfortunately, it seems that neither Netscape or AOL itself has good managers. So, may be, it's good time to look for such managers outside?... Again - answer is "no!..." from Netscape. So, what can I say seeing such arrogance from Netscape's side? It's a pity. I wish it could be better. But this is out of my control at a moment. So, if we left political reasons outside, only Technical and Business reasons theirself are enough to recognize that Mozilla is *failing*, if not failed already. That's my opinion, and I strongly back it.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.)

  4. 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.