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.
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.
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.
...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...
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
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?
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
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
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.
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
copy & paste? Too hard... :-)
Drag the link onto the tab-bar.
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.
aus.music.scrapbook
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...
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.
Linux user since early January 1992.
How about Google?
I have been pwned because my
You might have better luck at http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
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!"); }
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...
mmmm, lizards baby
You mean the sexy 'red' Leezard right?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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.
Please people, ITS A JOKE!. Ya know, humor. This is funny stuff. Now most of the complaints can be marked redundant.
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!
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."
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...
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.
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
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.
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."
...and once I even saw Opera render a page properly.
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
Mozilla RC3 ?
1.0 is already on Kazaa !
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.
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
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
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)
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/fonts/unix/enablin g_truetype.html
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
Why would I have to write AA support into the application? Isn't that a OS feature? Am I missing something?
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).
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.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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.
Right now, Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 3 looks really good! :-)
:-( 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.
Well, except for one little problem: some web-based messaging systems using Jelsoft's vBulletin doesn't display 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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
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!"
I AM, therefore I THINK!
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.
I ran it about 18 months ago on a NCD 14b(mono 1024x768).
It was debian/stable and the corresponding mozilla of the time.
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.
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
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).
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.
I have AA working by default on my debian installation of mozilla rc2 and galeon whatever.
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):
1 12 #c62
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Then start your own :-)
http://www.schnitzer.at/mozparty/
21 already in progress...
Gerv
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.
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.
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."
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.
I guess I get kinda weary with the all-too-common notion that things are always going to be the way they are today.
.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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=12911
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...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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...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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
Thanks for the link. Obviously many /.ers use Google - Natalie Portman is the #1 search term for the month!
--
E_NOSIG
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?
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?" `":" #");}
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.
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.
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