First Reviews of Mozilla 1.0 Roll In

Since the announcement of Mozilla 1.0's release, at least a few journalists have been quick to turn the beast over and poke its belly. Tina Gasperson's review over at NewsForge makes an interesting contrast to CNET's review; strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-" after describing Mozilla's robustness, standards compliance, speed and convenience features.

Comments

No, actaully, I wrote the first review

[Limburgher]

after I downloaded it, in an email to my wife. I ranted and raved about how awesome it is.

Oh, wait, did you mean the first published review?

Re:No, actaully, I wrote the first review

[Anonymous Coward]

he he wow ur fun-e ! 7:-]

Re:No, actaully, I wrote the first review

[Anonymous Coward]

That was so funny I forgot to laugh.

Re:No, actaully, I wrote the first review

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm...Is it good? I wonder if I should get it...

Freelancer

I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

I looks like Netscape Navigator to me. What's different about it? Honest question.

Re:I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, just a few things:

fast, stable engine "under the hood"
TABBED BROWSING
Useful sidebars (if you like that sort of thing)
skins
a few hundred more things...

In general, Mozilla is faster and more stable than IE (I'm running Mac OS X).

Re:I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... Mozilla does better at rendering speed than any browser (see OSX tests, and IE). IE is faster at starting the browser

Re:I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

For HTML developers most important things are dynamic HTML (ie. pages can be updated dynamically and layout will change) and complete CSS2 compliancy. It also looks and acts much more like IE (regarding rendering etc)... which is not a bad thing since IE is a pretty decent as a web browser.

Re:I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

faster than any browser ?

Try dillo.

Re:I don't get it....

[Bilbo]

Try dillo.

Or perhaps, lynx

;-)

Re:I don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

I just r00t the server, then cat the site, it's generally the quickest method of all ;)

Just downlaoded it

[WinDoze]

There seems to be a glitch with unordered HTML lists where the bullet on the first item appears a line above the first item. Been there all along, but I had kind of hoped it would be fixed by now.

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you report the bug or check if it had been reported before?

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, it's his fault for not reporting that Mozilla can't handle basic HTML. There was no one on the project who did basic Q&A?

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's the only person who's ever noticed this bug, yes, it was. Mozilla relies on user bug testing. That's why they release so many builds. QA people can only do so much.

Use it, find out what breaks, report it, fix it.

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

QA people can't test standard HTML? Too busy testing Chatzilla?

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't test it in every possible scenario of use. They aren't magic elves with special testing powers. If they never run into this bug themselves (and I know I haven't), then how can they do anything about it? Whereas this user who has run into this problem CAN report it, CAN show others where it is, and CAN get it looked at and fixed if necessary (ie it's not bad HTML).

Re:Just downlaoded it

[cicatrix1]

I have never noticed this. . . are you sure that the HTML of whatever page you are looking at is correct? Post the URL so we can check it out.

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

_YES_

report bugs you find or don't complain
end of story

Re:Just downlaoded it

[wikkid007]

well, there's gotta be more to it than that... I just viewed an unordered list in RC3 on Win2k and it looked just fine.

there are numerous wierd little bugs in every browser that might occur on a specific platform under certain conditions -- Mozilla relies on people who find such bugs to report them so thay can be fixed...

if you found a bug in a pre-release version of the browser and didn't report it - you have no right to complain!

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

I reviewed that bug report before.
It is a flaw in page html.
Unfortunately. IE has bizaare parsing and accepts it.
basically
the li tag is opened and closed, then the text is placed after. I have seen this on several sites.
Currently filed in Bugzilla under Evangelism.

Re:Just downlaoded it

[doctor negative]

As someone who has tested HTML full time (Mac IE 4-5), I can tell you that no testing process will catch all mistakes in HTML rendering. Since some bugs only show up when multiple circumstances are present in the code, it is impossible to systematically check every tag in every setting it might be used in.

Re:Just downlaoded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, since in this case it is an invalid bug.
(bad page source) that mozilla is in fact parsing correctly according to standards.
Mozilla tries to fix some HTML, but shouldn't be expected to fix the same HTML that IE does.
Personally, I think apart from some flex, it should actually crack down on bad page layout, halt the slide.

hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

CNET on popups:

this function doesn't discriminate, so it may disable pop-ups you actually want to see, such as the video pop-ups on the News.com front door.

Yeah fucking right CNET. Suck it!

Re:hahaha

[rleisti]

Well put. The only good pop-up is a dead pop-up.

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put. The only good pop-up is a dead pop-up.

Or the pop-up I'm gonna put in your mom!

Re:hahaha

[CynicTheHedgehog]

It does too discriminate (or can). You can disable all popups or only "unrequested" (for instance, onLoad) popups. You can also diable moving or resizing windows (take that hollywood.com!). It's granular and configurable, as the C|Net reviewer would have discovered had he done his job.

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

and in prefs.js you can see options to handle other special cases.
obviously this is just an arms race. but work is being done to more easily configure javascript rights, excluding or including sites, allowing limited range of options, and all in the gui.

C|Net review *was* pretty pathetic though.
How do they stay in business?

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom has been dead for 12 years. You must be REAL desperate to get laid.

Re:hahaha

[cscx]

Yeah, I wonder if there is a way to disable all popups, but allow the X10 popups that have hot girlies on them :D

Re:hahaha

[slashhot]

Luckily, the Internet is not TV, otherwise the Mozilla guys would be sued because they're depriving site owners of ad income, and we users would be sued for content theft.

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I want to diable anything. I don't know what diable is, but it sounds like Spanish for devil.

Re:hahaha

[jonadab]

window.open can be allowed or disallowed on a
per-site basis using capability policies, but
if you turn on dom.disable_open_during_load it
will disable all popups from onLoad and
onUnLoad events across all sites, even those
where window.open is otherwise permitted. I think
there is a bug filed at bugzilla.mozilla.org
about this issue.

Re:hahaha

[jakew]

This would be a fantastic feature: an "allow list" of domains or partial domains that are allowed to pop up windows. One of the sites I use frequently pops up a vital window on loading, so unfortunately I have to keep this wonderful feature of moz disabled.

Though I would be thrilled to never have to see an X10 ad again, personally.

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

The reviewer also states a blatent lie when they say 97% of browsers used are IE. I'd like to know whose arse this figure comes from. I administer a numbers of sites and IE is the lower % of a whole range of browsers, on the stats. Also the reviewer is blindly ignorant of the W3 standards and lives in a fantasy world where they believe MS is setting the standards for Browsers and open source codes like HTML and XML. How long has this reviewer been around? They sound like a mouthpiece for MS. I bet you they have never seen Mozilla working as a rendering engine for the Galleon interface, on a linux system. hmmmm, very suss review!!!!!!!

Pre-Empting a Slashdotting

[Spad]

Nulldevice BSDBabe Pic

Re:Pre-Empting a Slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird. the site has a message saying:

Looks like you're trying to load some images without actually going to the site. Well, thanks to an "Anonymous Coward" on slashdot.org, I had to put these measures in place. Good going, bud.

But the site is, itself, slashdotted.
I don't think you are an ac...

Newspeak

[Mr Guy]

From The CNET article Even stranger, both Mozilla and Netscape outran IE 6 in three of four tests.


From now on, "strange" will be defined as "something you would predict off the top of your head"

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it is strange, as IE has access to Microsoft's hidden APIs, whereas Mozilla and Netscape are restricted.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't the editors really how plainly that shows their biases? I mean, jeez. Why not just start the article of with "IE RULES!!!!!" and end it with "Don't even think about switching!!!"

Re:Newspeak

[EvlG]

What hidden APIs?

These have long been suggested as the source of so-called 'advantages' that Office and IE have, but where is the evidence for them?

I'd like to see URLs that give conclusive (or at least, extremely convincing) evidence of their existence.

I think the real issue here is Microsoft has spent much much more time working on performance and footprint for IE than has been spent on Mozilla so far. Of course, that is not surprising, with several years head start, and Mozilla is a 1.0 product.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you could look at the source code.

Oh wait, nevermind, that's right, you can't!

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

They exist, but I couldn't find a link quickly and I'm probably not likely to change your mind anyway.

The API's aren't "hidden", they are undocumented. The names of the functions are known, but not the use.

If you care look at why WINE doesn't support IE. It's because of all these special API calls.

Re:Newspeak

[mapinguari]

Also from the CNET article: when we ran File > Quit from the JavaScript debugger, instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected...

When you expect that Quit will do something other than quit, all other bets are off. Funny how they didn't mention the only other menu item in that menu: Close. Wonder what that one would do, close the menu?

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

From The CNET article [cnet.com] Even stranger, both Mozilla and Netscape outran IE 6 in three of four tests.

From now on, "strange" will be defined as "something you would predict off the top of your head"

Try opening a HTML table with more than 500 rows in Netscape 4.x and watch it choke.

Re:Newspeak

[EvlG]

I'm familiar with the NT kernel api discussed on sysinternals.com

But my impression was that API is only really useful for creating programs to run on system startup, (like autochk mentioned on sysinternals).

So it seems that this API isn't really useful to give an MS app an advantage over a non-MS app.

What other API is there?

Re:Newspeak

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

When you expect that Quit will do something other than quit, all other bets are off. Funny how they didn't mention the only other menu item in that menu: Close. Wonder what that one would do, close the menu?

Sorry, but thanks for playing. The debugger window is not really part of the browser...It's a debugger. Quit would logicaly quit the debugger, and not the whole browser. They shouldn't really have a quit button on there if they consider it part of the browser, just close. A child of the parent window shouldn't have command that can affect the parent in such a durastic way.

This is where programmers tend to make the biggest mistakes. They that their way is right (I'm sure someone will tell me that I'm full of shit). But the fact is, the user clicked the wrong button. Given that the Cnet people aren't totaly newbies, it's the programmers fault that the user clicked the wrong button....They have misslead the user in some way.

Re:Newspeak

[DCMonkey]

If didn't know otherwise, I'd expect Quit to Quit the Javascript Debugger. I never did like that particular bit of brain damage (one command to close all top level main windows of an app).

Re:Newspeak

[phyxeld]

I think it's kind of fun, reading software reviews written by people who don't understand even the most basic computer interface concepts. I mean, File -> Quit has had the same functionality in practically every program for every OS since 1984, if not longer.

Then again, the same review started by noting that Harry Potter is more newsworthy than mozilla - perhaps cnet's technology writers all have the week off?

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. The only test IE was ahead on was JVM.
The JVM for IE6 is not the full 1.3 or 1.4 JVM Mozilla and NS6.2 use.
So there should be no surprise that it runs faster.
(of course, you may find you can't run applets online either, although some that require the 1.4 JVM will quietly install using MS object tag - but then the speed difference should once more be even)
Basically, I don't see the point of testing the JVM.

Re:Newspeak

[eirikref]

> From The CNET article [cnet.com] Even stranger, both Mozilla and Netscape outran IE 6 in three of
> four tests.

To quote a friend: "That fourth test must have been the one where they tried to crash to browser as fast as possible"

Re:Newspeak

[ywwg]

the user doesn't know that the debugger is a separate program any more than multiple browser windows or the mozilla mail program is separate. it's part of the mozilla suite, so they are all together. Quit always quits out of the whole suite, close closes the current window. your approach assumes the users thinks of the debugger as a separate program, which it isn't.

Re:Newspeak

[__aaklbk2114]

Right! The user is going to be spending a lot of time in the debugger! I suspect that if Joe User stumbled into it, he would want to "Quit" out of it, not the browser. Developers who are smart know the difference.

Anyway we shoulden't fool ourselves. Mozilla was built by developers for developers. Like they give a care about people who aren't "smart" like them. Maybe someone will come along and embed Mozilla it into an acutal user friedly browser. Netscape maybe? Ha ha--right!

Stupid.

Re:Newspeak

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

It still dosn't change the fact that it's missleading.

Maybe the whole thing need to be revised. Or atleast 'Quit Mozilla' so it's obvious that it going to quit the whole suite. I still think it's wrong, but atleast people will know exactly what it does.

Re:Newspeak

[Bingo Foo]

A child of the parent window shouldn't have command that can affect the parent in such a durastic way.

I have to say that durastic (dyoo-raah-stik) is a terrific word. In a very Lewis Carroll way, it conveys its intended meaning without being a real word. Bravo!

Re:Newspeak

[benad]

That's *exactly* what the menu says on Mac OS X ("Quit Mozilla")...

- Benad

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply because someone doesn't give an open source piece of software a A+ 10/10 doesn't mean they are biased.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a rats ass about Netscape 4.x?! Everyone knows Netscape sucks. That's one of the main reasons for the Mozilla project in the first place!!

Re:Newspeak

[moogla]

Let's just ignore the fact that in EVERY version of Netscape Communicator, Quit meant close every Netscape-related window. The only difference is that in 4.X, if you did "Quit" because you launched Composer by accident, it would ask you "Do you really want to close all windows and exit Netscape?" As a Netscape user I learned pretty quickly to use CTRL+W instead of the file menu to close things, to avoid that.

Maybe they should just bring that back with an option to turn it off. Hell, there's probably a user.prefs thingie to turn it _on_.

Re:Newspeak

[Flower]

Let's ignore the fact that in every other app within Mozilla (Chat, Mail, Composer, etc.) the option to end Mozilla entirely is Exit.

Overall, this isn't a huge deal. Somebody just needs to change the menu and hotkey. Or decide this tool shouldn't be able to completely exit Mozilla or....

Well, you get the idea.

Re:Newspeak

[elmegil]

It was misleading the first time I did it in Netscape 4.01. Since then, it's expected.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Have these guys never run a Mac? Quit is quit. Command-Q. It exits the application. Duh. The Mac is the standard others emulate.

Oh - what is durastic? Is it a dissilestical word?

Re:Newspeak

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

That's *exactly* what the menu says on Mac OS X ("Quit Mozilla")...

Yes....But that's just a coincidence I think since all menus on OS X now have the application name add to the 'quit' part.

Of course, the whole thing is less of an issue on the mac since there is only one menu bar. Unlike windows (or Linux to?) where you have menu bars for each app (or each window in the case of apps like mozilla). I spose you could say the MS partly to blame for the confusion.

Re:Newspeak

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I've heard of macs, unfortunatly I've heard of windows to. As I said in another reply, the whole issue is irrelevant on the mac since there is only one menu bar to contend with.

Man, I've already had a coment about the speling....But this is /.! If the edditors are aloud to make imbarissing spelling misteaks, than the users shoud be alloud to spell bad too. If I want to stik a extra 'u' in, I shold beable to do it in peice.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

check out www.winehq.org. they have some info on dealing w/ hidden APIs. They exist.

Re:Newspeak

[EvlG]

I searched around and could not find any information whatsoever on winehq.

Can you post a more specific link?

Re:Newspeak

[rifter]

Microsoft has, indeed admitted in open court that:

1) There are hidden API's

2) They refuse to disclose them as they feel it will negate a competitive advantage such nondisclosures afford them.

As for URL's, for starters, /. had an article on this recently, though salon seems to have broken the referenced link and it has been tough tracking it down. I believe it is cached here.

The fact MS API's are not documented is better documented than that, however. One should probably peruse the findings of fact. There was also an article on ZDnet (surprisingly) on this as well.

I found a Microsoft KB Article on undocumented API's as well as a perl tool pertaining to them with just a cursory google.

For the paranoid, I am sure a little more diligence would indeed turn up the very court documents in which the quotes were made, but really, the fact Microsoft hides code from developers has been discussed ad nauseum in the press ever since DOS, and has not only never been contested by Microsoft, rather the reverse, Microsoft has always said this is a necessary part of its business strategy.

Re:Newspeak

[rifter]

Winehq is indeed a place to find obvious whining about undocumented api's. One link was here. Another is here.

Besides that, this reminds me there are indeed numbers of books documenting some of the previously undocumented API's, written by developers outside microsoft who have figured some of them out.

Re:Newspeak

[civilizedINTENSITY]

SouplsGoodFood is wrong on several levels. Its true that the debugger isn't a subset of the browser, but the browser isn't a subset of the debugger either. The debugger is, and the browser is, (and the mail client, and composer are) a part of mozilla, which is what "quit" is quitting. The difference between "quit" and "close" is ancient and venerable. Thus, I'd have to say that it appears that at least some cnet people are newbies.

Re:Newspeak

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

See. I told you someone was gona tell me I'm full of shit ;)

The technical side isn't important here. The fact is that the debugger window looks like a program in it's self. The quit is misleading/confusing because the user has to stop and think if it will only quite the debugger, or quit the whole suite.
There is nothing that obvious telling the user that the programs are linked (lets forget the fact the debugger has a live link of info to the browser content etc, because other apps like the mail client don't).

In my experience, a child window opened by the main window, doesn't have a title bar if it closes when the main window is closed (think of most toolbar palettes, documents etc). If it has it's own toolbar. It should be considered independent of whatever spawned it.

Re:Newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Late post, but that's not true. Some versions of Netscape 4.x (early 4.5x, I think) had their own version of quicklaunch.

Which sucked because there was no way to stop it except kill it in the task manager (if you were lucky enough to be on NT), or give it the three fingered salute.

Reviewer Wrong?

[_Quinn]

Reviewer: "However, the release notes say you should not use your Netscape profiles, because you could lose your search settings or become the victim of an ever-growing bookmark file that might freeze your system. I've been using Mozilla 1.0 since the release announcement, with my Netscape profile, and haven't experienced these problems. Yet."

Release notes: "Do not share a profile between Netscape and Mozilla builds."

e.g., not in the same directly, not import, yes?

-_Quinn

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[Java Pimp]

...become the victim of an ever-growing bookmark file that might freeze your system...

Who uses bookmarks anymore? It's easier to use auto complete for the sites I visit most (i.e. sl<tab> = slashdot.org) and Google is good usually good enough to find whatever other information I need.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want, make a copy your old Netscape profile, and use that in Mozilla. Or vice versa. Just don't use the very same profile in both Netscape and Mozilla.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[Hast]

I use them all the time. I find a lot of nice sites which I can't remember the URLs for. And I seldom can find them again using Google. (I've tried in some cases when I've lost my bookmarks file.)

Actually I'd want a better bookmarking feature, or a cross between bookmarks and History. To make sure that I can easily find pages where I've been.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[nil_null]

Who uses bookmarks anymore? It's easier to use auto complete for the sites I visit most (i.e. sl = slashdot.org) and Google [google.com] is good usually good enough to find whatever other information I need.

Bookmarks are good for keeping track of sites you might want to go back to but wouldn't remember to otherwise. And a lot of times URLs alone are not descriptive enough. I use bookmarks quite frequently and I imagine many other people do the same (especially when doing research). There are times when even Google won't help me find that page I came across but didn't bookmark.

Of course as you can imagine I have a heap of bookmarks with only the most important ones organized. But it gives me something to do when I just want to randomly surf and can't think of anything to go to.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[Flower]

Try this. I have a number of devices monitored by MRTG. I open a new Mozilla window and click on a group of bookmarks for the pages I want to view. Or I dedicate a window to support sites like say Cisco, Novell and TechNet.

Maybe not how everyone would handle it but in these cases I think bookmarks are more efficient.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?

[Shelled]

He's wrong. My bookmark file, migrated and appended from one system to the next for the last four years, weighs in under a whopping twenty kbytes. It's hard to imagine a still running system that could halt.

I think it's great.

[gambit3]

First open source stuff I've used. I'm running it at home on XP and at work on NT4. Absolutely LOVE the tabs.

I think I finally found what will replace my beloved Netscape 4.7 as my browser of choice.

Re:I think it's great.

[mshiltonj]

First open source stuff I've used.I'm running it at home on XP and at work on NT4.

Welcome aboard, friend! Now, about that XP...
;-P

Re:I think it's great.

[baldass_newbie]

Absolutely LOVE the tabs.

Er, uh, have you tried Opera yet?
They practically invented tabbed browsing.
Not that I don't like Moz, I've had rc3 since its release and I'll download next week when the pipes have cooled.
I've just always thought Opera was a little better than Netscape 4.7. (And hell, at least you had the good sense to stay away from 6.)

Re:I think it's great.

[gambit3]

LOL.

Well, I just bought a new HD, and I think I see a Linux boot in my future.... running Mozilla, of course.

Re:I think it's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

funny ... i thought ncd's mariner invented tabbed browsing back in 1995 ...

Re:I think it's great.

[Asprin]

Er, uh, have you tried Opera [opera.com] yet? They practically invented tabbed browsing.

I love Opera, too, but the first browser *I* ever saw with tabs was the bundled browser from (IIRC***) the now-defunct GNN internet service.... in 1996!

I'm just shocked it took that long to catch on, it was a pretty cool feature even in a time when IE didn't fully support TABLE!



*** NOTE: It might have been SPRYnet, not GNN - it *was* six years ago, after all...

Re:I think it's great.

[Spam Bandito]

No, it was GNN. However, IIRC (again, it was a while ago), they operated a bit differently. I seem to remember that as you browsed, it added a tab for each page you visited, so it showed your history rather than letting you have multiple pages open.

Re:I think it's great.

[Futurepower(R)]

Opera is not nearly as good. Apparently, you can start only one instance of Opera. You can start several instances of Mozilla. Each instance can have several tabs. You can save all the tabs in an instance in one bookmark (group bookmarking). That is an extremely useful feature.

For example, suppose you are doing research on backup systems. You may load 10 or 20 tabs that show backup software reviews and manufacturer web pages. You can save them all and shut down your system. Ten days and many other research projects later, you can bring the backup research pages back by loading that bookmark.

You can save multiple Opera windows to a file, but the interface is quirky, and the system is not nearly as useful.

Here's how one person uses group bookmarks:

When you have several tabs open, go to Bookmarks|File Bookmark... and check the box that says "file as group". Name your bookmark, and each time you open that bookmark all the tabs you had open will reopen. You can even later add bookmarks to the group as if it were a folder. I love that to read my daily comics I don't have to select endless bookmarks or cycle through a list, I just click on the item labeled "Comix" and a dozen tabs open up.

Re:I think it's great.

[Codifex Maximus]

-snippety-
> than Netscape 4.7. (And hell, at least you had the
> good sense to stay away from 6.)

Hey don't rag on Netscape 6. I'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming back to Netscape 4.x. The fonts just look too good in NS6 to go back to squinting in NS4.

NS6 does everything I need it to do... browsing with nice fonts and sharp layout (gekko engine), mail, newsgroups, composer, AIM, Shockwave, Java, Acrobat Reader, RealPlayer. It's a multimedia powerhouse!

Aside from being hungry for RAM, NS6.x is a great browser. I see nothing but improvement of a good thing with Mozilla.

BEWARE! Mozilla has emerged from the software forge and can only get stronger, better and more capable with each new iteration.

Congratulations Mozilla Dev Team on a job well done!

Re:I think it's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the example, I was having a hard time figuring out how that would be particularly usefull, but now I can definetly see some instances where it would be.

-Greg

Re:I think it's great.

[Eil]

You can start several instances of Mozilla.

I wouldn't recommend that. At least, not in Linux. (No idea about builds for other OSes.) For example, let's try out this scenario. When browsing, I might add 6 or 7 new links (that I don't have time or motivation to read currently, but want to eventually) to my bookmarks per session. Then I switch to another workspace in my window manager, fiddle with some text files, maybe chat in IRC a bit. Lets say someone on IRC passes me a URL that I absolutely must visit. The natural reaction is to start Mozilla up from my Gnome panel, which I do, but completely forgetting that I already have the other instance running in another workspace.

Blammo, two instances. What happens every single time, no matter what order I quit the instances, is that my bookmarks that I've added get lost and my history gets deleted. No more purple links indicating where I've already been.

Most annoying. I've come within inches of writing a wrapper shell script that checks for an instance of Mozilla already running so it doesn't start a second.

Dunno if this has been fixed in v1.0, but I rather doubt it. At the least, I'd like to have an option in the prefs that automatically disables multiple instances.

Re:I think it's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

--I know everyone just loves moz here, but I think it's REALLY slow and sorta rank looking and I admit,I failto see why "tabs" are cool unless you are on some whopper monitor and you don't care about screen real estate. Best gui browser I have EVER used is iCab for the mac. I mean it's the BEST. Wicked fast, great options, non-resource hog. About two megs download, too. Blows moz and ns and ie and opera and konqueror and galleon and whatever outta the water.

Re:I think it's great.

[Rope_a_Dope]

Spry used the SpryMosaic browser (based on NCSA Mosaic), but it didn't do tabbing. FYI.

Re:I think it's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an issue with all mozilla based browsers on unix systems (netscape etc.), because of 2 things:

~/.netscape/lock gets created on starting of the first instance. When the nth instance is started, it refuses to write to .netscape/bookmarks, etc.

So there ya go. The best way (read easiet way) Iv'e found to deal with this:

Apparently, when netscape (or mozilla) starts the next instance itself, the child processes have the ability to write to those files. So, I basically either have netscape "open link in another window" or do a ^n, and let it open another window. Yeah, it's probably not the best way or most conveniant, but it works, and it dosen't require any extra effort. Give it a try, it might work for you too.

Re:I think it's great.

[sir99]

I've come within inches of writing a wrapper shell script that checks for an instance of Mozilla already running so it doesn't start a second.

Mozilla comes with a shell script that does just this. Just make sure to run "mozilla" instead of "mozilla-bin." Or use the -remote option, looking at the script.

Re:I think it's great.

[hkmwbz]

Opera 6 can open multiple (separate) windows with tabs inside. Rather than running multiple instances (which presumably uses up N more resources, depending on how many instances you are running), Opera allows you to open a new window running under the current instance.

Why open another instance of a browser when you can open a new window inside the current instance? Perhaps this is why Opera uses far less resources than other browsers, even when you use multiple windows?

You can also have tabs (pages) within each window, and you can drag and drop pages (tabs) between windows.

And why use window files to save windows? You can create a bookmark folder and add the current windows to that folder. The next time you need these windows, you can select "Open all folder items" for this folder, and lo and behold - all bookmarks inside this folder are opened at once.

And because Opera doesn't bog down your system, even with multiple windows, you can open 10-20-30 - or whatever number of windows.

How, from this, you can conclude that "Opera is not nearly as good" is a mystery to me. Mozilla has a lot of great features, but I'm afraid I must tell you that the way Opera handles multiple pages/windows is far superior from where I'm standing.

Re:I think it's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Install Opera under another directory and you can have another instance.

Hi!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eveeieyhfgfcdoosammgwsnboivvbsczxlzgabc / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj

Re:Hi!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's good to know. Maybe you should go ahead and do some widening like me.

I do it for the chicks. Ever since I started page widening, I noticed my shaft had become significantly wider in girth as well.

Re:Hi!

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla

for once the parent is an insiteful comment

Re:Hi!

[Anonymous Coward]

in girth as opposed to what, wider in length? you are a fucking moron, i hope your boyfriend loves you cause noone else does

Re:Hi!

[Zontar The Mindless]

yey I am a pimple faced 13 year old I know how to make the screen realy wide I am cool!

Fortunately, since I use Mozilla, the text wraps very nicely, thank you, and Moz seems to be quite immune to all page-widening techniques I've seen employed at /.

:)

Built for IE!

[hkhanna]

For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.

This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant. Good job, Mozilla!

Hargun

Re:Built for IE!

[mshiltonj]

I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant.

If AOL uses NS7 for its AOL 8.0 client. I'd say that's a safe bet.

Re:Built for IE!

[stefanlasiewski]

And I've been wondering about Apple. Many web designers still use Macs for web design.

If Apple started to distribute Mozilla as the default browser instead of IE, it would also help Mozilla to gain market share.

Re:Built for IE!

[ftobin]

I entirely agree. If you want something to look the same on all sites, use a PDF or PNG. Next we'll have people complaining that they don't get 1024x768 resolution with 16 bit color (among other things, of course) on their cell phone and hence their yahoo.com displays a bit different.

Re:Built for IE!

[adamjaskie]

Yeah, I hate those sites. I have made a few web pages, and, suprize suprize, its not that hard to make it look good in IE and Mozilla, and still look OK in Netscape 4.x. As a matter of fact, if you make the page work in Mozilla, IE can usually handle it. I usually can get by with testing primarily in Mozilla and a little in NS4.

Re:Built for IE!

[PipianJ]

As I've said multiple times, I'm not at all against Mozilla being entirely standards-compliant. My problem lies in the fact that they both interpret the standards differently (Particularly in the case of getting the style attribute text according to the DOM)

Re:Built for IE!

[smittyoneeach]

Three major avenues of approach:
1) impose/provide the browser to the user, so you have a firmer configuration on which to stand,
2) write dirt-simple stuff, so plain vanilla that it is portable,
3) go nuts trying to maintain platform-specific versions of things.
What would really be great is if we could train the market to reject MostlySuck products...

Re:Built for IE!

[NineNine]

Built for IE! (Score:5)
by hkhanna on Thursday June 06, @04:05PM (#3654462)
(User #559514 Info)
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.

This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant. Good job, Mozilla!


They've cut off their nose to spite their face. They should've made their browser IE and W3C compatible. As is, people are gonna download it, notice that it renders a lot of pages like shit, and get rid of it. They're gonna pay for their idealism with market share (or lack thereof).

Re:Built for IE!

[Gryffin]

This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap.

Hey, I agree with you. In a perfect world, at least.

Problem is, in the Real World, MSIE is currently dominant, and the fact that Mozilla doesn't render IE-tuned sites exactly right is all the reason many people need to not use Mozilla.

So, sadly, CNET does have a point, however misplaced.

Let's not even discuss those misguided sites that use MS-specific technologies like ActiveX, or sniff browsers and refuse to accept anything but IE, like some banks...

Re:Built for IE!

[SteveX]

Problem is HTML intentionally leaves some presentation issues up to the browser, and Netscape/Mozilla and IE have made different choices. It isn't always that one browser is "right" and the other is "wrong".

- Steve

Re:Built for IE!

[dthable]

And then they could kiss Office X goodbye. I don't see this happening until the Open Office project gets the OS X version running.

Re:Built for IE!

[gambit3]

IIRC, and I think there was a Slashdot story about this, I remember reading that one of the conditions that M$ put forth as a requirement for them to continue developing Office for the Mac, was that Apple had to stop using Netscape as the default browser, and replace it with IE.

Re:Built for IE!

[Dimensio]

Here's an idea I just had.

Mozilla figures out how to render "made for IE" sites in some fashion. Have this an option that can be enabled that by default is turned off.

Label the option "enable broken website compatibility". Describe it as enabling support to view websites that violate accepted HTML design standards and that these websites normally do not appear correctly because of bad design. Have big warnings about how enabling might cause problems in viewing websites that were designed properly. See what happens when people who have sites "designed for IE" find out about it.

Re:Built for IE!

[codeguy007]

I remember seeing my site for the first time in IE6. It was designed to look good in Netscape and IE5 but looked like crap in IE6.

Why you ask? Well IE6 had to go and change the default table cell alignment to center from left. Man was that annoying.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling this poster a troll is part of the problem. He brings up a legitimate and important criticism. I am an avid Mozilla fan, but I wish Mozilla would implement IE-specific stuff so that it works on more web pages and can thus be reliably used on all sites. Everyone says that W3C is the standards and I agree. But IE has become a defacto standard, whether we like it or not. Even if Mozilla evangelism could somehow get every web site in the Internet to move to W3C standards, this doesn't cover company intranets. If I have a problem with an IE-centric web page in my company's intranet, there's nothing I can do. Certainly, I can complain, but it's a pain the ass to find the person to complain to, then when I do, it falls on deaf ears. They've got much more pressing things to work on. The net result is that for some things in my intranet, I still have to use IE and will never be able to get rid of it unless the Mozilla group finally gets their collective heads out of their asses and deals with reality.

Re:Built for IE!

[_Sprocket_]

They should've made their browser IE and W3C compatible.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Mozilla has been priding itself on being adherant to W3C standards. It would seem that IE behavior and W3C standards may actually conflict - as suprising as that might be.

Re:Built for IE!

[BagOBones]

This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap.

I think one of the main problems is that IE is the built in browser in almost every windows HTML development tool.. People just build pages, click preview and asume that is what the page will look like for everyone..

For mozilla to gain ground I think it needs to be integrated with popular development tools.. If it looks good in Mozilla and its to standard it should also look good in IE, making everyone happy.

I also think the reviewer has a good point about adds not working.. We may hate adds but they are becomming more and more a part of browsing.. and if every few pages your browser stops responding because an add is not compatible then no one who does alot of browsing is going to like the browser.

Its really up to the site to first make thier content to standard, and then to make sure thier add sponsors are doing the same.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS? Is that you?

Re:Built for IE!

[samael]

The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE.

The Web isn't supposed to be anything. It's not centralised or ruled. There are suggestions and many people issue guidelines, but nobody forces anyone else to do anything. If people want to produce IE specific pages, then it's their free to choice to do so. If you want them to do differently, it's up to you to convince them that it's in their best interests to do so.

Re:Built for IE!

[hoowee]

The problem with making any competing product "Microsoft compatible" is that Microsoft's "standards" are subject to change without notice or disclosure. Just ask the authors of Samba or any of the "Word-compatible" office suites...

Re:Built for IE!

[BlueEar]

If, as you say, it irks you why don't you post comments to the Rex Baldazo? I did, first time when he reviewed Netscape 7 (claiming it cannot be run in parallel with Mozilla) and now after seeing the idiotic comment about not rendering IE specific sites. You can do this by following this link.

Re:Built for IE!

[Art Tatum]

If you want something to look the same on all sites, use a PDF

Only if I'm going to print it out to read offline. If you expect me to attempt to read a PDF onscreen...pffffft. Why don't I just stare into the sun for a few hours and go blind that way?

Re:Built for IE!

[ftobin]

I'm not advocating the use of PDF's or PNG's, I'm more trying to be sarcastic, trying to show that web documents were never meant to look the same everywhere. Trying to shoehorn HTML+CSS into that role is bad.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

>If Apple started to distribute Mozilla as the default browser instead of IE, it would also help Mozilla to gain market share.

Did you read the anti-trust trial against Microsoft? Gates threatened to pull Office from the MAC platform if Apple didn't undermine Netscape... What makes you think Bill's changed his mind ;)

AC

Re:Built for IE!

[Lysander Luddite]

True developers use several browsers to test their pages, whether they are on Mac or not.

If you visited sites with developers as their audience (such as A List Apart) you'd see that people test on as many platforms as possible and emphasize standards compliance as much as possible.

IMHO it's MS, Intranet, and home developers that go the "designed for IE" route. Its what they use, audience be damned.

Re:Built for IE!

[Moonshadow]

However, Mozilla and IE play together a lot more nicely than, say Netscape 4.x and ANYTHING.

I'm a professional web developer. As such, I have to make sure my sites look pretty much the same, and function in IE, Netscape 4-6, Konq, etc. It's a royal pain. I've been pleasantly suprised by Mozilla so far - it's much better at not choking than some other browsers.

The problem with IE is that it is too forgiving. Mismatched tables? No problem. Quotes in CSS? Takes it like a champ. IE will render just nearly anything you throw at it, which is wonderful from a browser perspective, but sucks from a developer's perspective, because you have people writing broken code that IE manages to render, yet that same code looks like the crap it is in other browsers.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds wonderful. Only problem is, if your site doesn't look good in IE, the customer is not happy, 'cause he uses IE, and he is not the least bit impressed when you tell him "But it's totally standards compliant".
As long as almost every potential visitor on site uses IE, you HAVE to design it primarily for IE. I would love to make totally standard complaint web solutions.
But how about this:
I make standard compliant web pages, you explain to my customer why it doesn't matter that it doesn't look so good in his browser!

Re:Built for IE!

[xphase]

Apple could just use the Apple Works Office Suite instead of waiting for Open Office. Apple Works does ship with every Mac.

Re:Built for IE!

[Phroggy]

If Apple started to distribute Mozilla as the default browser instead of IE, it would also help Mozilla to gain market share.

Awhile ago I saw an Apple ad aimed at UNIX geeks with a Netscape 6 icon in the Dock. For the first time in years, the MSIE icon was nowhere to be found. I think that may be a sign of things to come. Apple wouldn't ship Mozilla, but I think they will ship Netscape 7.

Re:Built for IE!

[Llywelyn]

It was part of the deal that occurred awhile back where MS agreed to continue producing office and apple dropped some lawsuits.

However, I think that the deal has expired should they care to switch it.

Regardless Netscape/Mozilla can still be included and Netscape 4.7x is still bundled with OS 9.

Re:Built for IE!

[Aerog]

IE is the built in browser in almost every windows HTML development tool.

I'm not sure what sort of percentage of the "industry" as it were still writes HTML by hand (At least, I still do). For the most part, I can see how using development tools like dreamweaver would make it faster for things like standard formatting, but from my experience if you have any knowledge of JS/CGI/HTML and a reasonable amount of time, you can come up with a page almost as quickly, with almost half of the useless code that some things seem to thrive on throwing in. But that's not really my point.

The point is, ideally you can change those defaults if you absolutely need to use the programs. If a so-called "professional" web developer doesn't understand about browser issues and how to work around them, then maybe you should look at hiring a different company/getting a new developer. I at least try to check all my sites in major (Mozilla, IE) and some less-than-major (Opera) browsers, and often check back to see how it renders in NS 4.x. If the page depends on some snazzy new DOM features, etc. then put up a browser filter, but at least check. Okay, that's enough ranting for today. . .

Re:Built for IE!

[Elwood P Dowd]

That used to be the case.

They made a deal that expired. There is now no deal, and no contract requiring Microsoft to produce Office:Mac. Kevin Browne of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit keeps telling people that there's no reason MS is going to stop making Office:Mac. There doesn't need to be a contract. There just needs to be goodwill between the companies.

Interview
Keynote

Of course, Apple switching to Mozilla might easily count as an end to the goodwill between the companies.

Re:Built for IE!

[r_j_prahad]

Funny thing about IE for Apple. It's always been way more standards compliant than IE for Windows. It's not built by the same group at Microsoft, or even around the same code base. And I've always wondered why Microsoft would allow something like that, since it makes a competing O/S look good, and I came to the conclusion that it might be that Apple has better documented APIs than Microsoft. Even inside Microsoft, all the hidden features of the Win32 APIs are probably not widely known.

Damn. There goes another one of those black helicopters again....

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sad thing about the "doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does" is that it suggests IE always renders a page the same way for all users. Do browsers really not have preferences anymore?

Re:Built for IE!

[KingoftheEvilDead]

They probably will use Mozilla later, only they'll call it 'iBrowser' or something with 'i'.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not really a problem...

Mozilla...
- renders standards compliant code to standards
- doesn't bend over backwards to render non-standard code

IE...
- renders standards compliant code to standards
- attempts to render any non-standard, invalid, or sloppy code

You will notice, they both render standard code properly.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing goes for IE for Solaris (and I guess HP-UX).

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel special that you saw it?

It was a fucking front page story on Slashdot for fuck's sake!

Re:Built for IE!

[Art Tatum]

OK. Guess I overreacted. I'm just so tired of people expecting me to try to actually read information online in PDF format.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE.

I totally agree. The web actually IS platform neutral. Those sites that only work in IE probably aren't realy web sites. They're probably IE documents. You can't just call any arbitrary document a web page, you have to say "this is a web page" and "this isn't" at some point. That point defined publicly and clearly... the W3C publishes the definition.

I posted a rant about this in the "linux for public access" thread, but it seems particularly relevant here so I'll cross-post it.

Quote from the Cnet article:
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.


I usually find that mozilla doesn't render sites like that poperly because they are in fact not web sites at all.

You might be tempted to call them websites because they look nice in IE, but Microsoft does not define what a web site is. The W3C does. And if you look at the HTML, you'll probably find that it is not HTML, although it may look similar.

Lots of people might like to call the syntax on these IE-only web pages HTML, but how can you? Its either HTML or it isn't. You can't just go off and come up with your own syntax and say that is is HTML. If I just go off and publish a file on a webserver containing say, "[ASDF[3*#@]fA}]", can I say that's HTML? No, of course I can't. If other people go off and do the exact same thing with a file containing some proprietary Microsoft syntax, can they say that's HTML? No, of course they can't. HTML is a specifically defined thing. A given document either adheres to that definition and is an HTML document, or does not adhere to that definition and is not an HTML document. Maybe its an Internet Explorer document or some thing, but it is not a web page any more than "[ASDF[3*#@]fA}]" is.

I'm sorry some people don't like Mozilla because it doesn't render Internet Explorer documents correctly, but Mozilla is a web browser, not another version Internet Explorer implementation. Calling Mozilla an unacceptable browser because it doesn't render IE documents correctly is like calling a ford taurus an unacceptable car because it does't fly as well as a Cessna. Internet explorer may render actual HTML correctly, but it can do any number of other things too if Microsoft so makes it. It could be made to play a game, view the filesystem, render some other non-HTML document language...

Re:Built for IE!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Have you ever seen the IE6 standard-complaince mode?

I have plenty of pages that are XHTML 1.0/CSS 1.0/CSS 2.0 ERROR FREE, that render in IE and Opera fine, but fail to render properly in Mozilla (usually spacing in tables where there should be none).

Re:Built for IE!

[chez69]

Have you reported it? they can't fix what they don't know!

Re:Built for IE!

[meldroc]

I like that idea - that should generate thousands, upon thousands of complaints to web site administrators that insist on using IE-only features.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*openoffice*cough*

Actually would be a two for one deal!

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem... There's something called Omniweb? And it's built by the Omni Group, who have been developing applications in NextStep since before you squeezed your first pimple?

And Apple is now going to subvert their own development platform for AOL?

Uh... Yeah riight.

Re:Built for IE!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I used to bother with bugzilla but stopped caring a while back. Every time I submitted an layout engine bug it was either marked as "redundant", or my website was claimed to be "in violation of the standard" (which, it wasn't, at least according to the WC3s XHTML 1.0 spec). Bugs that got through were pushed back from M9 (yes, I was following Mozilla back then - actually, since M6 - I remember M8 where they introduced a themed menubar) to M12 to M16 to pre-1.0 to 1.0 to post-1.0

One bug which caused the Apple homepage to misdisplay took something like ten milestones to fix.

I eventually just gave up.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Life is a creation, not a commodity. Our
>children are...not products to be designed and
>manufactured. GW Bush 4/10/02

As long as they don't clone you or W, we're safe.

Re:Built for IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... the ones that need to get their collective heads out of their asses are the designers of those intranet pages. Perhaps try mailing them the W3C URL every day for a month to see if they get the hint.

What would you think of a company that produces a TCP stack implementation that barfs broken packets? There is a reason why standards are created...

Re:Built for IE!

[Gerv]

(usually spacing in tables where there should be none).

http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.ht ml

Question 2.

Gerv

Re:Built for IE!

[rifter]

Apple Works does ship with every Mac.

And it is a solid product, too. I had noticed that while MSOffice and MSIE for Mac were lighter and better than the Windows versions, Appleworks was considerably less bloated and had a more friendly install (for instance not using a lot of Extensions like MSOffice). When Apps can refrain from using Extensions, it is easier to get rid of them and they are less likely to affect the overall system by the simple act of their installation. MSOffice installed more extensions than any other MacOS App I tried.

Re:Built for IE!

[palndron]

No it doesn't. I think it is about $100. It may ship with iMacs, but not with the towers.

Re:Built for IE!

[dthable]

I didn't get a copy with my new TiBook. I was told that I could purchase it for the low price of $60.00 or I could buy Office X from my University for $20. I'll just say that after buying the TiBook, I didn't have a lot of cash for software....

Re:Built for IE!

[David Gerard]

"If you want something to look the same on all sites, use a PDF or PNG."

Ha! Have a look at the Mozilla 1.0 Start Page. In particular, look at detect-problems.js. You know why it's called that? And why it's so long? Because IE's PNG handling is from Mars. IE6 (and MacIE5) uses a different default gamma to everyone else. IE5 can't handle alpha transparency. And just giggle hysterically if IE4 is mentioned.

IE is such a bastard to code for.

Re:Built for IE!

[David Gerard]

Gecko already does this automatically: 'quirks mode' for stuff with no doctype or an old doctype, 'standards mode' for 4.01 Strict or later.

Interestingly, IE 6 uses a similar solution (standards and quirks mode) to get standards-based sites to render properly.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[neal n bob]

this should be +5 informative. and +7 anally pleasurable.

Funniest line in the Cnet Review

[vjmurphy]

"The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"

Uh. Well. Duh.

Re:Funniest line in the Cnet Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. Well. Duh.

I can add a few more to those:

Ah. Oh. Ugh. ooof. Bah. Deh. Jiff.

Re:Funniest line in the Cnet Review

[Jucius Maximus]

"The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"

The good: CNET realises that those sites were built using nonstandard markup language for IE and it is not some standards-deviation or bug in Mozilla that is causing the problem.

Re:Funniest line in the Cnet Review

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uh. Well. Duh.

Try these on for size:
fsck. chgrp. awk. sed. groff. biff. bash.

Re:Funniest line in the Cnet Review

[r6144]

Look how well is microsoft.com rendered in all kinds of browers. M$ does sometimes do the right thing, because they have excellent marketing people.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[sisukapalli1]

Holy cow... Holy cow... Why don't you give me some of that whatever that you are smoking?


It's a RAM hog. It's slow. Its default user interface emphasizes form over function. It's slow. It does not support the current generation of Web-related standards. It's slow.


Then use Galeon, based on Mozilla...

S

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a cunt or are you just pretending to be one for a laugh?

You would think that CNET had competent authors

[akiaki007]

But...once you are done with the full review and read "The Good, The Bad..." section...take a look at this.

The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer; chat client doesn't work with the big commercial IM systems, including ICQ, Yahoo IM, AOL IM, and Windows Messenger.

Last time I checked. ChatZilla was a IRC client, not a friggin chat program to be used with AIM, ICQ, etc. While that would be something nice to add, it's already been done and I don't see why the author would mention this. IRC is much cooler than IM anyhow!

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh! There's already enough lame people on irc, we don't want the masses to know about it!

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I believe Netscape 7 implements AIM & ICQ. The implementation is prolly proprietary, and that's why it's not in moz. Or maybe they wanted to exclude it from moz since having IM in moz would remove the final reason to go with NS7 rather than moz1.

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[retinaburn]

And as if the reviewer cared at www.mozdev.org there are jabber clients for mozilla. So you may not get IM's as base install, but they do exist.

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[rmohr02]

Netscape is owned by the same company that owns AIM & ICQ, so it's to be expected that they would support it. Jabberzilla will work with even more IM clients than Netscape 7.

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[nhavar]

You have to remember that when the average user thinks of "chat" they don't think IRC, hell they don't even know what IRC is. The average user thinks "chat" is a room on AOL unless you want to talk one on one and then you IM. Any of the none AOL users are just using MSN/Yahoo/AIM for one on one talk and hitting websites with Java or something for group chats. Most average users that I've spoken to, which is the market that Mozilla supposedly should be capturing, wouldn't understand "channels" or what efnet or dalnet was, or how to do much of anything in an IRC client. I think that was more the point of the statement.

Technophiles - chat == IRC
AverageJoe - chat == IM/ChatRoom

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[Boiled Frog]

The point they are making is that most users are more familiar with their existing IM clients than they are with IRC.

While most of the popular IMs connect to their own proprietary chat systems--ICQ uses the ICQ protocol, for example--Mozilla's chat client, Chatzilla, connects to the IRC (Internet Relay Chat) network. Unfortunately, IRC client apps aren't very user friendly, and the same goes for Chatzilla.

Re:You would think that CNET had competent authors

[Marimus]

Yes, but according to CNET, in IRC you have to
type cryptic commands to find and join "chatrooms".

Who would ever guess that "/join #blah" would be
the required command to join #blah??

I guess CNET thinks cryptic is a synonym for obvious.

CNET are M$ whores.

[crovira]

Unless you want to read ass-kissing, don't go there.

They can even write pap about desktop Video and FireWire without even mentionning Apple existence.

They're strange that way.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[I Want GNU!]

Actually, Mozilla had a 7/10 on their rankings, the same thing they gave to IE. And they noted how it was faster than IE. I'd like to see some other evidence of them being "M$ whores." I don't like MS, but I like actual evidence instead of baseless accusations and name callings (The $ in MS is just getting old).

I think that if they considered security as well, Mozilla would beat out IE, but ignoring security and standards (both of which Mozilla beats out IE at) the browsers would be similar.

Maybe it's just me though not wanting to give internet servers capabilities to read my entire hard drive (see jscript.dk).

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'd like to see some other evidence of them being "M$ whores."

Okey Dokey:

Actually, Mozilla had a 7/10 on their rankings, the same thing they gave to IE. And they noted how it was faster than IE.

I think that if they considered security as well, Mozilla would beat out IE

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[ywwg]

the evidence is their total lack of objectivity. when mozilla and netscape are faster than IE they call it "strange." When mozilla doesn't conform to ie's broken renderring and self-invented standards, they call it "incompatible." They assume that IE is the standard, rather than the w3c.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[I Want GNU!]

Oh. Good point.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[silicon_synapse]

The $ in MS is just getting old

I agree. I personally prefer micros~1

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[sheriff_p]

Perhaps not such a great idea to trust CNET's reviews of anything ... their reviews of anti virus software are notoriously bad, and a cheap facade for blatant plugging of their advertisers.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[arkane1234]

(The $ in MS is just getting old).

So are those damned MS walkathons... you'd think Microsoft would make enough money off of their products, now they have to ask for handouts.

Jesus.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed a lower signal to noise ratio estpecially during the beginning of the G(h)SBO.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[theFool]

The W3C are not the standard, they are the "standard".

The W3C is a fantasy... as long as there is a market leader, all they can do is cry. And the same goes for a lot of /.

Think about this objectivly, if MS can offer cool features and solidify their market share, they will. If they have to redesign the DOM and scripts and not innovate, they're just going to ignore the w3c. (Unless you expect the w3c to become a govenrnment agency that can enforce it's standards).

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[therealmoose]

IE

• is

the standard, because 99% of the web uses it. A lot of people have a hard time with this, but it's true. It's not how it should be, but it's how it is.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[General Wesc]

Actually, it's closer to 96%, and that will probably go down a little when 30 million AOLers start using Gecko.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[blazerw11]

90% of PCs run windows.
Another 2% run other OSes that can run IE.
85% of PCs that can run IE, do.

That's not 99%. (~75%)
My numbers are good guesses, but the point is clear.
Your point is still clear, but the exaggeration was not necessary to make it.

When the facts seem to be in your favor, why lie?

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[JanusFury]

Wait, a news website that's not objective? Call the tabloids, this is big news! It may be a sign of the coming apocalypse, shit like this doesn't happen every day!

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[felipeal]

(The $ in MS is just getting old)

Ok, from now on let's call it M# (as a reference for the C# - C crarp - and an abbreviation for 'that #$%^&!* company'.).

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick translation of parent: If you disregard the ways in which Mozilla is superior to IE, they come out as equals.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Danse]

Actually the figure is more like 75%. I haven't found a single analysis that puts the combined total users of all versions of IE at 80% or more. 75% seems to be about the peak, and it should drop significantly since all 30-35 million AOL users will come out of IE's share. I invite you to do your own Google searches and see if you can find any that give higher estimates. I'd be curious to see them.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Dunkalis]

I agree. CNETs reviews are usually bought. How anyone would rate Norton's Anti-Virus that high is beyond me. Its a virus in itself, eating system resources and slowing down systems. Their anti-virus section is so biased towards Nortons they don't even review the other two major anti-virus programs, Mcafee and F-Prot. Their browser wars review, of IE and Netscape 6, the stablized version, was pretty sad. Netscape should have won, simply because the features described in NS couldn't be debated to not be better. IE won speed, for some reason. It was considered a "tie", probably since saying IE would make them look even more biased. Question CNET reviews with a scrutinizing eye.

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[General Wesc]

Well, I certainly hope you're right. (And I don't think I can come up with much against your numbers.)

thecounter.com April 2002 statistics show IE (all versions just over 96%, but I've heard that they serve some big Windows websites. I'm sure not many Linux sites use www.thecounter.com.

I expect the Google logs are a better indicater (http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/apr02-brows ers.gif) but since that image doesn't mark the percents, it's hard to tell exactly where things stand. (Looks like it is close to 75-80% for IE though.)

You're probably right. Thank goodness!

Re:CNET are M$ whores.

[Danse]

Hmm.. yeah. I think there was a story here on /. a while back (a year ago maybe?) that got everyone in a tizzy because some site was saying that IE had this outrageous percentage of users. The conclusion then was the same as what you're saying. The site that was doing the counting was serving mostly Windows-related sites (and a few Mac sites) and was therefore badly skewed. Not sure if it was thecounter.com or some other site though. I can't think of too many sites that would give non-skewed results either. Google is probably the only one that is relatively neutral. Maybe a few of the more popular hardware sites would work too.

I like the Mozilla situation with OS X...

[PrimeWaveZ]

With Mozilla being supported in so many ways on OS X, users have so many wonderful options. While I do like some of the things about Mozilla, I personally prefer OmniWeb 4.1b7, and IE 5.1.4 when I need it. However, competition almost never hurts, so everyone needs to keep biting at everyone else's heels. Work for my business!!!

Re:CNN.com review

[Anonymous Coward]

i can see that some moderator didnt check those links......

On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

it uses 3 times the memory space as IE. I thought it was supposed to be more efficient?

Re:On first glance....

[brsmith4]

it uses 3 times the memory space as IE. I thought it was supposed to be more efficient?

Yes... Do you know why??? Because most of IE is integrated into the explorer UI. Most of the bulk of Internet Explorer lies there. When you fire up mozilla, it has to start everything, the rendering engine, its own UI, etc. If you take that into account, Mozilla is far more efficient. Think of it this way: take the time that it takes the explorer shell to start and add the time that it takes for IE to start. Also, add the memory usage. Then compare to mozilla. Have a nice day.

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

no it does not...

IE is just for 90% loaded on your Windows system already when you start it...only the little bit of data that gives you the IE interface has to be loaded...

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am not so sure we can really know how much memory IE is using...I mean it is integrated into the operating system right? Doesn't it load a bunch of libraries up in memory, would they be part of the explorer.exe process or are thy in some other process space?

I'd like to know how much memory IE and it's associated .DLLs is using (anyone?)

Re:On first glance....

[Junior J. Junior III]

My understanding is that since IE is so integrated into the OS, a lot of the DLLs that it uses are already loaded with the operating system, so the apparent memory footprint of IE isn't quite what you see; there's a lot that's behind the scenes. Which is one of the reasons why Windows is so bloated.

Re:On first glance....

[bigpat]

Umm no. I see mozilla at around 20 megs and ie at 16 megs on win2k. Unless you are into that "new math" we keep hearing so much about, that is more like 1.25 times as much and not 3 times as much. And when you add in all the so called integration with Windows, I'm sure IE is eating up some more memory someplace indirectly.

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

9 meg for ie on mine monkey boy - and that is with about 15 sessions open.

Re:On first glance....

[throx]

Actually, if you compare Mozilla's memory usage to that of explorer.exe, Mozilla is still a bigger memory hog, even when Explorer is running the entire shell in addition to HTML rendering.

Viewing CNN's home page I found Mozilla taking around 16M and Explorer.exe around 15M. Those are total allocated memory sizes, not working set.

Three times is a bit out, but it is definitely less memory efficient.

To me it seems slightly more stable, but it's handling of Bookmarks annoys me enough to stop me from using it as my default browser. I far prefer the Drag/Drop ability you have on the IE menu.

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

and 40m for the kernel, wonder how much of that is IE?

I'm gona guess IE uses about 10megs per instance, just off the top of my head. Each window is a seperate instance (as is obvious from the *lack* of the essential File>Quit [something that they flamed mozilla for *having* in the article I might add])

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just explorer.exe, the libraries that IE calls wouldn't be counted as Explorer.exe memory items. The com server for the widgets wouldn't.

Ect Ect Ect

Take your base memory for a fresh install w/ everything turned off, subtract what you think is drivers from that, and thats what the cost of running IE is.

Re:On first glance....

[xswl0931]

Obviously you're not aware that IE is made of inproc com servers, not out-of-proc, so, for example, mshtml.dll is loaded into every client. So the size you see for IE, is what it's actually using. The performance would be dreadful if they made it use out-of-proc com servers.

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever... Mozilla should use the native widget components on the OS it's built for. Nobody forced them to make their own rendering engine. I think reviewer has a very valid concern.

Re:On first glance....

[throx]

Libraries are counted against a process' memory allocation, as are inproc COM servers and the like.

I think you are grasping at straws here.

Re:On first glance....

[limbostar]

The Mozilla project used their own widget rendering system for extremely valid and relevant reasons.

For one thing, most of the widget systems on desktop environments (mac / windows) have the ability to do all of the crap that CSSx demands of it.

For another, the portability bonus of having a webpage look exactly the same down to the pixel no matter what system you're viewing it on.

Re:On first glance....

[spectecjr]

I'm gona guess IE uses about 10megs per instance, just off the top of my head. Each window is a seperate instance (as is obvious from the *lack* of the essential File>Quit [something that they flamed mozilla for *having* in the article I might add])

Nice guess, but wrong. Each window is a separate *window*. It doesn't have separate instances unless you open new instances of the IE app yourself.

Simon

Re:On first glance....

[Anonymous Coward]

please mod this up instead of it's parent...

Re:On first glance....

[blazerw11]

Libraries are counted against a process' memory allocation, as are inproc COM servers and the like.

However, there are some facts at which we should look (using my PIII 800Mhz Dell Laptop with 128MB memory.
1) Task manager says 150MB of system memory are currently in use.
2) Total of MB used in all running processes listed in Task Manager ~ 70MB.
3) Only one application is running, Mozilla ~ 13MB.

What libraries and INPROC Com Servers are we missing? What is Windows hiding? What the FUCK is wasting 80MB of memory?

To truly figure out what's going on we could simply check the Windows Source ...

DOH!

Re:On first glance....

[Snover]

Unfortunate as this is, I have noticed on numerous occasions the Mozilla process growing and growing and growing in size. Where's the memory cleanup? When you shut the program down, of course. But if you're like me, and have Quick Launch enabled, Mozilla doesn't get shut down very often, and this leave a rather large (128MB+) hole in my memory. I think something can be done to reduce the amount of memory Mozilla uses, like wipes at regular intervals...but there's not.
As long as I'm responding, I was rather discouraged by the lack of several features I was hoping would show up by 1.0, including the ability to have all new windows open as tabs (I'm not talking using the MMB to click on links, I'm talking about anything that opens a window, period.) Also, though certainly not the development team's fault, WMP still has some major compatibility issues (namely, not working a lot of the time). Finally, there are some sites that, for whatever reason, just don't load in Mozilla. The sites probably just need a good old-fashioned webvangelism, but I would at least hope that there would be a "bug workarounds" section in the Preferences for things like this.
And don't give me that "It'll be in the 1.0.1 branch" crap. 1.0 is supposed to be a well-rounded release, and, while it is excellent (and is better than any other browser out there, mind you) it still falls short of my expectations (especially after the years and years and years of slaving over it).

Re:On first glance....

[tuxedo-steve]

It is true that technically Mozilla would use approximately the same amount of memory and would take approximately the same time to start up as does IE. From the user's perspective, however, this is totally irrelevant. The user is going to perceive that Mozilla has a relatively high memory usage and takes relatively longer to start.

Consider it this way - on the Win32 platform with IE integrated, would it be faster to start IE or Mozilla? IE. Under the same conditions, which browser would the user perceive to take up less memory? IE. Technically each is probably on par, but the fact is, that's how it will be perceived.

It sucks, but it's true.

Re:On first glance....

[throx]

1) How does Task Manager say 150M is in use? Is it the "Commit Charge" or are you calculating from total physical memory and available physical memory?

2) What are you using to tally the memory used? My guess is the "Memory Usage" column which corresponds to the working set of the process. However, the real column to look at is "VM Size" which tallies the total allocations for the process.

3) Don't be so naive as to think only one application is running. There are at least 20 processes running on your average Windows box on startup. You should be able to verify this easily using Task Manager.

You aren't missing any libs and inproc COM servers. Windows isn't hiding anything. It's just the failure of the user (in this case you) to understand the data presented. The difference of 80M is more than likely the difference between the working sets and the total VM size of the processes.

There's no need to "look at the source". It's perfectly well documented. Perhaps you just need to RTFM?

Re:On first glance....

[blazerw11]

How does Task Manager say 150M is in use? Is it the "Commit Charge" or are you calculating from total physical memory and available physical memory?

On Win2k at the bottom of Task Manger, there's a thing we like to call the Status Bar. It has a field with the text: Mem Usage 150,321KB. It matches the Total value in Commit Charge. No FM to R there, just look at the screen.

What are you using to tally the memory used? My guess is the "Memory Usage" column which corresponds to the working set of the process. However, the real column to look at is "VM Size" which tallies the total allocations for the process.

Obviously, VM Size, I don't know why I didn't look at that "not chosen by default" column. Oh, but it still fell 40MB short of the total. Probably still not the "real" column to look at. There are about 20 more columns that can be viewed, let me know which one is the "real" column.

Don't be so naive as to think only one application is running. There are at least 20 processes running on your average Windows box on startup. You should be able to verify this easily using Task Manager.

See, when a user starts a program it's usually referred to as an "application" and typically shows up in Task Manager under the "Applications" tab. Still with me? Then, when the OS starts a program, or an "application" starts a helper program, those are called "processes". They typically show up on the "Processes" tab of Task Manager. Your FM that you Rd probably didn't cover that, did it?

The difference of 80M is more than likely the difference between the working sets and the total VM size of the processes.

Nope, VM Size was still missing 40MB. Any more guesses? Because, you ARE guessing.

Perhaps you just need to RTFM?

Actually, I do have a copy of the Task Manager User's Guide (who doesn't?). I bought it on Amazon.com, used from somebody who'd never read it. (For those in our audience who are slow, this is a reference to throx who felt that if he/she through a few technical sounding words around it would seem like he/she knew something. Sadly, he/she does not.)

Re:On first glance....

[throx]

Ok, ignoring all your smart-arse comments and still trying to help you understand Win2k's VM system. I'm not sure if you are actually interested or just trying to bash Microsoft now, but what the hell - I'll try to help anyway.

The best "manual" I'd recommend for this stuff is "Inside Windows 2000", or even looking over the Platform SDK. There's a lot of info there about how the VM system works and what the performance counters exported by it mean.

On Win2k at the bottom of Task Manger, there's a thing we like to call the Status Bar. It has a field with the text: Mem Usage 150,321KB. It matches the Total value in Commit Charge.

That number is the total amount of memory used by the OS and all applications, yes.

Obviously, VM Size, I don't know why I didn't look at that "not chosen by default" column. Oh, but it still fell 40MB short of the total. Probably still not the "real" column to look at. There are about 20 more columns that can be viewed, let me know which one is the "real" column.

VM Size is the "real" column. The Memory Usage column is the real amount of RAM the process is using which is generally more realvent to users and hence selected by default. I'm sorry you feel angry that you selected the wrong column.

VM Size falls short of the total because it is actually reporting the "Private Bytes" figure from the performance counters. This number excludes a few things. Shoot me an email if you want me to explain further, but chapter 7 of Inside Windows 2000 goes into a lot of detail on this.

See, when a user starts a program it's usually referred to as an "application" and typically shows up in Task Manager under the "Applications" tab. Still with me? Then, when the OS starts a program, or an "application" starts a helper program, those are called "processes". They typically show up on the "Processes" tab of Task Manager. Your FM that you Rd probably didn't cover that, did it?

You are wrong, and I'm not sure where you got that description from - it's just bizarre. An "Application" in the context of Task Manager is simply a top level window. It means nothing. In fact for every "Application" in the first tab there is a process in the second tab which is running - just right click on the app and choose "Go To Process". Processes are a core OS object which contains a virtual memory space, some system resources and at least one thread of execution. They are the base objects which are used to manage memory (exactly the same as on Linux).

Nope, VM Size was still missing 40MB. Any more guesses? Because, you ARE guessing.

No, I'm not guessing. I was just skipping the details on exactly what the VM Size column doesn't include. To summarize though, it misses all the kernel memory and any shared VM pages.

Actually, I do have a copy of the Task Manager User's Guide (who doesn't?). I bought it on Amazon.com, used from somebody who'd never read it. (For those in our audience who are slow, this is a reference to throx who felt that if he/she through a few technical sounding words around it would seem like he/she knew something. Sadly, he/she does not.)

I have the strange feeling that I know a little more about OS architecture than you do, give your strange explanation of Applications and Processes. There's several different "Manuals" you can read and I'm guessing you haven't read any of the ones I've suggested?

Given this thread is so old, I'll send you a copy via email. Hope you appreciate the help.

:-)

-1, troll

[Anonymous Coward]

did you click the links? the idiot trolled you all

Truly amazing!

[ciryon]

I am thrilled beyond words. This is absolutely the best browser I have ever used. I had a tough time deciding which browser to use, but this is it. I especially recommend the Mouse Gesture Add-on.

Ciryon

Re:Truly amazing!

[Soul-Burn666]

Don't forget 2 of the best gestures...

"marking" some links and then Left-Up-Right will open those links in tabs.

and Top-Right to Down-Left diagonal on an image will hide it... great for ad reomaval.

Re:Truly amazing!

[Mark4ST]

The mouse gesture sounds like a great idea! What happens if I gesture "Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start"? Do I get 30 lives?

Re:Truly amazing!

[archen]

I'd say the same, except that to me: "Its the best browser I've ever used other than it puts stupid extra extensions on files I download". There's that other problem with Mozilla using 99% of my cpu time if I visit a certain site, but I only need to go there for about 3 minutes a day anyway. I find it sort of annoying that as late as Mozilla came out, that they couldn't have spent another day to fix the file extention bug - as visible as it is. And yet, it's still the best browser I've used.

Re:Truly amazing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hang in there for a bit. 1.1 will be out before we know it and should fix a lot of the slightly annoying, but not too critical bugs. The file extension bug annoys me too though. Should be high on their priority list to fix.

Re:Truly amazing!

[flokemon]

I'd been using Opera for quite a while, mainly because of the tabbed browsing. Shortcomings for me were: no SOCKS support, and no password manager. That gave me 2 good enough reasons to give mozilla a try. I'm not 100% satisfied in the way Mozilla handles tab, Opera is still superior in that field. I do miss the mouse gestures too, so that little add-on is great news. I'm definitely going to go for Mozilla now, it is more stable as well. An effort needed for the tabs, and save link target as, and i won't be going back to opera.

Re:Truly amazing!

[BZ]

The file extension bug is unfortunately just not on people's radars... I want to fix it by I was kinda tied up with finishing up my thesis and graduating. Now that that's over, I should be able to fix it within the next week and a half or so.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll! Whinny loozer troll! Keep your Internet Exploder if it makes you happy to feed Bill the Bandit's bank and ego. Most Free (Libre) browsers are much better and more secure than the microsnot offerings. If you think you are better off with IE, then by all means use it. But until you leave the compound Bill Gates keeps all his hens in for stealing their eggs and frying for supper, don't insult the intelligence of people who have seen the light.

Weird review

[abigor]

So let's see, Mozilla is faster than IE, has a great email client, is skinnable so it will look nice, has tabs, which the reviewer liked, and on and on...but because the chat client is IRC-based, it only gets 7 out of 10?

If one were paranoid, one would almost suspect a conspiracy...or bias.

Re:Weird review

[Erik Fish]

Hey, this IS C|Net we're talking about.

They've always been huge MS shills.

Re:Weird review

[slide-rule]

If one were paranoid, one would almost suspect a conspiracy...or bias.

Paranoid and/or a slashdot regular. ;-)

Re:Weird review

[sk8king]

As for the speed of Mozilla, I find it good except in one example.

When rendering a (2 column) * (x rows), where x gets large [about 1000], it renders dead slow. Every other browser renders it in a snap. I must mention that each cell in the table also contains a text box which I read somewhere on /. that the http://validator.w3.org would reject as being non-standard.

Plug-in support seems light too, but that is probably just my ignorance.

I'll continue to use it for the most part and if something doesn't work quite right, I'll use another browser.

Re:Weird review

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoid and/or a slashdot regular. ;-)

And here I thought they were synonomous. :)

slashdotted already!

[Anonymous Coward]

As users, it's easy to forget exactly why we liked computers so much to begin with. We get enmeshed in routine and things get boring. Then one day there's a 1.0 release to review, and surprise of surprises, it's an adventure in discovery that brings back some of the magic. Mozilla 1.0 isn't perfect, but it certainly is a lot of fun packed into one browser.

First, the basics. Mozilla and Netscape mirror each other in ease of installation with an idiot-proof GUI installer. I just downloaded the installer in a tar.gz format. Unpacked into my home directory, the files went into /home/tina/mozilla-installer. I entered the directory, changed to superuser because I want the rest of my family to be able to use Mozilla, too, and typed sh mozilla-installer. The GUI interface came up, and I accepted the default installation directory: /usr/local/mozilla. If you're the only one who uses your computer, you could just install it in /home/your_home/mozilla.
Once I told it where to install, it dutifully downloaded and installed all the files for me automatically, just like Netscape does. The application then opened and pulled in all the settings from Netscape so I didn't have to take time to transfer any bookmarks or set up my mail accounts. However, the release notes say you should not use your Netscape profiles, because you could lose your search settings or become the victim of an ever-growing bookmark file that might freeze your system. I've been using Mozilla 1.0 since the release announcement, with my Netscape profile, and haven't experienced these problems. Yet.

One minor aesthetic point: I liked that Mozilla defaults to the "classic" Netscape look instead of the new theme. If you don't like "classic" or "modern" you can go to Deskmod or mosdev.org to get some new ones.

Using Mozilla to browse Web sites is completely intuitive for anyone who is familiar with browsers. Everything is where it "should" be. Yet browsing for me was a bit uncomfortable because it felt like there was just a bit of a lag opening pages. It could have been my connection, but I opened up Opera just to compare, and the page load times felt much faster -- I didn't feel like I was trying to help pull them up myself like I was with Mozilla. The pages themselves rendered quickly, but there was always a slight lag in seeing the page. That's my only complaint.

Features

It's the features that make Mozilla a standout. I've been using Mozilla for months, but never took time to investigate the features I've heard murmurings about, like tabbed browsing. With this review, though, I started poking around to find out exactly what I could do with the long-awaited official 1.0 Mozilla. I used Mozilla's own recommendations as a guide for the "10 most interesting things" about the browser.

Pipelining

Of all the features, this is the one I care least about. Pipelining allows multiple HTTP requests to be sent out together, instead of each request being sent in turn and not until a reply is received for the previous one. Mozilla says that the "act of pipelining can result in a dramatic improvement in page loading times, especially over high latency connections." Later on in the same document, however, it says that if the pipelining is too long, it can cause "user-perceived delays." Mozilla says it is the only browser that makes use of pipelining.

Tabbed browsing

Tabbed browsing is cool, but it's not unique -- Opera uses this. It can be a bit disconcerting at first if you're used to each window coming up separately. The nicest part about it is that you can see what pages you have open because the tabs are labeled with the page title. If you're like me, you may not have room in the task bar for the identity of each page to be seen; the tabs stay big enough to read easily, up to around 10 pages, depending on your screen resolution.

Pop-up blocking

Of course, being able to control pop-ups is a wonderful feature that every browser should have. Set it and never have to worry about being bombarded with advertisements in new windows sprouting all over your screen faster than you can chase them down and close them. It'd be even greater if it worked all the time -- the popups at some sites still keep popping -- nytimes.com, for example.

Bookmark keywords

This is fun. When you set a bookmark, you can assign a keyword to it, a la Real Names, and type that keyword into your navigation bar instead of the whole URL. What's more, you can set user inputs for your keywords. If you search Google all the time like I do, you can set a Google keyword and add your search terms to it for faster searching. Here's how: Perform a search in the usual way on Google. File the bookmark. Open the bookmark in the bookmark manager and click on "properties." Give it the keyword "Google". In the URL, delete the search term you used and substitute "%s," to indicate "this is where a user input will happen." Save it. Now, when you want to do a quick search on say, takamine acoustics, type "Google takamine acoustic" in the navigation bar and your search comes up automatically. Use any terms you like, and be creative.

User customizability

Mozilla is very, very customizable. So much so that there are even hidden ways to customize. To find out more, type about:config in your navigation bar, and Mozilla will present you with a complete list of all user-configurable parameters. Be careful -- the FAQ warns that you could render Mozilla unusable if you set something incorrectly. See Customizing Mozilla for more information and a useful, well-commented sample preference file that helped me understand exactly what user customization is all about. I didn't mess with this much; I have a feeling this is one of those things programmers will enjoy tweaking much more than all us "just-a-user" kind of people.

Page viewing

Mozilla has some handy page viewing shortcuts for zoom:

Zoom text smaller: Ctrl and -
Zoom text larger: Ctrl and +
These work very well, but not instantly, so don't press Ctrl - 10 times like I did in my impatience.
Mozilla also mentions alternate stylesheets, but after searching the menus and in the help files, I couldn't find any information about this.

Themes and appearance

I've already mentioned themes, and Mozilla recommends that you use different themes to change the look of Mozilla, including getting smaller icons and turning off the text under the icons, a feat that you can accomplish in Netscape without resorting to a different theme. Another thing that seems backward is the fact that you cannot move the toolbars around -- but Mozilla did say that people would tend to judge this 1.0 release not by the standard of a 1.0 release, but by comparing it to commercial browsers. This is one area where Mozilla seems behind -- but moving toolbars around and shrinking icons isn't at the top of my priority list, so I can wait.

Widened Slashdot Pages

I use Linux/Mozilla as my OS/Browser choice and have enjoyed reading slashdot up to now. However I went round to a friends house and saw slashdot on Windows XP/IE 6 - imaging my jealousy when I saw the sumptuous wideness with which IE6 rendered the slashdot pages! In contrast my Linux experience now seemed somehow inferior. It surprised me that slashdot of all places would serve pages that are 'best viewed with IE 6'! Mozilla 1.0 now fixed the "Anorexic pages" bug, and its users can now fully share in the wide page joy.

Built-in chat

Chatzilla is perfectly adequate as an IRC app but nothing spectacular. It's nice to have it included as part of the browser though. You won't get this unless you specify it during the install -- you have to select the "full install" option. Chatzilla is customizable in the same way that the browser is, for instance, you can add a line indicating your IRC nick.

Extensibility

Developers will shine here. Mozilla, in fact, says that its mission is "create open source code that software developers can use to build web applications." As a user, I'm just along for the ride. Mosdev.org is the repository for projects developers are working on to add on to Mozilla. One project that caught my eye is the PlugIn Doc project, which provides instructions for installing and setting up plugins in Mozilla, a task that has proved troublesome for me in the past. Speaking of plugins, when I was browsing around I decided to go to the heavily-java-dependent games.yahoo.com. Mozilla didn't know I had Java already installed, so it sent up the "get the plugin" interface. On a whim I decided to click it and found that Netscape has created a very easy to use plugin locater and installer, at least when it comes to Java for Linux, called the Netscape Plugin Finder Service.

Multiple platforms

Finally, Mozilla developers say it runs on dozens of platforms. I'll take their word for it since I'm only running one.

Verdict

The jury is still out right now. I like it, and for now I'll keep using Mozilla 1.0, probably gradually customizing it to my personal likes. My "perception" of slower loading times may or may not cause me to go back to Netscape 4.77 or Opera. After four years of anticipation by the Open Source community, having Mozilla 1.0 and running it is lots of fun. I'm impressed by Mozilla, but wonder if I'll ever have time to learn all the "tweaks" on this powerful browser created especially for software developers.

it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[peteshaw]

Think about it. CNET has never strived to achieve a benchmark for impartial reporting, they collect advertising revenue. So one of there biggest caveats is to not piss off 'the industry' as they see it. So they give all these least common denominator reports that don't have any useful information. They just gave a Netscape a review, and gave it the lowest possible score they could justify given that it was faster, more stable, and more W3C compliant than the big IE.

Think I'm wrong? By contrast, PCWeek, eWeek, and lots of other industry rags tend to be more impartial, and will generally call a turd a turd and a gem a gem, not vice versa.

But then there's audience too to calculate in too. I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly, some one here would find something to bitch about.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. I'm outraged. See their note at the end of the review.

Note: Although the gaps among the browser load times seem alarming, the actual time differences vary by a second or less.

It's clear that they want to nitpick Moz.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[ftobin]

I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly, some one here would find something to bitch about.

Assuming by 'superier' you mean technically, of course many of us here would find something to bitch about, particularly the fact that it wouldn't be Open Source or Free Software. I don't bother wasting my breath putting down MS products on technical merits, when the social issues (e.g., Free Software) about such software are much more important to me.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[lak3rs]

CNET's review of IE6 gave it a score of 7, same as Mozilla 1.0 on XP.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Bearpaw]

But then there's audience too to calculate in too. I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly, some one here would find something to bitch about.

Well, I'd be pretty pissed that someone transported me to an alternate universe without giving me any warning.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly,

They can have my MS Natural Keyboard and MS Mouse 2.0 w/IntelliEye when they pry them out of my cold dead hands.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[denshi]

But then there's audience too to calculate in too. I dare say that if Microsoft were to behave nicely and come out with a superier product that was priced fairly, some one here would find something to bitch about.

Certainly. The platform, for one. Were you suggesting that M$ would come out with a 'superior product that was priced fairly' that ran on multiple platforms (PC, Mac, Un*x, Linux for start), operated in a relatively self-contained mode that didn't require extensive library rework on the non-MS machines, played fairly and constructively with other applications, talked on open procols and file formats, and was generally friendly to being controlled by scripts or broken into components?

I'll believe it when I see it.

The problem with M$, besides being convicted monopoly abusers and yadayada, is their refusal to interoperate with as much as they can get away with. They demand complete adherence across your network, and give interoperability only grudgingly, and frequently with lawsuits. To persons with or in control of large, heterogeneous networks, this behavior is rather irksome, as we grow rather risk-averse, where 'risk' is defined as: reinstalling everything in the building and tossing a decade of experience. Not fun, or worthwhile.

Yes, we're a curmudgeonly audience who are almost totally opposed to Microsoft. But quite a few of us have valid, and very expensive, reasons.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[cpeterso]

They just gave a Netscape a review, and gave it the lowest possible score they could justify given that it was faster, more stable, and more W3C compliant than the big IE.

If you read the CNET review, you would see that in their performance tests , IE6 was faster than Mozilla in the three HTML tests. In the Java test, Mozilla was faster.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[tempest303]

try again, friend. ;)

from the site:

Longer bars indicate better performance, with the fastest browser scoring 100.

The Java test was the only one that IE won!

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Mr_Perl]

If you read the CNET review, you would see that in their performance tests [cnet.com], IE6 was faster than Mozilla in the three HTML tests. In the Java test, Mozilla was faster.

Wrong. You got it backwards.

From the article: Longer bars indicate better performance, with the fastest browser scoring 100.

Short bars bad. Long bars good.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[startled]

"CNET's review of IE6 [cnet.com] gave it a score of 7, same as Mozilla 1.0 on XP."

Yup. I think they're just one of those rare sites that uses the entire review spectrum, instead of restricting themselves to giving everything an 8, 9, or 10 (like most gaming sites).

If you look at their cell phone reviews, they're similar. They give decent cell phones 5 and 6 ratings, and good ones 7s 8s and 9s.

The article poster's idea of 7 being a C- is a bunch of crap-- do they claim that their rating of 7 is slighly below average anywhere on the site? No. 5.5 should be average; though I'd guess that their average rating is a bit higher than that.

I think people are just looking for things to bitch about. It's a good review on a major site. Could it be an 8? Sure, but even a 10 wouldn't get most casual users to download it. And it doesn't change my experience with it-- I'm loving it!

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Anonymous Coward]

Backwards: note that it says "longer bars are better". IE6 only won on Java.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[ealar dlanvuli]

Actually they only won the Java test, and one has to wonder if that might be because they were using an outdated non-standard hackish java client (eg, the one that came with win98 onward) in IE, and a compliant, fully featured, robust client in mozilla (eg the one sun releases as the 'standard' [for whatever thats worth])

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[ealar dlanvuli]

We had a M$ drone come in and say we should replace our 130k rack with w2k servers.

I laughed and showed him the door, the meeting with the VP's next week got accidently 'changed' the two weeks from now for him. I'm sure he will make a great impression with his no-show from a tech who didn't bother introducing himself.

Re:it doesn't surprise me that CNET gave a 7

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a naughty signature you have there, dude!

cat /etc/passwd|mail username

you should change it to email you the details of tonnes of silly linbots running as root :)

why is opera so fast?

[JeanBaptiste]

Not knowing a whole lot about it, it seems that my opera has (speedwise) outperformed both netscape and ie by quite a good margin

Re:why is opera so fast?

[NanoGator]

I think the most interesting speed boost in Opera comes from the MDI interface. Opening a new window in Opera is virtually instantaneous. However, opening a new window in IE is akin to opening a new instance of an app.

Also, Opera doesn't require near as much memory as IE does. So if you're on a machine limited on RAM, like my laptop is, then this'll provide a nice speed boost heh.

Re:why is opera so fast?

[Higatsuku]

Opera cheats. Its a fast browser, no doubt, but its not as fast as they claim it is. Although, user experience is what software is all about. So, whatever works for you. I just wanted to make public that is hard to get a real benchmark on Opera because it cheats when it reports page load/ render times.

Re:why is opera so fast?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the speed is because Opera has a rather limited DOM implementation. The overhead necessary to support it is thus gone, and it's faster. This means some DHTML just won't work with Opera, though. Check out the dynamic discussion format with Opera. It just won't work, there's no way to do it.

Re:why is opera so fast?

[tshak]

That's what I've found. I'm running Mozilla 1.0 rev. OMGITACUALLYGOTRELEASED and Opera 6.0.3. My current gripes about Moz so far is A) it's 2.5 times larger then Opera, B) it's subjectively slower then Opera (I'd be interested to see if this is true or not), and C) it renders CSS 3D stylized borders (like "ridge" etc.) in a very bland and boring way (like Opera) whereas IE uses a nice gradient and semi-dropshadow effect that makes it look great (and yes, IE DOES follow the CSS standard in this case).

Re:why is opera so fast?

[gusnz]

Dynamic HTML support.

Mozilla and IE offer a reasonably full DOM model of every loaded page. Every tag is represented in there, and essentially all atributes are categorised and changeable. Done in realtime, too -- have a look at the JavaScript Object Browser script on my homepage.

Opera's JS documentation, meanwhile, can be browsed in about 10 minutes. It has light JS 1.1 support -- not all properties implemented, compared to Mozilla's full JS 1.5. Its DOM is inferior in places to Netscape 4 -- as of v6, you cannot yet dynamically create positioned elements, clip content, or replace content of elements. It can't even run the above script I linked -- it doesn't even index its DOM properties correctly, so you can't say "tell me all properties of the 'window' object" like you can in every other browser.

Don't even get me started on how Opera Lies, pretending to be IE and making it an incredible pain to code in workarounds for its shortcomings.

So yes, Opera has blazingly fast HTML+CSS support, but it has sacrified good JavaScript and DHTML abilities to get it -- it's about 5 years behind the 8-ball, depending on how you want to count it.

I'd recommend Mozilla for the moment for most sites, hopefully Opera 7 will improve on this situation sometime -- the Opera developers have said DOM support is part of their eventual plans.

Re:why is opera so fast?

[hkmwbz]

I would just like to correct some mistakes:

1. Opera actually has JS 1.3 and partial JS 1.4 support (based on ECMA-262, which is the ECMAScript/JavaScript standard). And what do you need DOM for when things like this should be done server-side anyway?

2. Opera lies? It spoofs the useragent string to fool ignorant webmasters who only look for IE or Netscape 4 and block all other browsers. Sad but true, this is necessary today. And you are incorrect in assuming that it is "an incredible pain to code in workarounds". It is actually incredibly easy to detect Opera. Competent web designers know that Opera identifies itself through the userAgent string. Only fools would look at navigator.appName. Which is why Opera spoofs appName: It fools fools. Rather ironic, that.

To conclude, its JS support is excellent. The only thing missing is better DOM support.

OK, but not all I wanted

[AvitarX]

A while ago (M17?) I decided I was going to wait for 1.0 before I switched over to Mozilla.

Since then I fell in love with Opera's gestures and tabbed browsing. I think that Mozilla handles Tabs Awsomly, but that its gestures are kinda lame.

ex: in Opera I can right click hold and mouse wheel to change windows.

and can go foward and back with just the buttons (no motion). In Mozilla I am stuck with holding a button that has another function and moving the mouse, and with my spazzy hand I fail half the time succeed.

Amyway, I like Mozilla but it won't become my browser of choice anytime soon (I predict).

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Soul-Burn666]

Don't forget the Gestures in mozilla are version 0.3 something.. it's still in first stages of development.

I just wonder when will they make it easy to configure the gestures (editing some files is counter-intuitive here...)

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[moonbender]

ex: in Opera I can right click hold and mouse wheel to change windows.

Yep, that's what made me stick to Opera, too. But I'm sure Mozilla will be there, eventually, they've ripped most of the other good features of Opera so far. ;)

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[tswinzig]

In Mozilla I am stuck with holding a button that has another function and moving the mouse

You're STUCK with that? I don't think so. See, it's called open source, and... connect the fucking dots.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[i64X]

You're right... considering moving the mouse is the most exercise any of us ever get, why would you want to do that any more? We might actually burn some calories in our arms and shed some of those much wanted pounds. After all, ladies love a man who is as lazy as possible. :)

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[BLAMM!]

My feelings are the same. The mouse gestures are habit forming and I can no longer browse without them.

I also love the way Opera will open right where you left off. Close it with 10 pages open and it open those same 10 pages when you restart it. Brilliant!

I have no gripes about Mozilla, but after a day of trying it out, it just couldn't lure me away.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[mrmag00]

posting anonymous so i dont get shot, but try this. sounds good, was about to try it right now.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[AvitarX]

I did go there, (thats how I get started), and I even edited the file so it was right mouse button and not left to do stuff (I did not find my attempts to select text coaseing me to go backwards very amusing). I understand that gesturing is very primitive, and if tolerance for "spazzy hand" is built in (so my gestures aren't U,L,D instead of L) I would be more likly to switch (but the right click wheel to change tabs is still pretty key).

When I said I won't be using Mozilla for a while I meant that the extras I like are not there yet. What Mozilla neads in my book is:
1: hold mouse wheal and mouse up or down for fast scrolling

2: click events to be part of gestures, and more spazzy hand tolerence

3: more tab emphasis, and less new window (also tabnyness to be dialog configurable more so then now)

anyway, thats about all.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because everybody should be forced to program their own crap!!

Fuck your dots!

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU

Almost all the rants so far are simple UI bugs, something that would take 1 hour tops to hack out once you understood where to look. All the web page renderes incorrectly bugs are generally trolls, I've yet to see one and I don't even have access to an IE capable computer at home.

I've come to the conclusion that 'linux weenies' don't exist, its more like 'spoiled bratty exploiters'

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Violet Null]

and... connect the fucking dots.

Look! A puppy!

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Sanga]

Just found this from other posters ...

http://www0.mozdev.org/optimoz/gestures/installa ti on.html#

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Eccles]

...or an airplane. Very good, sir.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Glytch]

One feature I'd love Mozilla to copy from Opera is the ability to send the entire URL to a helper application when downloading, instead of just the file. Until Mozilla lets me use Downloader for X just as well as Opera can, it's unusable for me.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

I also love the way Opera will open right where you left off. Close it with 10 pages open and it open those same 10 pages when you restart it. Brilliant!

Yes, but in Mozilla you can store all those pages as a group bookmark and then reopen them any time you want.

Re:OK, but not all I wanted

[Dissonant]

I feel cool because I get this.

not complying with IE is a "foibles"?

[bberg]

Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla. For example, we struggled with sites that use a technology called positioning to put ads on their pages. In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad.

Despite these few foibles...


Foibles? just because IE likes to follow its own standard doesn't mean that it IS the standard. I would consider this a "foibles" on IEs part. If a developer is only designing a site for ID (and not for Netscape, for example) they are hurting themselves and their customer. A cross-browser compatibility (otherwise called following a standard) is something that will win you long term costumers who notice your attention to detail.

I can see why a reviewer would compare a new browser to IE, but to consider IE the standard is hardly appropriate.

It has problems with ads.

[peterdaly]

For example, we struggled with sites that use a technology called positioning to put ads on their pages. In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad.

------
The problem is not the browser...but the ad. When will these people wake up? Did you catch that TWO of their few complains centered around use of ads, or features to stop ads? When you turn pop-ups off, it may disable some aspects of cnet.com (news.com?) that you really want to use. Hehe...yeah.

The ads causing a page to be non-function is a good reason to a) stop using the site and b) send the webmaster a poltite message telling them why you will never visit their site again.

-Pete

Re:It has problems with ads.

[JordoCrouse]

The problem is not the browser...but the ad. When will these people wake up? Did you catch that TWO of their few complains centered around use of ads, or features to stop ads? When you turn pop-ups off, it may disable some aspects of cnet.com (news.com?) that you really want to use. Hehe...yeah.

ZDNet also suffers from the ad reposition problem occassionally.

Re:It has problems with ads.

[JordoCrouse]

ZDNet also suffers from the ad reposition problem occassionally.

Meanwhile, I suffer from brain damage all the time.

Sigh - I meant CNET.....

Re:It has problems with ads.

[GuyFromAccounting]

>The ads causing a page to be non-function is a good >reason to a) stop using the site and b) send the >webmaster a poltite message telling them why you >will never visit their site again.

I had this problem and emailed WSJ about it simply telling them that their ads were broken not threatening to leave the cite and in 2 days the problem went away and has not resurfaced.

Re:It has problems with ads.

[foobar104]

The ads causing a page to be non-function is a good reason to a) stop using the site....

There's another way to phrase that. I believe it more accurately reflects what most users will think.

"Mozilla can't display some sites correctly. Your only alternative is not to browse those sites."

Right or wrong, that's how it looks to the public. "The site is broken" or "the ad is broken" don't mean anything at all to anybody, because it works just fine in the browser than nn% of surfers use.

This is called a "de-facto standard," and the Mozilla team is just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

Re:It has problems with ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called a "de-facto standard," and the Mozilla team is just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

They have. It's called switching 35 million AOL users over to a Gecko-based client.

Re:It has problems with ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

b) send the webmaster a poltite message telling them why you will never visit their site again.

Maybe not never, but not until they write to W3C standards.

No STL

[Anonymous Coward]

The title summarizes what is wrong with Mozilla. It's why Mozilla is such a bloated piece of NIH.

The

[Big Stick]

In the CNET review,

For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.

This "criticism" seems to me to be rather absentminded. Specifically building sites for IE is a shortcoming on the developer side. And imagine a browser being criticised for rendering ads, of all things, incorrectly! Go figure. Personally I can't wait to update my RCx.

mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Schlemphfer]

I suppose these were a couple good first-day reviews. I downloaded 1.0 yesterday and played around with it. My impressions were that for casual use, Mozilla's pretty indistinguishable from IE. But there was one thing that caught my attention that I think is of great importance, but wasn't mentioned in either review.

Not to troll, but the front end of Mozilla is ugly as sin. If this browser's going to catch on, what will matter to most mainstream users isn't pipelining, tabbed browsing, or HTML compliance, but the initial first impression of how good it looks. Say what you want about Microsoft, but they hired some standout designers to make IE look gorgeous.

Now I know that the whole point of Mozilla is the underlying technology. But for it to catch on as a browser, it needs to be every bit as pretty as IE. It'll be interesting to see if the Netscape version of 1.0 incorporates a glossy front end. For now, I know which browser I politically favor, but I also know which one I want to look at several times a day. They aren't the same.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[NullProg]

"Edit"
"Preferences"
"Appearance"
"Themes"
"Get New Themes"

Enjoy.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Platinum Dragon]

Did you try switching to the Modern theme?

Or take a peek at some of the other available themes to find something you like?

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[crawling_chaos]

I'm running it right now at the office and it looks no worse than any other Win XP application. The window frame and outside controls are all native widgets.

What OS are you running it under?

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[SimplyCosmic]

Alright, I realise what we're talking about is more personal aesthetic tastes than anything else, but I just couldn't believe someone would describe Internet Explorer as "gorgeous".

Functional, yes. Gorgeous, what?

Regardless, if that's the biggest complaint, try any of the smattering of themes available. Now that 1.0 is out, I imagine they'll start growing in number soon, but at least try out Orbit Moz Theme

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[SurfsUp]

Not to troll, but the front end of Mozilla is ugly as sin.

You aren't using the classic theme, are you? In my opinion the modern (view/apply theme/modern) looks quite nice. Anyway, the big deal about 1.0 is that the interfaces used by themes are finally stable, so expect the floodgates to open.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how CNet mentions XULPlanet.com as a place to get new themes. Mozilla 1.0 links to a page which lists MozDev and DeskMod, but not XULPlanet. Wonder where they got that from... Also, since when does File/Quit not close the whole application? File/Close is what closes a window, or the x in the upper right corner of the window, but Quit always ends it all.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Pinball is pretty good. The Trek LCARS themes are a bit too garish, though.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[tswinzig]

Not to troll, but the front end of Mozilla is ugly as sin. If this browser's going to catch on, what will matter to most mainstream users isn't pipelining, tabbed browsing, or HTML compliance, but the initial first impression of how good it looks. Say what you want about Microsoft, but they hired some standout designers to make IE look gorgeous.

I disagree about the ugliness. Modern looks good. The pinball theme is also nice (I'm using it now). There will be many more once it becomes popular. That's the whole point of skinning. It can look like anything with it's skin-a-bility.

There's nothing stopping someone from copying the MSIE look* exactly, or the Aqua look*, or making something even better.

* Lawsuits notwithstanding.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[cjpez]

Or even . . .

• View
• Apply Themes
• Get New Themes

:)

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point. What he meant was that it should look the very first time the user runs it.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Tim Stadelmann]

I doubt the orignal poster was not aware of this possibility.

The catch is, there are no good-looking Mozilla themes in existance. Which is not surprising, since creating them is not very satisfying and somewhat difficult. Especially one that blends in seamlessly with (as opposed to looks superficially the same as) the rest of the user interface, which is almost impossible to achieve with XUL.

It's really a question of what you regard as more important, conformance to web standards or to platform user interface standards. The Mozilla team chose to go with the first option, for good reasons (except for the "Mozilla is really an application platform" argument, which is unrealistic).

Many people would have preferred a different choice, for equally good reasons. Since Mozilla's design makes it very difficult to implement a different choice (witness the numerous quirks and inefficiencies in galeon) we'll just have to see how the public takes it. Maybe the developers were right. Personally, I don't believe it.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[kalidasa]

The window frame and outside controls are all native widgets.

And some of the interior XUL controls are themed by XP, though they are not strictly native widgets.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Telastyn]

The other thing that helps alot is to change the default font to Serif, rather than San-Serif. That's the default IE font, and in most everyone's opinion "looks better".

Others have also recommended the 'classic' theme, which is a great improvement.

There's tons of little other things that greatly bother me about mozilla that will keep me using ie when I can, but that's a different discussion

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know that the whole point of Mozilla is the underlying technology. But for it to catch on as a browser, it needs to be every bit as pretty as IE. It'll be interesting to see if the Netscape version of 1.0 incorporates a glossy front end. For now, I know which browser I politically favor, but I also know which one I want to look at several times a day. They aren't the same.

First off, as others have said here, that you can change the look of the program. However, that raises another problem. Most users aren't that technically able! As an admin, I hear so much whining too many times when I have to set a user up with a new program, especially if it uses some text interface through a terminal emulator rather than point and click pretty pictures. In general, people at home and in the office want the simple, brain dead apps they are used to getting from companies like Microsoft. Why do you think XP is so dumbed down from 98 or Me? Do you think the average PC user that downloads Mozilla wants to be bothered with "Edit - Preferences - Appearance - Themes"? They even have a hard time with "Tools-Internet Options-Delete Files" to clear out their temporary internet files in IE!!! It's the same reason Linux will never catch on in the home market...if you need to think or work to use it, most people don't want to be bothered. Except for people like us.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[edthemonkey]

Millions upon millions of people have downloaded WinAmp and it's default interface is ugly as sin. It's the simplicity and ability to customize it that bring people back. I see the same thing happening with mozilla, it's not easy to skin IE without using a third party application (even those don't always work right). It has a future.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[ealar dlanvuli]

I agree, I started having to use it at work when I got switched to w2k, and it's plain ugly/ackward.

Mozilla gets about 150thousand million zillion trillion usability points in my book. Tabbed browsing alone is enough to make IE feel ackward, and my first popup I literally shouted out 'omg what a piece of crap', Dave my boss (who gets to use FreeBSD on his station) agreed.

In general, IE is a piece of junk, it isn't even in the same market as mozilla anymore. It's like comparing Win3.1 to KDE, it's just not even fair on w3.1.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[_Sprocket_]

Funny how CNet mentions XULPlanet.com as a place to get new themes. Mozilla 1.0 links to a page which lists MozDev and DeskMod, but not XULPlanet.

According to this explanation , XulPlanet had become the defacto source of Mozilla themes after the fall of Themes.org. However the traffic soon became unmanagable and so they threw their support to DeskMod. It would seem that the author isn't keeping up with the times.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[snake_dad]

But for it to catch on as a browser, it needs to be every bit as pretty as IE.

So you are really, really, absolutely sure that you want an IE skin?

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Theom]

Enjoy!

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Polo]

Do this:

go to Edit->preferences

Go to Appearance->themes

click on "Get New Themes"

Go to the first site on the list and download the
theme called Pinball.

I like it.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

It's great the some people like themes. But I can't stand them. For me to use Mozilla as my primary browser it has to have a nice simple interface like IE can.

I only have one bar, with a few menu buttons, the most used browser buttons, and the address bar. All on one line. I don't find it cluttured and it keeps out of the way and gives me more screen space for actual web pages.

That may not be to your liking. But my point? You can customise IE more than you can Mozilla, the skins only seems to change the style/look of the buttons and bars, and don't offer any options to add/remove/re-size/re-arrange things.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[krs-one]

There is an IE theme you can use called (surprisingly) The IE Theme.

Get it from http://mozdev.org/.

-Vic

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[tshak]

Actually, IE for WinXP looks pretty slick.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[crawling_chaos]

Now that you mention it, I see that the Search button is in fact getting themed, although the form controls (like Submit buttons) aren't.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[ekidder]

I've never liked Mozilla theming. It is, in fact, one of the major reasons that I don't use it (smooch Netcaptor - I love you!). I run a tight ship for my desktop and I don't like applications that don't play ball regarding appearance and usage when WindowBlinds is the coach.
(Not that Microsoft Office plays ball, it but plays more ball) (Winamp sucks at ball, too, and I would kill for a tiny (window-size) player that's just a player for god's sake and doesn't have a built-in theming engine)

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

And I hope that never happens, since themeing form controls should be reserved for the web page.
If you look at the CSS spec, you can in fact set colour and background image for a submit button on your webpage.
The browser should keep its hands off what the page looks like, IMO.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

To my knowledge Windowblinds overrides the windows toolkit. The classic theme pretty much uses straight windows gui. So, when using classic, you can't get Mozilla to cooperate with Windowblinds?
Although, why anyone would use that buggy pos is beyond me. Thankfully most linux window managers have theming built in.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[jonnythan]

Why can't it use the standard windows widgets like every other fucking program?

I don't want every single program to look astoundingly different. Screw this skinning crap!

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Danse]

I really like the Pinball skin. It's attractive and unobtrusive.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard for what? You can make a skin look like pretty much anything. If whatever standard you're talking about is fairly popular, then there probably is/will be a skin for it.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Danse]

Here ya go. This should make you happy. Now you can make Moz look just like IE. Bout as standard as you can get.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[An Onerous Coward]

The frontend is pretty enough for me (depending on the theme being used, of course). But why didn't they celebrate the 1.0 milestone by giving Mozilla a nicer splash screen? The little green lizard is cute, but doesn't exactly scream, "This here's a serious browser!"

There's hope, though. Under Windows, all you have to do is throw a picture called mozilla.bmp into the folder that holds mozilla.exe. Under Linux, you have to replace splash.xpi with the pic of your choice and rebuild from source (ick).

Here's some places to find new splashes:

• http://www.pali.sk/mozilla/splash_list.html
  
• http://www.lotekk.net/index.php?page=moz&sub=splas h
  
• http://www.geocities.com/mozillaman2000/
  

The last one has one of mine.

Or you can always roll your own!

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[sydneyfong]

I believe Netscape 7 will have all the eye candies you need. Mozilla isn't supposed to "look nice" for end users. Remember Mozilla will probably be knowns as "Netscape", not by it's real name

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Matter of taste, but the 'modern' them used to look really really really ugly, its only goal apparently being to "look new". On the other hand, classic seemed ok, bit conservative but decent.
To each his own I guess.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO GrayModern is currently the best theme for Mozilla, from a day to day usably standpoint.

www0.mozdev.org/themes/skins/graymodern.html

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[caferace]

Hmmm. You can get close to that with Mozilla.

1) Grab and apply the "pinball" theme.
2) Turn your browser on full screen.

voila. Single line controls (unless you're using tabs, of course). Kinda cool, but you are limited to full screen for now. Give it a week, and someone will hack something together.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed Mozilla themes are less customizable than, say, Galeon's. I have read good things about K-meleon (assuming you are on MS Windows), but there are apparently some issues holding up a stable release. They have betas based on Mozilla 1.0 for the adventurous types.

You might also be interested in Beonex.

There are a few more alternative browsers to be found here here. N.B. It will take a while for some of these projects to catch up with 1.0.

In the meantime, you can choose to show only one toolbar with View--> Show/Hide and check off the things you want to hide.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[BJH]

Since about 0.9.something, Mozilla crashes rarely enough for me to be happy using it as my standard browser.

What does this have to do with your post? Well, you see, once I start up Mozilla, I don't restart it any more than once every couple of weeks (really). So, I couldn't care less what the splash screen looks like...

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would kill for a tiny (window-size) player that's just a player for god's sake and doesn't have a built-in theming engine)

I'm writing one... for similar reasons:

http://homepages.visp.co.nz/~aaronlawrence/

Just a thought.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

WB with Moz classic theme (or better yet LoFi theme) works fine for me.

Re:mentions the good, the bad, but never the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

galeon should be getting alot better soon, as they can stop working with the bare-minimum API and exploit geko till the cows come home. The problem until now was if you got to API specific you had a good chance of breaking everything next week when the API changed again.

Quick Review

[dasmegabyte]

I like the idea of Mozilla. But a day after installing it, I'm still using IE. Why? IE is more responsive...and that's what's important to me.

I do use it at home sometimes...but only because the wife hates it, and therefore she never checks my pr0n history (heh).

Re:Quick Review

[Anonymous Coward]

that must suck to have a butch of a wife

Re:Quick Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting.

I switched to Mozilla in March because it was faster than Netscape.

I never use IE cause it fucks with my settings.

It seems that nearly every time I open IE, I have to change the configuration of something else *back* to what it was before I opened IE (usually that task bar setting).

It made my ass hurt, so I quit doing it.

I've not noticed IE being particularly speedy, but that constant re-configuration was not what I'd call responsive.

Re:Quick Review

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are referring to more responsive as in loads faster, under windows you can have Mozilla do the same thing IE does - load itself in background.
The installer gives you the option, you can find it in preferences, or you can put a link to the application with -turbo added into either your registry, desktop or StartUp folder

Re:Quick Review

[kyras]

I do use it at home sometimes...but only because the wife hates it, and therefore she never checks my pr0n history (heh).

Come on, now. How many times have we all heard about the flaws with Security through Obscurity? Anyone want to take bets on how long this little charade of his will last?

Re:Quick Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Use mozilla, its what any godfearing patriot american would use. If you do not use it you are probably a terrorist.

Re:Quick Review

[Anonymous Coward]

More Responsive huh? I would say my first and foremost complaint (almost my only complaint for that matter) is the lack of responsiveness. Try right clicking on anything in IE. Then watch yourself sitting and waiting for an unresponsive browser. Can you give me a good reason for this?

Other than that, IE just makes too much of an effort to be "friendly" (ie; limit your ability to see actual error messages or use your browser like anything other than a clueless newbie.)
Lack of an option to view an image by itself without having to right click on the image, (wait a bit), choose properties, highlight the URL of the image, right click (and wait again), choose copy, then go up to the address bar, right click (and wait yet again), paste, then click go or hit enter. what a pain. For someone who actively works with and on websites, Mozilla trounces on IE any day of the week.

I think a lot of the problems with IE in my opinion lay in the fact that MS tries to keep you from doing anything but looking at a page. You're not supposed to save an image off a page (stealing!), you're not supposed to poke around a website (hacking!), etc.

Thanks but no thanks.

--largo (too lazy to track down my login, and no, I'm not the megatokyo guy, I'm the Window Maker guy.)

Reviewer need's a lesson in HTML standards

[Neil Watson]

From the CNET article:
" Beyond its skins and pop-up-killing abilities, however, Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does. For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla. For example, we struggled with sites that use a technology called positioning to put ads on their pages. In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad."

I seriously doubt this has anything to do with Mozilla. More likely, the web designer used the broken standards of IE and never bothered to test it with other browsers.

Re:Reviewer need's a lesson in HTML standards

[Anonymous Coward]

What's equally funny is the article also claims that the author is a software engineer.

Rex Baldazo is a software engineer for CNET and a frequent contributor to CNET Software.

Sounds like a IE HTML weenie who couldn't code his way out of a paper bag.

Re:Reviewer need's a lesson in HTML standards

[Neil Watson]

I assume he is in the US. When I used to work in the automotive industry, alot of our customers were in the US (I'm in Canada). I found that the term engineer was so overused. It was used as a job title just like manager.

So if someone claims to be an engineer that may be his/her title not necessarily his trade/education.

What a shock..

[Rombuu]

...the open source advocacy site likes an open source web browser. Color me surprised.

Re:What a shock..

[tempest303]

Actually, Linux.com editors seem to say even more nice things about the closed source, commercial Opera than they do any open source browser. I don't think I've read a browser review yet on Linux.com that didn't mention it, so if you're implying bias, go look again.

Re:What a shock..

[iceT]

.the open source advocacy site likes an open source web browser. Color me surprised.

And the Advertising WHORE site gave it a mediocre review, and used IE as the 'base reference'.

Go figure.

Re:What a shock..

[Anonymous Coward]

This post was hilarious... why not mod it that way???

Seriously, if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?

Re:What a shock..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Slashdot reader used over-heated, emotionally charged words like "whore" in a completely egregious way in order to demonstrate his complete and total lack of real cogitation.

Go figure!

im wondering

[paradesign]

where are the reviews of the partys? how were they, were there any hotties, or women at all? just wondering cause there was all of the hype leading up to this.

Re:im wondering

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

T'll let you know next Thursday. The parties haven't happened yet.

If you ask me

[Anonymous Coward]

It ceases to be an HTML and becomes an Internet Explorer Document the moment it can't display properly in any other browser.

Mozilla in my opinion

[Xcrap]

Its still too slow and bloated and its too little too late.

Come on, its really not worth four years of work. Tabbed browsing was a feature that could be good but other browsers have it too. Other tabbed browsers include Opera, Konqueor 3.1 and even lynx/links ran in mutiple ttys.

But the mozilla project has released something better than their browser, and thats bugzilla. Ive seen open source software that use this have their bugs killed really fast.

Overall, Mozilla its not that great.

Re:Mozilla in my opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the only browser you mentioned that is NOT BASED ON MOZILLA is Opera. The rest, are. Well, lynx isn't. Duh. I know that, really.... heh.

But I keep seeing people comparing Konquorer and Galeon et al to Mozilla and saying "I'll keep using Galeon" or whatever. They can do what they want, but Mozilla is the sun source of all browsers for Linux, at this time. (Keeping in mind, of course, that Nutscrape started the project, for what it's worth)

Re:Mozilla in my opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

GALEON IS NO WEBBROWSER .... its a fucking frontend to mozilla by using its embedded mozilla part.

my faith restored

[negativethirsty]

After becoming an employee of a "microsoft shop" in jan, I've used nothing but m$ and its products for 99% of my development tools(officexp/winxp pro/messenger/vis studio etc) and day to day work.

So I took a chance on the posting yesterday and decided to give Mozilla a whirl. First impression wasn't that great due to the cheese splash screen on launch(which I replaced, and it actually listened to me!). However it didn't take long for me to be converted after that.

Right off the bat, I turned off 90% of pop up adds, imported my IE fav's and even gave it a new look using the themes. i was and still am truely impressed by Mozilla. I can search my bookmarks, a huge deal for me. I can tell Mozilla how to behave...and it seems to actually listen!
After realising how much I liked this new browser I suddenly became very aware of how far the 'net in general has gone down hill since IE's dominace. I realized how my work got further and further away from stds, focused on M$ and how they wanted things done. Most of all I was dissapointed how I had forgotten just how good the net as a whole used to be.
Either way, if the Moz. dev team is listening, thank you. I can once again surf in peace.

Re:my faith restored

[Buck2]

Why don't you write to them specifically as opposed to posting it here and hoping they see it?

I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Just copy and paste to the first reasonable contact you see.

Re:my faith restored

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't value your job too much do you? You may have just sealed your fate...

I always make sure to remain anonymous when bashing M$, they have enough power to keep me unemployed if they so desire. Actually, bashing IE publicly is probably against your contract, you should go check that out.

Re:my faith restored

[negativethirsty]

I do value my job, but I also created it. The joys of having a contract =)

Re:my faith restored

[anshil]

Man don't spread FUD. With this kind of nonsense you're only hurting the things you want to support. We don't need any hobby warriors going around fucking people. ( If you write code, send bug reports, make div. art, etc. people appreciate it very much,
if all you want or can do is ms bushing, find something better to do.

Re:my faith restored

[Anonymous Coward]

>I can search my bookmarks, a huge deal for me.

If so many people think that IE is the greatest fucking browser to every exist, why does it not have this basic functionality? Yes i know you can so a search on the favorites directory but this is a hack.

This basic ability and the ability to ditch pop-up adds are reason enough to switch.

Re:my faith restored

[hoowee]

Now comes the hard part... living with a whole office full of people who you'll forever consider "closed-minded". You might as well start looking for a new job right now. :)

Re:my faith restored

[Anonymous Coward]

haha no kidding, I have a friend who works in a shop. He tried to get me to apply to a position (would have been an ok salary gain, but..) that I would prety much auto-get, I declined. I'm staying at the hospital where the IT managers can at least recognize pulling out Big Iron is going to outpreform 2k in alot of areas.

Re:my faith restored

[charnerd]

So is this why I can't get a job?
Interesting, the only people who have called me about a job was in fact Microsoft... twice...
Maybe they're on to me? Maybe they want to force me to convert by choking off all my money?

Re:my faith restored

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget tabbed windows.

Best feature ever. The first time I saw it was in Opera, I'm glad to have it in the more stable (than Opera) Mozilla.

first puff

[Anonymous Coward]

bummer! having a lameness filter on /. is like having a sh1t filter in the a$$!

Re:CNN.com review

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell? Are you an idiot? How do these links have any relevence to the story? ARE THE MODERATORS IDIOTS FOR LABELING THIS GUY'S POST "INFORMATIVE"???

C-Nut review is narrow minded

[d3xt3r]

This is the type of review that really annoys me. The review spends 10 paragraphs praising Mozilla for it's standards compliance, speed, reliability, etc and then has to go and ruin it all by saying "Good but no IE Killer."

"Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla"

What?!? So because a bunch of lazy web "developers" have written IE specific html, we should not just assume this means IE is the better browser? I think this is a really narrow-minded observation. Granted he may be right about the rendering, but it does not mean that Mozilla is not as good as IE.

Seriously, IE simply renders pages more "correctly" because it dominates the market and lazy "developers" have written IE specific code.

I guess this journalist also believes that Windows is superior to Mac OS X because there is more software available for it. Or maybe he just enjoys BSODs. Get real, this is not a fair way to compare browsers.

One last thing... can someone please show me a page link to all these pages that don't render correctly in Mozilla? I use Mozilla exclusively and have not come upon any pages in the last few months that do not work correctly with Mozilla.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[nuggz]

Most people want to use their web browser and see the site as it was written to be seen.

If the browser shows the site nicely, it is a good browser.
If the browser shows a garbled mess it is a bad browser.

You can argue technical correctness all you want, but all most people care about is if it works as intended. The fact that the site isn't written properly doesn't matter to them, just that IE works and Mozilla doesn't.

yes this could be flamebait, but really that is how people think.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[d3xt3r]

Okay fine for Joe User but not for a journalist. If he wants to point out what he thinks the average user's opinion will be, that fine. But he didn't, he himself made an observation that the product was not as good as IE because well, it's not IE. That is narrow minded in my book.

Joe User is another story.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[blamanj]

Good but no IE Killer

It's not surprising that this is what the press is interested in. For one thing, it's been four years, they're expecting some pizazz. For another, it is this aspect that is required to get Joe Consumer to switch. I mean really, if they get IE for free and you tell them, you can spend X amount of time downloading and installing Mozilla and they say "what for?", you're going to need a better answer than "it's just as good as IE."

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[spbriggs]

And presumably if and when Mr Gates says it'll cost you $50/month to see websites the way they were designed to be seen you'll hand over the readies like a good little consumer.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[SRieder]

the site http://www.norrod.nl doesn't render correctly in Mozilla... it's all mixed up :-(

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[damiam]

It seems fine in Galeon (using Gecko from RC3). The only small problem I can see is that the bottom cuts off a little bit of the shopping cart stuff, but it's still perfectly usable. Maybe there's something I'm missing. Is this how it's supposed to look?

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[SRieder]

No... this is how it's supposed to look :-(
(using Netscape 4.7)

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[gsa700]

MSNBC is usually broken.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[dondelelcaro]

This page is using the document.layers DOM property, which isn't w3c compliant at all (and doesn't exist in mozilla). So there's no _way_ it will display correctly in mozilla until they fix their code to be w3c compliant....

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[Anonymous Coward]

Any CSS page, compare them side to side and decide which one render correctly:

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
http://www.meyerwe b.com/eric/css/edge/gallery.html

IE6 looks absolutely b0rked.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[SimplexO]

Check out any ad-centric geocities page. Those lovely overlay ads just throw themselves on top of the page.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[Anonymous Coward]

100% agree...Mozilla rocks....
http://www.cdrinfo.com/
is an example where the right side intferes with the text. As far as I'm concerned cdrinfo better correct there stuff to comply with Mozilla 1.0 or just stop visiting them (as if they cared anyway though)

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[BJH]

Presumably, if they're using Windows they're already paying ~$10 a month for the 'privilege' (an OS upgrade every two years for $250 or so).

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cosmiverse.com/news/space/space060602 04 . tml

(in fact, any of the stories on there do it)

Make sure your browser window is around 600-700 pixels wide. There should be a rather annoying gap between the cosmiverse logo on the left, and the advert on the right that shouldn't be there. Because of that gap, the text below is rendered to fit that entire width, which forces the viewer to have to scroll left/right/left/right to read the damn thing.

It's a table layout problem.. and yes, it has been reported on bugzilla.

I have been using mozilla continuously since 0.9 and have found many pages that don't render quite right.. It's pretty close.. but as many people have already pointed out, if the user can't view the page in mozilla, and it works fine in IE, they blame the browser, not the page content.

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[Ilgaz]

MSnbc is broken... MSnbc is broken... I am REALLY surprised.

Mozilla guys fixed a Mozilla bug once to show that frontpage page right seems "genious" MSnbc webmasters figured its fixed via open bugzilla database and created another... Seems they think everyone is a moron.

Please, don't be funny. Complain about anything is broken but NOT sites involved with MICROSOFT.

This comment comes from an Opera 6.03 user blocked from DOZENS of MSN sites...

Re:C-Nut review is narrow minded

[damiam]

I think I know why.

Now of only theu could get Mozilla Mail working...

[Rob Parkhill]

Got to admit, Moz 1.0 is pretty sweet. It got a little bit faster with each release, and a lot more stable.

Now if only the Mozilla email bits would work properly. All sorts of issues there. My favorite is Mozilla crashing whenever you try to sign/encrypt any S/MIME message when you are not logged into the certificate manager. Nice.

Skewed speed results!

[Anonymous Coward]

IE scores so poorly in the individual tests, yet gets rated perfect overall?

Sounds like the results were tampered with, or the test is greatly flawed.

Re:Skewed speed results!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, all the benchmarks were checked and double checked by Katherine Harris. Mozilla lost. Get over it!

Re:CNN.com review

[Jucius Maximus]

MOD PARENT DOWN. It's a TROLL.

The first link is a troll. (Yeah I'll lose karma on this too but moderators, please wait for the parent to get modded down before you kill this post.)

Here's another

[stankyho]

Here's another review at Evolt.
Which is also featured here. They've been Pirated.

All Links are bad, "-1" down this one.

[peterdaly]

see subject.

only one thing can describe this

[Anonymous Coward]

Party Hard


When it's time to party we will party hard
You,
You work all night (all night)
And when you work you don't feel all right
And we, We can't stop feeling all right (all right)
And everything is all right
'Cos we will never listen to your rules (no)
We will never do what others do
Do what we want and we get it from you
Do what we like and we like what we do
So let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
Now it's time to party and we'll party hard (party hard)
Let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
When it's time to party we will always party hard Party hard (party hard, party hard, party hard...)


All right
You,
You break the thing
And when you play you feel all right
But we,
We can't stop feeling all right (all right)
And everything is all right


'Cos we will never listen to your rules (no)
We will never do what others do
Know what we want and we get it from you
We do what we like and we like what we do


So let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
Now it's time to party and we'll party hard (party hard)
Let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
When it's time to party we will always party hard Party hard (party hard, party hard, party hard...)


OH YEAH!!

Re:only one thing can describe this

[arkane1234]

ahh yes...

the ominipotent song that is sung by a PAM. (pasty Angry Male)

I have to laugh everytime I see that video... bubblegum punk.

Who is this clown?

[Curtman]

"If you really want to chat on IRC, use an IM such as Trillian instead."

Honestly, why would anyone want to use IRC in and instant messanger? Chatzilla is an IRC client as it should be.

file downloading

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried downloading a largish file ~75 megs. It choked at 50 megs with mozilla 1.0 every time I tried. However the same file was easily downloaded with IE.

Re:file downloading

[Anonymous Coward]

downloads large files fine for me, must be an I-D-1-0-T error on your end.

IE 6 gets a C too

[zmokhtar]

Don't worry to much about the 7 out of 10. They gave IE 6 the same score.

Re:IE 6 gets a C too

[SRieder]

That's exactly what worries me... At that rating, Mozilla should have had at least a 9 out of 10 :-).

I wonder

[WetCat]

Why every developer of web browser tries to tie mail client to it. Mail is more attracting as a extension of file manager.
As for Mozilla - it's rather impossible to install it without installing its monstrous mozilla-mail, which I'll never be using any more.

Re:I wonder

[Salsaman]

Yes you can install it without mail/news. Just use the network installer, and select 'custom'. You can then choose exactly what components you want or don't want.

Re:I wonder

[WetCat]

I use Mandrake and usage of network installer is not as convenient as using .rpm packages. For example it's hard to check or delete it if needed.

Re:I wonder

[Bladerunner2037]

And if you're building from source, of course, put --disable-mailnews in to the configure equation....

Re:I wonder

[lactose99]

I use Mandrake and I'm using the packaged installer for Mozilla, partially because the last time I checked the mozilla mdk RPM (1.0-rc2 I think), it required an update of 30-something packages. This, on a newly-installed Mandrake 8.2 system. That is NOT necessary just to install the latest copy of Mozilla.

Quite the contary to your post, I believe the installer version of Mozilla is much more conveinent than the RPM version. It installs the entire application in one folder (/usr/local/mozilla), which you can quickly remove if you need to.

Needless to say, there is a version of the Mozilla installer that includes all of the components (at a sizable 12.5MB download), where you can pick and choose components (I bypassed the mail client and Chatzilla). I still have Mozilla-0.9.8 installed as an RPM (as Nautilus and several other programs require it being there), but I never run that version anymore. 1.0 is all I need.

Re:I wonder

[Salsaman]

I have the same setup, but I still download using the installer and then I copy the files into the locations where Mandrake expects them.

Here are some simple instructions to do it:

First of all, download the installer to /usr/local. Gzip -d and untar it - this will create the mozilla-installer directory. Then from that directory, run mozilla-installer and pick the components you want and begin the install. Mozilla gets installed into /usr/local/mozilla. Mozilla will try to start up automatically, but exit it as soon as you can.

Now do the following:

mkdir /usr/local/plugins-moz
cp -r /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/* /usr/local/plugins-m oz
cd /usr/local/mozilla
mv mozilla mozilla-xremote-client /usr/bin
mv lib* /usr/lib
rm -r /usr/lib/mozilla/*
cp -r * /usr/lib/mozilla
cp -r /usr/local/plugins-mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla/plu gins
ldconfig

Then finally, edit the file /usr/bin/mozilla and somewhere around line 47, you will see:
progname=$0
curdir=`dirname $progname`

Immediately after this, add a line:
curdir=/usr/lib/mozilla

And there you have it. If there are any problems, try deleting ~/.mozilla to create a new profile (back it up first though).

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

...And they say linux isn't ready for the home user. ;)

too many bugs for me

[hawkbug]

I have submitted a few bugs here and there since I first started using Mozilla about 2 years ago. I tried on many different occaisions to use it as my primary email client and web browser on windows - but it just doesn't work for me for 5 reasons:

1) When switching between inboxes on different mail servers it forgets your last selected messages. This is annoying as hell when I have over 1000 messages in both my inboxes. I have reported this bug well over a year ago.

2) You're supposed to be able to type in a "nickname" of somebody in your addressbook just like good old netscape 4.7X when using the mail client. Well, sometimes Mozilla feels like auto completing the email address with the one in your address book, and other times it doesn't work. Annoying to say the least when trying to compose a message.

3) I have a laptop which has an ATI mobile graphics card in it (I'm not sure if this matters) running Windows 2000. When I open Mozilla up, I get little black evenly spaced dots or dashes at random across the URL bar. It only does this in windows, and apparently only on my laptop using the ATI card. I have the latest ATI drivers. This just looks awful, and makes it so I can't even read the URL. This has been the case for the last 2 years, and it ONLY does this with Mozilla, and no other application I have ever used.

4) Mozilla seems to render pages extremely slowly and choppy. What I mean is, if you take it to a page that has a huge select box on it inside a form with over 1000 entries that is showing multiple rows, say 10 for example, the browser freaks out and takes about 15 seconds on my machine to load it. It does some weird stuff in the mean time, like move the box width around, put scroll bars at strange points on the screen, etc.

5) My largest gripe by a mile with Mozilla has to be this - this is non-platform-specific. I've had this happen on Mac OS X, Red Hat Linux, and Windows 98, 2000, and XP. The first instance of the browser I open allows me to type in form fields and type in the URL bar. Open up a second instance of the browser, and you can't type anywhere. My mouse then becomes the only input I have with the screen. I have to completely close mozilla, mail client and all, and restart it to be able to type in the form fields and url bar again. WTF? Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000. I can't verify if this happens with a mac or linux, but I do have the typing problems there as well. Isn't this a major thing that other people should have noticed?

So, I'm not trying to rag on the mozilla developers since they are doing a great thing - I just think that these 5 bugs are very major, and should have been fixed well before version 1.0. In my opinion, those 5 things are completely holding Mozilla back from becoming widely used and accepted. I hope they get them fixed before version 1.1 or 2.0.

Re:too many bugs for me

[Salsaman]

Point 5 is bug 82534 on bugzilla. IMO they should have fixed it before releasing 1.0. Oh well.

Re:too many bugs for me

[rtaylor]

3 is definatly a video driver issue.

I've had the same thing with many programs under ATI video cards. Seems it has something to do with specific drawing methods.

I've not seen in with mozilla, but many a time I've lost the X in all windows to a green and black mess.

Re:too many bugs for me

[Anonymous Coward]

An easy way to fix #5 is to simply shrink and expand the window that wont let you type.
I get this every now and then, and If I just send it to the taskbar and restore it fixes the problem. I've never had to close all of mozilla and re-start to fix that.

Re:too many bugs for me

[hawkbug]

I've tried minimizing it, resizing it, you name it. I guess my point is - this is a basic windows/linux/mac application. If they would have simply stuck to traditional methods for doing this sort of thing, the browser would be more usuable. They can always add "fancy" look and feel features later - when the browser is actually usable. I just got so frustrated with it I had to stop using it.

Re:too many bugs for me

[suppo]

Re. #5: Just opened up a second instance and had no problems typing in the url box (running linux on COMPAQ laptop).

Re:too many bugs for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people have to complain so much when they get something for FREE? This is open source, dude, so fix the bugs yourself.

Re:too many bugs for me

[jallen02]

Did you ever use bugzilla and submit these bugs?

Jeremy

Re:too many bugs for me

[hawkbug]

the ones that I didn't think we're already submitted.

Re:too many bugs for me

[hawkbug]

"Are you sure this isn't the QuickLaunch thingamabob? Mozilla keeps a daemon-like copy of itself running in the background so it can start up as fast as IE. IE does this too, except the background process is called "Windows" and killing it may reboot your computer."

Yes, I'm sure it's not quicklaunch, I never install that when I install Mozilla, I hate it.

"Rendering form elements requires the browser to tell the OS (Windows) to draw GUI widgets like checkboxes and buttons; these are not handled directly by the browser renderer. Windows can probably tell you're using Evil Non-Microsoft Software and intentionally stalls it every time it requests a GUI widget. Your solution here is to assassinate Bill Gates."

Yeah, except I see similar results on my linux box and mac in this area. It does some very, very weird things when drawing out that form field.

"It sounds to me that your computer is trying to send you subliminal messages in Morse code. I believe either the CIA or FBI have you under surveillance, and are most likely performing some kind of psychological conditioning upon you. The only way to defend against this would be to line your apartment in tin foil, and NEVER use your laptop anywhere else. A fresh tin foil hat wouldn't hurt either."

He he, I'll be sure to try that ;)

Re:too many bugs for me

[hawkbug]

If it was my project, and I knew how to code gui interfaces, I would help. Why do I complain so much? I was simply giving my reasons for not adopting this browser as my "main" browser, hoping others could identify with my problems, which should help bring them to the attention of the developers. Thus, making mozilla better and more usuable. Is there something wrong with that?

Re:too many bugs for me

[Anonymous Coward]

how should an outstanding person fix such a big uncontrollable project ? sorry the 10 liners a person was able to fix in his 5 mins spare time are over. fixing mozilla problems needs their right developers or 5-6 months of permanent learning how mozilla code works..

Re:too many bugs for me

[anthony_dipierro]

This is open source, dude, so fix the bugs yourself.

Let me compile it without paying $3000 for Visual Studio.

Re:too many bugs for me

[ealar dlanvuli]

Hm, I'd like to see you compile it after paying 3k for Visual Studio on FreeBSD or Linux... (not to mention that VS is only like 1k for the uber uber uber l33t uber omg that guys l33t wow what a l33t hackz0r warezed version, the normal verions are like 500)

dumbass

mod parent down please

Re:too many bugs for me

[anthony_dipierro]

Visual Studio Professional is $1,079. So we both were wrong. Still way too much to pay to be able to compile mozilla on the operating system I use. Frankly I'm surprised this loophole in the GPL hasn't been closed.

Re:too many bugs for me

[ealar dlanvuli]

I was pointing out that visual studio dosen't exist on your platform, and I'm almost positive VS can't compile it anyway (bad template support, broken for loop scope ect). If you check mozilla.org I believe win32 uses the gcc compiler (I could be completly wrong as I haven't used win32 seriously in about forever, but I'm guessing it would be the best compiler for the job)

VS costs like 50$ or so on student discount, have some college kid get it for you. If your not going to be using it for commercial reasons you are acting well within the liscense. And there is no way your going to need professional version if your not a developer (heck I am, and I wouldn't even dream of asking for it, such a waste of money). Sorry about flaming you earlier, I didn't realize you were being serious.

Re:too many bugs for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet you work at Cnet?

Re:too many bugs for me

[anthony_dipierro]

I was pointing out that visual studio dosen't exist on your platform

My platform is Windows 2000.

If you check mozilla.org I believe win32 uses the gcc compiler

I'm not sure what compiler it uses, but it requires Visual C++, that's the point.

VS costs like 50$ or so on student discount, have some college kid get it for you.

That's of questionable legality, and if I were going to do that, I'd just go all out and make a copy from someone else. If I'm not going to distribute the binaries, no one's going to find out anyway. In any case, I don't think it's worth $50 or breaking the law just to help AOL fix bugs in its software. The fact that I have to pay $50 and/or break the law just to compile the source of mozilla on my operating system pretty much defeats the purpose of it being GPLed for that operating system, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:too many bugs for me

[ealar dlanvuli]

no, a student version means you are using it for research / non-commercial use, the easiest way to get one is from a college book store, who normally require an ID to purchase it. I use stuent versions of several programs that I'm playing around with in my free time, so long as I buy a real copy when I start using it at work it's normally well within the UELA.

Re:too many bugs for me

[ealar dlanvuli]

no, a student version means you are using it for research / non-commercial use, the easiest way to get one is from a college book store, who normally require an ID to purchase it. I use stuent versions of several programs that I'm playing around with in my free time, so long as I buy a real copy when I start using it at work it's normally well within the UELA.

Though I never realized it uses VS, thats actually kinda retarded, I'll agree with you on that heh

Re:too many bugs for me

[rifter]

5) My largest gripe by a mile with Mozilla has to be this - this is non-platform-specific. I've had this happen on Mac OS X, Red Hat Linux, and Windows 98, 2000, and XP. The first instance of the browser I open allows me to type in form fields and type in the URL bar. Open up a second instance of the browser, and you can't type anywhere. My mouse then becomes the only input I have with the screen. I have to completely close mozilla, mail client and all, and restart it to be able to type in the form fields and url bar again. WTF? Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000. I can't verify if this happens with a mac or linux, but I do have the typing problems there as well. Isn't this a major thing that other people should have noticed?

I have noticed that, too, and it indeed happened on linux and windows, at least, with every version of Mozilla I have tried. It seems to be somewhat random (doesn't happen all the time), but if it does happen, usually it is when I open new instances, and killing the process somehow (usually by exiting) usually works. Someone mentioned this is a reported bug...

I have found it annoying, but not as annoying as Microsoft products tend to be, and the features Mozilla has are worth a few quirks; not the least the added security and the better license.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[spbriggs]

>Mozilla is a fine example of everything that is wrong with open-source software.

Hey, lets get those prejudices out the way before we start!

>Most of its problems originate from the fact that its developers are hacks (and not in the good sense)

I think the noun you were looking for was "hacker" not "hack" - in English (as opposed to American) a "hack" is a journalist

> The project has no direction and the concept of "project management" is unknown to the participants.

It also has no half-witted arse-for-a-brain manager who wouldn't know a browser from a bagel introducing pointless features 'cause he read an article that said it would be cool.

> "this feature must be completed by X date"

Such as Bill "this bug be must fixed by ah, whenever" GAtes

> And Mozilla 1.0 is by no means more polished or finished than a typical closed-source OTS software package

Hey Windows 1.0 rocked!

> It's a RAM hog.

Have you seen XP?

> It does not support the current generation of Web-related standards.

Oh right, now you are taking the piss.

> I have a Sun workstation that cost more money than Slashdot earns in a year.

This explains why you like Microsoft. You have more more than sense.

>I can tell you that those of us who use UNIX for real work ... would have appreciated a fast, standards-compliant browser with the Navigator 4.08 GUI

So recompile it. That's what open source is for.

>For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.

Because they are using MS Exchange - therefore your point is completely OT. Oh and sorry, remind me, which email client is the most efficient distributor of viruses/worms in history?

> As a browser, Internet Explorer is superior to Mozilla.

No, as a proprietory browser IE is Microsoft's anti-competitive leverage tool.

Surprised?

[kalidasa]

I'd be shocked if they gave it anything higher. It's not a Microsoft product, ipso facto it can't be any good, in C|Net's eyes.

Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[toupsie]

Mozilla is nice on MacOS X but it does not take advantage of the Quartz type smoothing like OmniWeb or Chimera. However, if you install Unsanity's haxie program called Silk, it will allow Mozilla (or IE) to use the Quartz text smoothing along with your other Carbon apps. Well worth the download and it doesn't appear to slow down the system -- which I expected. With Quartz text smoothing, MacOS X becomes the most visually appealing, web browsing platform -- which it should be.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[jesser]

Why isn't automatic text smoothing built into Mac OS X by default?

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could use Omniweb, from a group which isn't afraid to use native widgets.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. The thing to realize is that up until 10.1.5, the Carbon API's didn't have a, um, "hook" into the Quartz Antialiasing engine. And apps like IE, Moz, and other ports from MacOS 9-ware are all Carbon apps.

However, other apps like Mail, or Omniweb are built with Cocoa API's (taken from NeXTStep), and those API's *do* have the hook into the AA engine.

With 10.1.5, I'm not sure exactly, but I have the impression that Apple finally gave Carbon developers access to that engine - but you have to compile your code to get it - it's not magically given to you.

So, what Silk does is... well, I don't know how it does it, but those developers figured out a way to get existing apps, like Moz and IE, to transparently access the Quartz rendering engine.

Hope that answers your question...

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[foobar104]

Or you could use Omniweb, from a group which isn't afraid to use native widgets.

Right on. Not only is it prettier than any other browser, but it's faster, too. I use it on a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and a 500 MHz G3 iBook. Release 4.1 beta 7 is the fastest thing going, and renders 99% of all web sites perfectly. It isn't without flaws, but I'm not willing to trade speed or overall quality of the experience for perfect standards compliance. Speedwise, it spanks both IE and Chimera.

OmniWeb is my dad.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[jopasm]

If Omniweb supported the features I use then I might try it. Yes, it looks nice and yes, indeed, it does render most pages but Mozilla will render more, is as fast, and has more features - chief among them tabbed browsing. I'm not giving up tabbed browsing for blurry text that gives me a headache.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[carlfish]

I used Omniweb for a while, and was sufficiently unimpressed to not register it. Don't drink the Cocoa kool-aid. (On the other hand, I did pay for Omnigraffle and OmniOutliner, because they're both way cool.)

Omniweb's support for modern standards is well below-par, especially when it comes to CSS selectors, and the CSS2 box-model. This causes it to render CSS2-based sites really, really badly. It may render the majority of the web correctly, but that's because the majority of the web has been painstakingly designed to render correctly in Netscape 4.

Even worse, Omniweb _pretends_ that it understands CSS, causing it to not degrade gracefully when it meets markup that it either doesn't understand, or misinterprets. Which makes a lot of pages that have perfectly good HTML unreadable.

The more we support browsers with crappy standards support, the more we force web designers to make stupid concessions for dumb browsers.

Charles Miller

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! I love the Quartz anti-aliasing, I have found the ultimate browser! Personally I switch between Chimera, IE, and Moz. but I only use IE for d/l and some sites with forms, I think that's the next thing for Mozilla, it needs a better protocol for downloading things, I believe IE does this best, even when compared to Chimera or any other browser I have tried.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[foobar104]

1. There's more to life than web markup standards.

2. Try the betas. While version 4.0 left a lot to be desired, 4.1 beta 7 is much, much better.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know much about Silk, but it probably patches the Carbon font-drawing routines to call the Quartz ones instead.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Maybe if you're not a web developer...

2. Why bother? Mozilla 1.0 is out, and it's free.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Querty]

MacOS X [apple.com]: UNIX for people that bathe daily.

UNIX: MacOS X for people who paid attention in school.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't drink the Cocoa kool-aid.

Trust me, I won't. I always get "Cocoa kool-aid" after I have some of the extra-special-spicy baby-back ribs down at the local barbecue joint.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[jesser]

Why doesn't Apple build something like Silk into Mac OS X? It seems silly to add to the Cocoa API rather than justing making it Just Work. Anti-aliasing should be a systemwide pref and that pref can only work reliably if all apps get anti-aliased text by default.

Re:Make Mozilla Cooler in MacOS X 10.1.5

[David Gerard]

"Mozilla is nice on MacOS X but it does not take advantage of the Quartz type smoothing like OmniWeb or Chimera."

The trunk (not 1.0 branch) now does take advantage of the OS-supplied smoothing. You can still use Silk with previous versions, including 1.0.

IE Better?

[MacDork]

But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad.

This must have been written before they mastered the obtuse concept of image filtering. Oh, wait, everyone wants to see more ads! Feature my eye. Give me IE, with its closed source and security hole of the day feature instead!

Use a PNG?

[Anonymous Coward]

With it's broken/limited support in IE6/Win (and below), Opera 5 (and below), and Netscape 4 (and below)? It won't look the same to a solid 90% of your audience if you use 24bit w/ transparency (where PNG really shines).

I love PNG, I wish it was everywhere, but IE seems intent on never letting it take hold by supporting it properly. (And yes yes, there's that DirectX thing, but it's a pain in the ass to use.)

Enigmail / MozDev

[E Zimmer]

I personally like the Enigmail plugin for OpenPGP support in the browser. Easy encryption for the masses.

Re:Enigmail / MozDev

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you remove a plugin? I hate Adobe Acrobat taking over PDF files. I just want to save them, but Mozilla won't let me do that. I couldn't find the plugin to disable it. I had to go back to Explorer.

IE *is* the standard...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but sooner or later lame developers have to face the fact that MS successfully captured the web standards years ago...

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[rainwalker]

Have you EVER used Mozilla? And, as the above poster mentioned, may I please have some of whatever you are smoking? A few points-

One example of this problem is Mozilla's extremely slow development cycle

Have you compared the relative quality of IE 1.0 to Mozilla 1.0? Many people are comparing IE6.0 to Mozilla 1.0 in a favorable manner...certainly comparing the 1.0 releases of both products would be silly. The "slow" dev cycle is based on an entirely different design philosophy: the code is released when it is ready, not when some arbitrary date arrives.

Mozilla has no paying customer or management to answer to, the browser suffers from innumerable problems. It's a RAM hog [...] Its default user interface emphasizes form over function [...] It does not support the current generation of Web-related standards. It's slow.

On my current machine (Win2K Pro), Mozilla is using 21,272k. I am not worried about this, as I have a gig of ram in this box. However, I have *no* other apps open (even in the tray), and currently 181meg of my memory is being used. How much of that is IE? We will never know. Obviously iexplore.exe is not all of IE, as Microsoft has repeatedly informed us that IE is integrated into the OS. As to the slowness, you would be best to go peruse the reviews linked in the article. All of them show Mozilla being at least as fast as IE. Are you sure you have your l33t Solaris box configured properly? I used Mozilla and IE (where possible) on my 7 machines, which are a mix of Win2K and various flavors of Linux, and Mozilla is the same or better than IE on every single one. As to web standards, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go read some of the info on Mozilla's web site. Mozilla is the most standards-complaint browser on the market. The problems that you see are its incomplete handling of IE-specific extensions to W3C standards.

But I think that the most laughable thing of the farse that is the Mozilla project is that no one said "no" to any feature requests [...] the project is so disorganized that basic web browser functionality was often ignored so that developers could work on their favorite "cool" features. A good example is the mail client [...] development on such a client should not have began until the browser was finished [...] I simply don't understand why Mozilla implements a completely custom widget set...

This long, ranting paragraph basically says that you would have developed Mozilla differently. Apparantly, the people who actually worked on Mozilla (it is pretty obvious that you are not a developer, but merely a whiny user) favored certain features that you do not find useful. Please bear in mind that if you do not like how Mozilla was developed, then you certainly could have lent a hand, rather than criticizing the years of hard work that the devs put into Mozilla. Provided, of course, that you can be dragged away from your "Real UNIX Work" on your "Solaris Box That Cost More Than Slashdot Makes In A Year."

And Windows users have even less reason to be impressed with Mozilla, because most of its "features" seem even more unecessary in a Windows environment. For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.

Hundreds of virus writers worldwide are alternately laughing or thanking you profusely for your endorsement of Outlook.

Gecko violates Windows user interface conventions, making it look more like some college student's "intro to VB let's see all of the cool buttons and colors that I can add to my app" project than an application that is actually intended for use in the real world

If you don't like how Mozilla looks, go grab a different skin. I did (Lo-Fi). I only wish that I could make the rest of Windows look like my Mozilla skin, which I find simple, clear, and easy to use. Sadly, I can't change the look and feel of my Windows machines as easily as I can the Linux ones.

Internet Explorer is superior to Mozilla

Again, I have my opinions, so do many others, but I really think you should do some research before stating them as fact. Go read the reviews linked in the article.

Mozilla has also lost on the UNIX platform. Internet Explorer is faster and more standards compliant

Could you please provide a link to the GNU/Linux binaries for IE? Oh, wait, by UNIX you mean Solaris...and of course, Solaris is taking over the desktop market.

In all honesty, this reply has been a complete waste of my time. You are obviously trolling here, more interested in spewing invectives about Mozilla than any useful discussion. In reality, noone is even going to see your reply, as it will be moderated down below 1. However, I hope that you will indeed take the time to reconsider your opinions and maintain a bit more of an open mind concerning your software.

Mozilla 1.0 and VNC

[Squeezer]

Has anyone gotten Mozilla 1.0 to work with VNC? Mozilla 1.0RC3 and earlier worked fine with VNC, but now for me, when I connect to VNC, Mozilla freezes. I'm running it on Linux and I rebuild it from the sources. Any suggestions?

Re:Mozilla 1.0 and VNC

[Isaac-Lew]

Mozilla runs fine for me (albeit a bit slow from my home machine, which is capped at 128 Kb/s tunneling through ssh). Maybe your system is underperforming or you need more throughput?

Re:Mozilla 1.0 and VNC

[miffo.swe]

duh? VNCVIEWER? There is a very good standalone vncclient both for x and windows that works just fine. No need to use the browser if it freezes mozilla. (which it dont do for me)

This is not realistic

[ColGraff]

"Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant."

Sir, on the one hand, I think it is commendable that you believe so strongly in the platform-independant Internet. That is the way it is supposed to be, and IE's standard skewing is regrettable. That skewing is now the reality, however, and there is no way Joe User will keep Mozilla installed for more than 5 min once he sees that his pages look different - and standards compliance be damned. The average user wants their pages to look pretty. If mozilla doesn't do that, even in the name of standards compliance, most people will not use it. The only way to gain market share is to support the IE standards.

For now. :-)

But if Mozilla does grow more popular, then there's no reason it couldn't take a page from IE's book, and slowly stop supporting IE "Standards" in new releases. Once the user base for Mozilla is large enough - and remember, a period of IE compliance IS needed for this to happen - then if Mozilla starts adopting strict standards compliance, IE might be forced to follow suit. Might.

It worked for microsoft - could it work here?

Re:This is not realistic

[rmohr02]

We need to find an ISP willing to distribute Mozilla instead of IE. Then more will follow, and people won't want to bother downloading a second browser if they already have one--and if they do download IE, I'd think they'd find Mozilla to be better.

Re:This is not realistic

[Tack]

I can't quite understand all these posts saying "if pages don't render 'properly' [i.e. same as IE] users will not use Mozilla." I use Mozilla, and often I use IE. I rarely encounter a page that doesn't render usably in Mozilla. Sometimes it doesn't render the same as IE, but it never looks out of place.

It's possible, yes, that some users won't use Mozilla because it doesn't render their favorite site. These people are a lost cause until those sites become compatible with the standards that exist for web sites. But for the majority of the people, I suspect they will either not notice any problems with Mozilla, or they'll not care much that the odd site does not render perfectly (because it uses IE extensions) when they consider all the added benefits that Mozilla does provide them over IE.

Jason.

Re:This is not realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as IE continues to allow pop-up / pop-under advertisements, Mozilla will continue to gain market share.

Users want their pages to look pretty, sure, but many of them are willing to deal with small formatting errors in order to get rid of annoying ads.

Re:This is not realistic

[rnd()]

i mark the day when Netscape refused to support IFRAME as the beginning of its downfall. And no, Mozilla is not Netscape (or vice versa), so there's hope.

For the longest time, Microsoft was way ahead of Netscape in terms of standards compliance. If there had been a competetive browser platform in existance, Microsoft would have had less market share and therefore more of a reason to think twice about including non-standards-compliant features.

Re:This is not realistic

[Coplan]

Sadly, I have to agree with your point. While us geeks know the difference between HTML 4.0 compliant and IE 5.x+ compliant, the average user does not. That's too bad. But there are too many people out there (commercial web designers as well) that take advantage of some of the features that IE has implemented. Last time I said that, people jumped all over me...but to the end user, if browser X does something that browser Y and Z don't do...it's a feature (from a marketing point of view anyhow...and what runs the world? Marketing).

Anyhow, a friend of mine pointed out a back-alley solution to the situation that has, unfortunately, become a reality. At install time (and as a toggle after install), it would be pretty educating to the joe-web-user to actually have an option in which you can choose how pages are rendered:

How would you like Mozilla to render web pages?

Render pages following the Microsoft standards

Render pages following the more widely accepted HTML standards promoted by the World Wide Web Consortium

If nothing else, such a scheme would be a bit of an eye opener, and maybe pick up a few more web designers -- maybe we'd even grow a few more purists. I imagine that Netscape wouldn't want to do this as they don't want to draw on a law suit. But an open source project like Mozilla could pull it off.

The problem is as it always is: Lack of Education ruins quality and puts money in the pockets of the greedy (aka, MS).

Re:This is not realistic

[gol64738]

Incredible.. have you ever taken a Logic class in school?

I highly recommend that you do.

Re:This is not realistic

[jungd]

Perhaps, Mozilla should recognize the IE'isms and popup a dialog saying 'This web-page doesn't conform to the W3C standard for Web pages. Would you like me to attempt to emulate Microsofts proprietary format?'

Eventually, too many web-site maintainers would get sick of users complaining about getting the pop-up (if AOL switches to Mozilla) and the web-sites might get fixed.

Re:This is not realistic

[El buen guiri]

This problem isn't as big an issue as you think. I use Mozilla all the time and view nearly all websites perfectly. Maybe there are minor appearance differencs, but I don't really care. The real problem is when people use IE specific DOM methods and then you cannot access the page at all.
More web pages are going standards complient than you think, so this isn't such a big problem. Since Mozilla 0.99 I have been able to access my online banks, which use heavy amount of DHTML.

Re:This is not realistic

[JamieF]

Seriously, have you never heard of the Web Standards Project?
http://www.webstandards.org/

Web developers are sick of coding HTML, JavaScript, and CSS for one browser, and then debugging it for every other browser they have to support. Netscape 4.x and 6.0 are definitely high on the list of sucky browsers to have to support, but IE 5, 5.5, and 6 aren't perfect. Also, IE 5, 5.5, and 6 differ greatly, not to mention the Mac versions of IE which also differ. You can't just target one IE version and get 100% compatibility with the others.

So, rather than looking at the ridiculous statistics that say stuff like "97% of browser users use MSIE" (which I just don't believe), start looking at stats about which browser AND VERSION your users are using. Surprise, chances are there are a hell of a lot of IE 5 and 5.5 users. Chances are there is no one browser+version that covers the majority of your site's users. Doh! So much for just targeting "one" browser.

So, forget about this silly notion of "IE won, all web sites will be IE sites from now on." That's not financially viable, since IE is actually serveral products which must be QA'd for separately. The solution that web designers are rallying around is "code to the standard, and debug for supported browsers from there." Screw IE 5, make people upgrade to IE 6. Screw Netscape 4.x, make them upgrade to 6.2, 7.x, or Mozilla 1.0.

Otherwise, why even bother with HTML at all? If you're going to target Windows only, you're wasting your time trying to get a good GUI user experience and robust application functionality implemented with tools as crappy as HTML, JavaScript and CSS. The only reason to use them is to get thin-client, cross-platform, cross-browser functionality with zero download time. Use Delphi or Visual C++ or Java or something if you want total control over the user experience and you don't care about porting.

Re:This is not realistic

[Dracos]

So soon we forget that AOL bought Netscape, and has been bankrolling Mozilla for a couple years now.

Web pages will become compliant. The reason? When you start getting your AOL 8.0 coasters in the mail this winter, load one up: you will find an AOL branded version of Mozilla on it. 35 million Joe Users will keep Mozilla installed because AOL tells them it's new, cool, and easy.

I hate IE. I'm waiting for win32FileManager.xpi so I can totally blow explorer off my winblows machine and replace it with LiteStep.

Re:This is not realistic

[jejones]

It would have to become very popular indeed to be able to pull off an "engulf and extinguish" (the best I could do for a phrase with assonance à la "embrace and extend")--MS and IE still has the advantage of being preloaded on nearly every retail computer, and were Mozilla to try it, MS would, I am sure, suddenly add a lot of new non-standard features, and have the ability to encourage them to appear in new web sites (e.g. making sure that their web page editor emits them, requiring them of others to get some sort of MS stamp of approval, or even flat out paying people to make their web sites use IE-specific features). Mozilla would end up on a perpetual catchup treadmill of a sort that even IBM had to give up on (vide the win32s.dll scam MS pulled on them to break compatibility with OS/2).

Newsreader - no login?

[markalot]

I may be an idiot, but how the heck do you set up the newsreader to log into a news server (like supernews). I couldn't find it anywhere, and it seems like a major oversite. I was lookign forward to dumping Outlook Express.

ok, I probably am an idiot, but maybe I'll learn me something.

mark

Re:Newsreader - no login?

[arkane1234]

heh.. I just did it in 10 seconds, dude. (and I've never used the newsreader in mozilla.. ever)

I just created a new account, put the news server name in and when i went to subscribe it asked for my userid and password.

Just like the rest of mozilla, it'll store it for you if you wish.

Re:Newsreader - no login?

[markalot]

That's the way I expected it to work, unfortunatly it just told me I could not log in.

well, thanks for the reply anyway, nothing like being buried deep in /. score=1 land.

mark

Re:Newsreader - no login?

[Anonymous Coward]

To get to the password part you have to make sure you do NOT open another newsserver first. Make the new connection and go straight in. My guess is that you have another newsserver set up and looked tere first. Yes, it is an odd bug but it is known.

Mozilla did as well as IE in the ratings

[dlevitan]

strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-"

Actually, they gave it the same rating as they gave IE 6, Netscape 7 PR 1, Netscape 6.1, and one more than Opera 6. So in reality, Mozilla ranked as well as the "best" browsers from MS.

Yea!

[Heem]

And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.
from The Book of Mozilla, 12:10

scrolling errors

[jwillem]

I've been using mozilla over a year now in linux. It has never failed me, that is in pages that are written in good html, not that crappy stuff some people write: When it runs under ms internet explorer they are happy because, well everybody uses internet explorer, right?

The only thing that I experience while scrolling is that text is broken: at some height IN a text line, all pixels above are just one pixel to the right (or the left) of the pixels underneath.
I have experienced it mostly on /. , because it is a site that needs scrolling, and has a lot of text :)

Has anyone else noticed this?

Re:scrolling errors

[Brian Goldman]

Yes, I have noticed this. I don't know why it doesn't get more attention, because it's very annoying.

Re:scrolling errors

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, this used to be pretty bad for me but seems to have gotten better with the last RC (haven't installed 1.0 yet).

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[spbriggs]

> This explains why you like Microsoft. You have more more than sense. "More money than sense". No, I can't proof-read my own typing.

Hm...Is it good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm...Is it good? I wonder if I should get it...

Freelancer

Neglected to mention security

[Trolocsis]

"Beyond its skins and pop-up-killing abilities, however, Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does."

Not true... Mozilla allows for faster turn-around times for security patches and updates. Cookies and images can be disabled in actual Emails, something outlook or outlook express fails to do.

In a security consience world, Mozilla is probably better in security than IE, since Mozilla isn't apart of the OS itself! Granted, Mozilla will have a few security holes, but who would you rather fix them? Microsoft with a 4 week turnaround time, or Mozilla with usually a 1-2 day turnaround.

Re:Neglected to mention security

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT are you basing your turnaround time on? It took them FOUR YEARS to release the browser, and there's still existing bugs!

Re:Neglected to mention security

[Trolocsis]

Perhaps it took them four years, but most free software does take a long time to develop. Microsoft has been working on their browser for years also. There is no comparison.

Turn-around time for security patches are fast. It does take microsoft a bit of time to create their patches.

Re:Neglected to mention security

[Anonymous Coward]

> It took them FOUR YEARS to release the browser,
> and there's still existing bugs!
>
Of course! This is 1.0 we're talking about. Besides, there's no bug-free software and there'll never be.
Mozilla actually is quite honest with version numbers and 1.0 is *far beyond* what one should expect of a 1.0 release. Cheers developers!

Re:Neglected to mention security

[juhaz]

Yeah. It's been SIX YEARS since IE 1.0, who knows how much before that, to get IE 6.0 out, and there's still existing bugs!
(and quite a bit more of them than in mozilla 1.0)

Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[Rob Parkhill]

I love this quote right at the start of the review:

First, the basics. Mozilla and Netscape mirror each other in ease of installation with an idiot-proof GUI installer. I just downloaded the installer in a tar.gz format. Unpacked into my home directory, the files went into /home/tina/mozilla-installer. I entered the directory, changed to superuser because I want the rest of my family to be able to use Mozilla, too, and typed sh mozilla-installer. The GUI interface came up, and I accepted the default installation directory: /usr/local/mozilla. If you're the only one who uses your computer, you could just install it in /home/your_home/mozilla.


Heh, that's a whole heck of a lot of steps just to get to the GUI installer. Isn't there anything available for Linux that would provide the functionality of something like a self-extracting ZIP file on Windows?

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[janda]

Only if you want to remove the user's freedom to install they way they want, build the way the want, put whatever files wherever they want, etc.

"With great power comes great responsbility."

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Heh, that's a whole heck of a lot of steps just to get to the GUI installer. "

If you want a nice little package, that's what RPMs or debs are for.

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is that tina had to be root to install the program to a random place on the harddrive, to which she didn't have access as a regular user.

If she installed it to her home directory, she could have used a file browser to double click the tarball, and to execute the installer.

But no, she'd rather utilize the security provisions of a linux system that prevent unauthorized users from modifying the file system.

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[skt]

A self extracting zip file IS tar.gz, right? I don't use KDE or GNOME, but I imagine that if you go into their filemanager they are tar and and gzip "aware". What happens when you double-click on a gzipped archive from that?

The problem is actually Windows, in that most versions do not know what a zip file is. I think that only recently there is unzip software included in Windows and tied to explorer. That makes the self-extracting zipfile offer no more functionality over a conventional zip file.

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[damiam]

Someone should really write a GUI front end to dpkg/rpm that pops up an InstallShield-like screen and installs a given package, prompting for any config options. This would be especially with debian and debconf-gtk.

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[slashhot]

Wait till RPMs are released for your favorite distro and do an rpm -Uvh mozilla* libns*. Easy, ain't it?

Re:Simple, idiot-proof 372 step install process...

[foonf]

Isn't there anything available for Linux that would provide the functionality of something like a self-extracting ZIP file on Windows?

If you don't mind downloading all 13 megs at once, there's a self-extracting/install tarball available from mozilla.org. Of course you might have to set it +x first, but really, how much more brain-dead does it need to be?

old plz stp tks

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

It seems to take longer....

[S810]

I have noticed that in comparison to IE it takes longer to find a site. Has anyone else noticed this?

Re:It seems to take longer....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably having some sort of Domain Name Service problem. Firewalls sometimes mess up the DNS. I would check your firewall rules. Or if you want to really speed up the finding of web sites, edit your hosts file. It's almost like having your own DNS.

Don't submit

[ceswiedler]

Use what you want. Don't submit to any Slashdot propaganda which tells you that you need to run a free operating system to be cool.

Re:Don't submit

[arkane1234]

it's too late... he already knows the truth.

Go, avert your eyes before the propaganda infects you! Flee my friend!

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

Use what you want.

EXACTLY
There is no reason on earth any self-respecting person would WANT to use XP.

Re:Don't submit

[gambit3]

Thanks for the thought. I appreciate your advice and your honesty.

However, I'm not going to do it because of propaganda. I'm going to do it because my first experience with an Open Source product (Mozilla), has been excellent. Especially the power to customize it to what I want it to do. This is the one thing that absolutely caught me off guard. I don't have to Beat It Into Submission like I've had to do with commercial to mold it to my liking.

From what I've read about Linux users, that it also a strength of Linux, and THAT'S why I'll probably give it a try.

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

***YUP***

you get it. you truly do.

this is the one point i keep trying to get across to people about why i use open source.

there are other reasons as well, but this is far and away *the* reason in my eyes.

"Beat It Into Submission", indeed... LOL. you need a "(tm)" after that.

Re:Don't submit

[pcs305]

Mozilla is really slow on Linux. It feels like the Mozilla team concentrated more on the Windows version. On XP and 2000 this thing is a dream.

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

In some case, problem seems to be with Gtk
I wonder how Mozilla would do with Qt, has anyone tried hooking it up?

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

You may like Lycoris Desktop Linux then. it is probably easier.

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, it is the exact opposite. Especially on older hardware, mozilla is much faster running on linux.

Re:Don't submit

[tshak]

Just remember that Mozilla is a few years "late" (eg. It essentially sucked until a few months ago"). Opera and IE have been much more competent browsers of late. The same goes for OS's on the desktop. OSS needs at least a few more years of refinement before you can compare Win2K or even XP to KDE or Gnome.

Re:Don't submit

[Metrol]

Use what you want. Don't submit to any Slashdot propaganda which tells you that you need to run a free operating system to be cool.

Would you like an after dinner coffee with your FUD Mr. Gates?

Re:Don't submit

[Art Tatum]

Not that I want to discourage you from trying out Linux (or *BSD or Hurd, for that matter) but customization of Linux is not as 'user-friendly' as customization of Mozilla. Now, I don't know your background in technology (I'm not really all that hard core and I certainly don't find customizing Linux to be too problematic) but depending on your knowledge and/or patience you may not be as delighted with Linux as you are with Mozilla.

Still, it never hurts to try new things. And there are quite a lot of people who are willing to help you learn (and learning is fun) so go for it!

Re:Don't submit

[slashhot]

you get it. you truly do.

Look, guys, ESR posting as Anonymous Coward on slashdot!!!

Re:Don't submit

[fdisk3hs]

Goddamnit, every news story ends up turning into the same discussion, with 'OS X looks better than Gnome' and 'Browsers run better in Windows'. Blah blah blah, who fucking cares?
Do you people do anything with your PC besides post messages about what you can do with your PC? This story is about Mozilla, which runs like ass like everything else on my system.
Fuck off.

Re:Don't submit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said, friend!

Microsoft seems to have forgotten that the user should be in the driver's seat. Linux has not.

Re:Don't submit

[rifter]

Nah. He didn't plug guns in the post or talk about "serious hacking."

Does Mozilla allow users to "Steal" content?

[JustAnotherReader]

>If you're like us, you're not a big fan of pop-up and pop-under ads. Hence, you'll adore the handy Mozilla feature that disables many, though not all, of them.

Uh oh! So Mozilla allows the users to see content without seeing the pop-up and pop-under adds. If we are to believe the Replay TV lawsuit then Mozilla is a tool which allows users to "steal" content. Sounds like a DMCA violation as well.

Let's sit back and watch as the lawsuits start rolling in.

Re:Does Mozilla allow users to "Steal" content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the majority of those scripts to block right clicking don't work in Mozilla! Gasp. And Mozilla even lets you view source easily!!!

Re:Does Mozilla allow users to "Steal" content?

[Junior J. Junior III]

It's true!

Even more shocking was the revelation that Mozilla 1.0 also supports the saving of files, thereby depriving content owners the opportunity to charge web users for multiple downloads of webpages.

Truly revolting.

Hilary Rosen called the "save" feature "preposterous" and "a reckless use of technology designed to harm copyright owners."

Re:Does Mozilla allow users to "Steal" content?

[arkane1234]

those types of things make me kinda laugh a bit.

i needed a picture of a house (random house really) for something I was doing, and I went to the century21 website, and got one... they use that type of stuff, but I just cleared my cache and went in again, then I had the picture in my cache.

honestly, do they think people are stupid?

Re:Does Mozilla allow users to "Steal" content?

[Theom]

"honestly, do they think people are stupid?" That, or maybe THEY are stupid.

Time to Put your money where you mouth is...PAY UP

[Real World Stuff]

Go to Mozillazineand put your money where your mouth is.
Oh, what is that? You don't want to use evil Pay Pal? Then write a damn check. I am sure someone will take it.

How about showing that you support the cause. Not only will you pay for your beer, you will add a your voice for support.
Only by rigidly supporting these guys will you ensure sucess. Sure everyone will bitch about the time it took to finally
make it this far. But I as, how many browsers have you developed lately? That's what I thought. Now, get behind these guys and give a push.
Oh, and BTW, how many reviewers assisted in this. Exactly!

SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[tobi_pinkjuice.com]

Mozilla 1.0 is out, and the release notes say:
"Supported XML W3C Recommendations
SVG"
"The standards Mozilla 1.0 supports include:
SVG"
but there is no SVG support in 1.0. Ze-ro.
Check this post for some more info.

Re:SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to download SVG-enabled builds last time I checked.

Re:SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[tobi_pinkjuice.com]

I know. As I wrote: there is no SVG support in Mozilla 1.0, which is contradicting the claims made on mozilla.org. And those SVG builds (which are not "Mozilla 1.0", and are not available form the 1.0 download page) have many problems, and implement only a small subset of SVG; no reason to tout "SVG support" for *Mozilla 1.0*. Check the linked post for more info.

Re:SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[damiam]

SVG support is experimental and needs to be enabled at compile-time. Obviously, if you're using a non-SVG-enabled build (like the official ones), you're not gonna get SVG support.

Re:SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[Anonymous Coward]

And for some reason mozilla crashes completely with adobe's SVG plugin in linux (at least for me). This didn't happen with the .9 build, anyone else have this problem?

Re:SVG support in 1.0 is claimed, but non-existent

[tobi_pinkjuice.com]

I know. But The "product guide" states:
"The standards Mozilla 1.0 supports include:
SVG"
, which is not true. None of the currently available 1.0 builds have SVG.
And the SVG enabled builds are at a very early and experimental stage; the level of completeness is around 10 to 30 percent of SVG1.0, the builds don't work with the correct MIME Type (141252), have color problems (111152), crash with foreignObject (147920), crash with very large shapes (101300), have no SVG animation, no SVG Font, no text support, no clipping, no filters, and much more. And SVG 2.0 is coming.
The statement "Mozilla 1.0 supports SVG" is very misleading and incorrect (1.0 doesn't), and can not replace working on the implementation.

mac builds should have JRE built in just like ns4.

[Anonymous Coward]

MRJ 2.2.5 doesnt work !!!!! attempting to load java applets using the MRJ doesnt work the JRE should be built in just like it is in Netscape Communicatior 4.79, java applets load in Netscape Communicator 4.79 but not in Mozilla 1.0, if youre not using a mac don't even bother replying saying "install the plugin" i know what to do , the people who call me an idiot use windows

best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookmarks

[tswinzig]

The coolest thing in mozilla is that I can associate a bookmark with a keyword (even just a letter or two), and go to that bookmark through the URL bar with that keyword, even with search terms.

E.g. I have this bookmark for dictionary.com:

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=% s

For keyword, I have it set to 'd'. I can lookup a word by typing "d " on the url bar, and hitting enter.

I do similar things for Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=%s), for IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/Find?select=All&for=%s), and especially for various customer searches with our database search engine at work.

This feature saves me TONS of time every day. This alone is enough to keep me using Mozilla as long as it remains stable.

Then you add in the oft-mentioned tabbed browsing, popup blocking, standards compliancy, skinnability, programmability, etc., and it just gets better.

And don't forget, the perfect complement to tabbed browsing -- saving a group of bookmarks as one item ! Perfect.

And what about how much more consistently Mozilla handles links for new windows? MSIE has two shitty behaviors to choose from, which drive me crazy. Either you open up a page in a new window each time , or it tries to re-use windows that are already open, usually picking the one I don't want. Even when clicking on bookmarks, it uses this bizarre behavior. I don't know when they added this 'feature', but it drove me bonkerz.

Jeez, I haven't even gotten to the email client! All the things that drive me nuts in Outlook/Outlook Express are fixed in Mozilla's mail client. It only lacks a couple things I like (Eudora's "redirect" ability, for one).

Finally a mail client that lets me use IMAP without constantly reminding me that I'm looking at a remote message. (What's this outlook crap with drawing a line through a deleted message? I like for the message to disappear, and the focus to move to the next message... thanks mozilla.)

Not perfect, but mozilla is getting there.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you responded to this post, you have just been baited by the most obvious troll in years. Kick yourself inthe head repeatedly, please.

Konquirer is not mozilla

[Xcrap]

It uses kparts. It uses a kpart called KHTML for its rendering engine, which is used throughout the K Desktop Enviroment.

Just emailed Cnet to give them a piece of my mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this guy gets blasted for his crappy review.

Wrong attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

This is precisely why so much OS/Free software is so hard for average mainstream users to run, the infamous "my way or the highway" attitude.

It's an IE world. I don't like it any more than anyone else here, but the simple fact is that if you release a browser that renders some pages incorrectly while IE gets it right (from the end user's viewpoint), then it doesn't matter one iota which browser is technically right--the users will rush to use the one that does what they want, standards or no.

Sure. Lets get rid of security.

[bstadil]

Excellent idea. Just log in as superuser or even better let the whole family use the superuser account .

All this security stuff is baloney and need to be treated with contempt. Virus protection are for wimps.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[tswinzig]

For keyword, I have it set to 'd'. I can lookup a word by typing "d " on the url bar, and hitting enter.

Whoops, that should have said "d [word]". You type d, then the word you want to lookup, hit enter.

Embrace? Extend?

[the_real_tigga]

Ok, the parent is the second one (under my threshold) who apparently tried it for the first time and fell in love with Mozilla.

He mentions mouse gestures, the one above is thrilled with tabs.
This (especially tabbing) is what made me instantly switch to from Netscape to Opera about a year ago.
I honestly don't want to start a browser war here (are there still people interested in this?), but it seems that Mozilla gains some of its appeal embracing ideas from others.

How is that for Embrace & Extend (TM)?

(Granted, the at least don't make money with it, and Opera is striking back with Ad blocking, but still...)
BTW, here is ad blocking for non-windows opera users.

Re:Embrace? Extend?

[snake_dad]

Hell, it stole the idea of rendering HTML from others. Who cares? Use the browser you like.

Re:Embrace? Extend?

[yomahz]

Well, this post seems to indicate that mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera . I'm not sure about it's accuracy since I've only tried Opera 6 but the majority of the moderators and comments seem to support it.

For what it's worth, gestured mouse operations is hardly a new concept either.

Re:Embrace? Extend?

[the_real_tigga]

For what it's worth, gestured mouse operations is hardly a new concept either.

I for one saw something like it first in blender. But my guess is they weren't the inventors either.


...and (for what it's worth) for me they are worth a lot. I even start to try to close applications by right-click-wiggle.

Re:Embrace? Extend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you actually bother reading the replies to that incorrect post?

"It was NOT introduced in version 4. I started using Opera at version 3 point something, 3.6 I believe it was, and it had it then. It's had it since the earliest alpha version if I'm not mistaken. What was added recently was the ability to turn it off, for the whiners out there that complained about it endlessly."

Whence spell checker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decided to drop the spell checker facilities?
Email sent without spell checking can make a good
gurl look bad!

Re:Whence spell checker?

[crumley]

Who decided to drop the spell checker facilities? The spellchecker wasn't dropped. Netscape bought there spellchecker from someone else, so they couldn't release the source to it. There is a working spellchecker, but it hasn't been merged into Mozilla's source tree yet. See bug 56301 for more details as well.

Just drop the 'P'

[toupsie]

Welcome aboard, friend! Now, about that XP...

Ya, right! Get rid of the 'P' from 'XP' and you got a real desktop system...

Re:Just drop the 'P'

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry guys...it was meant to spell Xb...honestly!" --MS drone

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anomolous Cow Herd]

I suppose if you define "troll" as "anyone who has a less than glowing opinion of Mozilla", yes, this is a troll.

You assholes here are just like Ashcroft et al who call anyone who disagrees with them a "terrorist".

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[nil_null]

It's a RAM hog. It's slow.

You can cut down the amount of RAM usage by going to Preferences->Advanced->Cache and then reduce the memory cache. Personally, I find its memory usage quite acceptable (I watch the virtual memory usage as well as the physical memory usage). I've heard that IE hides much of its mem usage. But I guess you're on a Solaris box so this is probably not the case for you.

(You may have noticed that I seem fixated on Mozilla's slowness. [...] I have a Sun workstation that cost more money than Slashdot earns in a year. On this workstation, Internet Explorer takes x seconds to load, Netscape 4 takes 2x seconds to load, and Mozilla takes 15x (!!) seconds to load.

You're comparing browser load times? If so, that's not a really an important issue, though I find Mozilla loads fast even without the preloading feature. What's important is page rendering times. According to the CNET article, Mozilla was faster in 3 or 4 tests (granted they don't go into detail and talk about other tests).

In any case do want you want. Continue to use IE exclusively if you please. But many of us are going to be giving Mozilla and Mozilla-based browsers a chance. It has something that IE will most likely never have: it is completely customizable in that we have the source code.

Mail problem remembering user profile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they ever fix the problem when run on a Windows XP platform that Mozilla could not seem to remember the user's mail profile.... forcing you to have to re-enter all your setup information each and every time that you started up the mail client, especially when connecting to an IMAP-only mailserver? That is/was the most frustrating bug.

Two true things

[WillSeattle]

One - Mozilla 1.0 is faster than IE

Two - um, never mind

IE should not be followed.

[Steveftoth]

The web 'standards' are the ones that everyone agreed that they would implement. There is this thing, called the W3C that the companies in question, Netscape, MS, and whomever else wanted to say got together and decided to agree that there was a way to do things like style sheets and DOM, etc...
MS has not implemented them, which is their right, they don't have to. Trying to emulate them will only cause their stranglehold to increase, not decrease. Mozilla is a better browser, but not because it renders HTML faster, but because it actaully does MORE then IE does.

Re:IE should not be followed.

[shaka999]

I popular webpages don't render properly then Mozilla will not gain market share. Its that simple. Mozilla can take the high ground and remain a niche program or follow MS lead and have a chance to make a difference.

Re:IE should not be followed.

[fougasse]

things like style sheets and DOM

MS has not implemented them

Says who? IE6/Windows and IE5/Mac both support all of CSS1, and I believe also DOM0 and DOM1. There are a few bugs in the support, but then again Mozilla is hardly bug-free.

When Mozilla started, its standards-compliance was miles ahead of IE's. Since then, though, IE has caught up, and its overall standards support isn't very different from Mozilla's. Of course, IE also supports all kinds of extensions and "features" and invalid code that Mozilla doesn't, but it does also support W3C standards.

Re:IE should not be followed.

[dylan_-]

Says who? IE6/Windows and IE5/Mac both support all of CSS1, and I believe also DOM0 and DOM1.

Not really. Have a look at css/edge. Actually, have a look even if you don't use IE. It's got some very cool stuff.

Lynx

[TibbonZero]

Lynx doesn't support popups either, but that's a good feature. Real webprogrammers don't make pages with popups...

WARNING: Heresy proposed within

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an avid Mozilla fan, but I wish Mozilla would support IE-specific features and behavior so that it works on more web pages and can thus be reliably used on all sites. Everyone says that W3C is the standards and I agree. But IE has become a defacto standard, whether we like it or not. Even if Mozilla evangelism could somehow get every web site in the Internet to move to W3C standards, this doesn't cover company intranets. If I have a problem with an IE-centric web page in my company's intranet, there's nothing I can do. Certainly, I can complain, but it's a pain the ass to find the person to complain to, then when I do, it falls on deaf ears. They've got much more pressing things to work on. The net result is that for some things in my intranet, I still have to use IE and will never be able to get rid of it unless the Mozilla group finally gets their collective heads out of their asses and deals with reality.

Re:WARNING: Heresy proposed within

[Neil Watson]

Let's assume that we make IE's HTML standards THE standard.

Would MS publish this standard? How long before they sould stop publishing it in order force people to use IE?

Re:WARNING: Heresy proposed within

[Richard5mith]

MS's description of how to use every tag IE understands is second to none. Both of the standard and their own stuff. They also tell you what standard something is part of.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/ie/

It's helped me out loads of times when writing javascript stuff.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[jukal]

A bit harsh way of putting it, but you are correct.

What has happened during last 4 years then?
Mozilla 0.1 is relased - HOORAY! it is here!! look!! - all of us run and install it immediately, in the beginning only a minority of people were even able to get it running. Then we realise it cannot be used for anything.
Mozilla 0.2 is released, same thing happens, years and 0.1s pass by and every damn time we hear little feet running to fetch it to get disappointed.... 0.9... 1.0.

Little feet start running to fetch it, but then they realize, it will probably just crash. Maybe in reality, it would actually work, but too many years and too many disappointments are too much for any Joe Average, who tried it. All that is left, is Linux, as the clever (im)poster said :)

AOL might be the rescue, otherwise, the project is doomed. It's sad, as so many people have participated in the work. I hope they atleast had some fun while doing it. Mozilla is good for those who like it, would a politician say.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, you'll have to know how to type in the various cryptic IRC commands to get to chat rooms and find someone to talk to.

Like what? /join? Typing in text and hitting enter? Jesus H. Christ, that's cryptic!

The only pages...

[Steveftoth]

that mozilla renders incorrectly, are ones that are hard coded to not display in anything except ie, via browser detection, and the one or two pages that use a crazy function they dug out of the bowels of the ms library.

All the pages I see look fine. Can you find a signifigant number of pages that look bad with Mozilla but not IE?

Re:The only pages...

[wikkid007]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'v been using Mozilla exclusively on all of my machines since RC1 and 99.9% of all sites render fine in Mozilla. The sites/features I have seen problems with are as follows:

• Sites that open an unrequested popup to view the main content. I turned off popups and I'm keeping them turned off. These are mostly personal/artsy/flash sites, and I figure I'm not missing much. If I really want to check out a site that does this, then maybe I'll launch IE. But it's not likely.

• Sites that are funded/owned by Microsoft. MSNBC anyone? Not that it looks bad in Mozilla - it is perfectly useable, but there are a few broken tables and misaligned images. Oh and their DHTML menu navigation doesn't work in Mozilla, but I think that was written to only work in IE. Same with the menus on the Micro$oft website.

• Scrolling DHTML -- haven't seen it work in Mozilla yet, just sort of displays the entire contents instead of scrolling it.

  These are things I can live with. I find Mozilla to be a better browser... but, to each his own.

Re:The only pages...

[Eccles]

All the pages I see look fine. Can you find a significant number of pages that look bad with Mozilla but not IE?

Go to http://www.lenstolerlexus.com and do a pre-owned vehicle search. I'm not web-savvy enough to know exactly how the table display is done, and thus what to bugzilla as an error. (I have bugzilla'ed a few other things.)

Re:The only pages...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the HTML at http://www.lenstolerlexus.com is extremely maligned and only works in IE due to rendering engine quirkiness. I ran the search you mentioned through the validator at http://validator.w3.org and it returned > 100 errors, many of them involving unconnected TABLE tags.

Re:The only pages...

[Steveftoth]

they are using doc.layers, which I believe is a netscape only function. They just need to recode their site for mozilla. They are probably using IE and netscape 4.7 only javascript.

Yes, Silk rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear. Moz looks that much better with Silk on OS X.
So much so that it's now my default browser.

Download Silk. Kill if you must.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Most of its problems originate from the fact that its developers are hacks (and not in the good sense)

>I think the noun you were looking for was "hacker" not "hack" - in English (as opposed to American) a "hack" is a journalist

Not necessarily true. From Infoplease.com, a hack can also be a professional who, for money, exploits his talent in the pursuit of something dull or trite. Or, a professional that gives up independence in return for reward.

So the initial sentence is not necessarily correct, but it's still valid.

Use to be a netscape user, IE 5 lately, now...

[sat985]

I've never been a mozilla fan, i used IE for the speed over netscape. Let's face it netscape hasn't had a good release since before aol bought em, even then they were headed a lil downhill. Well i went for it after hearin about the latest IE security flaw. Well about 9mb later I'm a whole lot happier. mozilla 1 has gotta be the best browser i've ever used.

Whats strange?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tina Gasperson's review over at NewsForge makes an interesting contrast to CNET's review; strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-" after describing Mozilla's robustness, standards compliance, speed and convenience features."

Strange? OOOHH - you mean you find it odd that a linux zealot who extolls everything open source as gifts from the gods, gave it a better review than an industry middleman who honestly reviewed what he thought of it as a web browser?

Hate to tell ya, but the differences here are not "strange" at all. Linux users have been predictable in what software they will prefer in any given scenario, since day 1.

For a long time, we (have to do this anonymously, as I'd be "troll" scored down for presenting an honest viewpoint - strange that people who give out so much persecution can't take a little themselves) take a random windows product, and think up names (OpenOffice, kOffice, TuxOfficeRacer, etc) and then wait and see how long it is before someone puts out a linux option which has half the features, no support, and yet will win the hearts and minds of users all over slashdot. Even though most will still be using the windows version. Your own poll proved that.

Re:Just emailed Cnet to give them a piece of my mi

[jonabbey]

I hope this guy gets blasted for his crappy review.

Yeah, that's exactly what Mozilla needs. Nothing like a good bit of rabid flaming to make a reviewer understand the perils of crossing the one true faith, eh?

Dude, that's so 1989 Amiga user.

Get comfortable with open source

[Subcarrier]

You just have to have a really cool operating system like Linux to run a really hot browser like Mozilla.

BBC story

[Brown]

The BBC has a story on the 1.0 release of mozilla, including the background of Mozilla and the principles of OpenSource.

It seems to be a generally favourable overview: "Mozilla is quick, stable, and virtually free of the default links to manufacturers' products that feature so prominently in commercial browsers". Also mentioned is the recent release of OpenOffice. Includes some quotes from Mitchell Baker of mozilla.org.

Chris

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[SandSpider]

Could you please provide a link to the GNU/Linux binaries for IE? Oh, wait, by UNIX you mean Solaris...and of course, Solaris is taking over the desktop market.

I should mention, at severe risk to the little karma that I have, that I don't think that Linux is the dominant desktop unix platform, either. I believe it's Mac OS X, which does have IE binaries.

Of course, I use OmniWeb whenever I can, but perhaps I'll check out Mozilla now that it's done.

=Brian

Have they used toolbared UI's since 1990 or so?

[ealar dlanvuli]

For example, when we ran File > Quit from the JavaScript debugger, instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted.

I'm sorry but this is not something new. File>Quit in any program is the way to Quit the application, not the window; one uses the X or File>Close-type-command for that. It has been this way since as long as I can remember.

It's looking like the person who reviewed it didn't know how to use basic UI functions, or was specificaly looking for something wrong. I can't even fathom who would mention 'File>Quit' exiting the program in a serious review of a program. If a user opened a work order with that in it, I would close it and leave a note in thier profile.

I would have liked to see...

[Dixie_Flatline]

...the help documentation filled out before release. A 1.0 release shouldn't have vast gaping holes in the docs that say "Information to be filled in". There are actual things I'd like to know. For instance, is there a way to switch between tabs, using the keyboard? If I can't, it's arguably faster to have multiple windows open and cycle through them that way.

It's all well and good that the browser has lots of features. They're pretty useless if I can't figure out how to use them.

Re:I would have liked to see...

[Violet Null]

For instance, is there a way to switch between tabs, using the keyboard?

Ctrl-PageUp and Ctrl-PageDown.

And, just in case, you can use Ctrl-L to jump to the address bar (this is mentioned in the help, just hard to find); useful for those who got used to Alt-D in IE.

Re:I would have liked to see...

[snake_dad]

or use F6 to go to the address bar, use F9 to open the sidebar, and use F11 to go fullscreen. All of this on windoze, dunno if it's the same on other OS's.

Re:I would have liked to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux does not appear to have a fullscreen mode of any kind. (Unless you count maximizing the window)

Re:I would have liked to see...

[BJH]

Yep - that's because resizing is the job of the window manager under X, not the application.

Re:I would have liked to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

as it should be

I have enough to think about when designing an app, resize events don't have to be one of those.

finally a stable open source browser

[MarkoNo5]

But wait a minute...... haven't I been using konqueror for the last year and a half ?

bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you're talking about these bugs:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63741

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54979

CNet Screenshot of Moz Looks Like Shit

[idonotexist]

Odd, Cnet used the classic skin in its screenshot --- big buttons with big text. Cnet notes: "Mozilla comes with two skins, or interface designs. The default is the so-called Classic, which makes Mozilla look an awful lot like Netscape Navigator 4.x."

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am really sure the default skin for Mozilla is modern, which is much prettier than Classic.

I know this is just a screenshot, but first impressions may be important for an IE user who is learning Mozilla for the first-time via Cnet reviews.

Re:CNet Screenshot of Moz Looks Like Shit

[Lao-Tzu]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am really sure the default skin for Mozilla is modern, which is much prettier than Classic.

You are mistaken, actually. The default Mozilla skin is Classic. Given that, I think a screenshot of the Classic skin is completely fair.. and it's not really all that bad.

Classic presents a clean and usable interface, and it is the skin that most resembles the operating system. FizzillaCFM, the MacOSX version of Mozilla, looks just like a native MacOSX application in Classic, just like Classic has the same colours and toolbars and such that Windows has.

Modern, on the other hand, provides the same pretty interface to all operating systems. This is also darn nice.

Wrong assumption

[kiris]

Actually the issue is not with Mozilla rendering pages the same as IE, it's more about Moz actually adhering to some STANDARDS. The rendering of some important CSS and DOM structures are non-existent. It makes it increasingly difficult to produce web pages with a just a touch of snazzy flare. Mozilla really needs to get up to speed with HTML 4.0 and CSS.

hear, hear

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading people's incorrect "here, here" for so long now that the correct "hear, hear" looks wrong to me! :-)

Re:hear, hear

[Anonymous Coward]

And you read it here, no doubt. :)

Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Embrace and extend.

We support their craptastic 'standards'. People switch to Mozilla, because, "It can do everything IE can do, and better!"

Without a majority of market share, IE can no longer be the basis for bastard 'standards'.

Buggy as hell, and I don't know why!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using Mozilla 0.9.8 since February, and LOVED it. It was my standard browser...a little slower than IE or Netscape 4.75, but stable. It was my workhorse.

And then Mozilla 1.0 came out...grrrr....

I upgraded, and suddenly it wouldn't let me:
1). Use my bookmark manager
2). Open up new windows (only tabs would work)
3). Change the skin at all

Obviously that's unacceptable to me. I tried uninstalling it and reinstalling twice more, and it still wouldn't work.

AND (gotta love my grammar)...Mozilla's site has removed all older versions for some damn reason (although it does say that you can download them...huh?!?!) so I can't even go backward!!

Out of desperation, I checked out Opera. I haven't used it since something like 4.0; now it's at 6.03. All today I've been really suprised how nice it's become (Opera 4 drove me batty!)

Anyone else have any major problems upgrading? I still want my Mozilla back!

Re:Buggy as hell, and I don't know why!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to do a fresh install. Not only uninstalling Mozilla, but also removing your profile. On Win32, it's under Windows\Application Data. Just delete the Mozilla folder you find there. For the entire archive of releases go to the mozilla.org FTP site.

CNET reviewer is not that professional

[Frag-A-Muffin]

First off, I don't use Chatzilla, but from what I read, it gave me no info. on Chatzilla itself.

The editor reviews Chatzilla as a IM client? You can't really compare. That's like saying, "Computers suck, they don't cut my lawn well". It would have been wiser to perhaps compare Chatzilla to say, BitchX (my IRC client of choice), or XChat or *another IRC client* ??? :)

CaffeineMark 3.0 Normalized

[ralico]

Regarding the cnet review, on the win xp benchmarks page,
it seems that the caffeinemark gives ie 6 a 100% performance, while its three results where 22-46-22 (hmm, those numbers could be obscene too, but I digress ;) which are *nowhere* near 100%

Anyone else notice this?

Not Necessarily...

[BlackGriffen]

Mozilla is at the core of NS nowadays, right? IIRC, AOL plans on replacing IE with NS as the default web browser (since, uh, they own it). That right there would catapult the NS/Mozilla user base in to the multi-millions, and possibly force web authors to use the actual standards.

Who knows, maybe that's just wishful thinking.

BlackGriffen

IRC and ICQ/IM/Proprietory IMs

[idonotexist]

chat client doesn't work with the big commercial IM systems, including ICQ, Yahoo IM, AOL IM, and Windows Messenger

Three words for CNET: Apples and Oranges.

What is realistic? Foofy layout, or content

[aaron_pet]

Most people want the content from the website.

And get sick of having to wade through all kinds of foofy stuff put up by web devlopers that tell their clients that they need the fancy graphics and flash animatin etc! (when they really want money and false dependance)

HTML is a meta data language for a reason. I like layout control, but the meta data, and end user configuration comes first.

Re:What is realistic? Foofy layout, or content

[Hallow]

Hey, some of us web developers get bitched at when we tell our clients (in house people in my case), that we don't need or want super fancy graphics, flash animiation, distracting backgrounds, and an overall "geocities" kind of feel.

There's a lot of people in this world that think that's what the web should look like apparently.

*sigh* Every time we manage to convince one management type not to look at the web as a publication, but as a whole different medium with it's own set of rules, mores, norms... well, we get a new one that doesn't have a clue. "Why can't we force page breaks in HTML? How come we can't use this spiffy font? Why can't we just make all of our table images? How come it doesn't look the same on *MY* screen? ") *SIGH*

Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[gblues]

At work, web access is controlled by a Microsoft proxy server. The MS proxy server requires NTLM authentication support. Guess how many browsers support NTLM? (See also: how many Internet browsers has Microsoft released?)

Given that there is and has been PLENTY of information on the NTLM-over-HTTP authentication process, it is inexcusable for a 1.0 browser to not have support for this protocol.

Nathan

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[Brad Wilson]

I have a less significant but still prevalent, related problem. I use Mozilla for all my external browsing, but any internal web site that's set up for authentication is set for NTLM only.

One wonders why the IT people felt this was a necessary restriction. Had they also checked the Basic auth checkbox in IIS, then I could've used Mozilla to browse the corporate sites. *sigh*

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[Anonymous Coward]

This is tracked in Bugzilla at

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 9

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[John Fulmer]

Hmmm. It is inexcusable for Mozilla 1.0, which tries to be a very standards based browser, to support Microsoft's proprietary, non-(w3c)-standard authentication scheme?

And it is unexcusable for Opera, Konquor, lynx, wget, and every other http-based tool?

MS Proxy server supports other authentication methods. The manager for the proxy server has chosen to only support NTLM authentication. I would consider *THAT* to be unexcusable, myself...

If you REALLY must use NTLM authentication, there are installable local proxy servers that can fake out the NTLM authentication for you, like this one.

jf

(who manages proxy servers for a living...among other things.)

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[OSgod]

Of course then the password would have been passed in clear text format open to any sniffer out there....

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[StormReaver]

That's really strange to hear. My workplace is a mixed bag of Unix and Windows, with Windows controlling Internet access through a Microsoft proxy. I've been running Mozilla at work since 0.7 with no problems getting through the proxy.

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[Fastball]

At work, web access is controlled by a Microsoft proxy server. The MS proxy server requires NTLM authentication support. Guess how many browsers support NTLM? (See also: how many Internet browsers has Microsoft released?)

Sucks for you.

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[gblues]

NTLM itself is a broken protocol because it is wide open to man-in-the-middle attacks. With a log of the NTLM transaction between a client and the server, you have more than enough information to brute-force the password easily.

Nathan

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[gblues]

I make no excuses for the idiocy of the IT department of my employer. Since I am not the IT manager, I do not get to make the decisions.

Yes, it is inexcusable for Mozilla 1.0, which wants to supplant IE, to not be flexible enough to support Microsoft's proprietary protocols. It would be one thing if this protocol were still in the unknown and required actual work to decipher. However, the page you link to itself provides adequate documentation to integrate the authentication into a browser.

The information is out there, and has been for a large portion of Mozilla's development. If Mozilla wants to supplant IE, it needs to integrate with Microsoft standards as well as it supports the W3C standards. All the standards compliance in the world means shit if I can't even authenticate with the proxy!

Nathan

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[Chagrin]

That's because you're using basic authentication, which simply encodes the username/password with Mime/Base64. It's very insecure, from a sniffing point of view (your username/password goes across the wire in, essentially, plain text). NTLM is a bit harder to crack.

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[jonabbey]

They are still working on NTLM. Look up bugzilla bug 23679 for details. Or copy the following URL and enter it into your browser (to work around bugzilla's slashdot referer filter): http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23679

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet

[Arandir]

Maybe they DONT want to supplant IE. Maybe they just want to build a good browser. Ever thought of that?

Re:Too complicated?

[MrZeebo]

The best I could think of to be an example of this is that the View | Preferences screen simply has a *lot* of options in it. Moreso than IE, at least. Lots of submenus to choose from on the left, and (sometimes) lots of buttons on the right. I personally consider this good though -- high customization means I get the browsing experience I want.

However, I still don't think the comment is warranted. For normal, non-config use, Mozilla is as easy and straightforward as IE. Even the preferences screen isn't *that* bad, if that is indeed what they're referring to -- it's fairly well organized considering how many aspects of Mozilla you can customize.

Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[Sycraft-fu]

Now I haven't used Mozilla 1.0 extensively yet, what with it just having come out, but I can tell you that Netscape 6 and espically 4 have problems of just rendering HTML WRONG. Some examples:

I was designing a site and, as I'm won't to do, doing the whole thing in a text editor and using IE to look at it. Now because my intention was compatibility, I strictly adhered to the HTML spec (using the W3's validator to check myself) and used only tags I knew that both IE and Netscape implemented. The result was broken in Netscape. It was a 3 column, expanding design somewhat similar to Slashdot's. The code was 100% compliant and rendered properly in IE 4, IE 5 and Opera (don't remember what the current version was then). In Netscape 4.7, half the right hand column failed ot display. It to a real hack ofa workaround to make it display properly on Netscape and still maintain standards compliance.

Or another time, I was messing around with CSS and managed to create a neat little script that did text dropshadows. It took the length of the text based on font type and size (it only worked with one font) and calculated the correct offset for the top text. It worked really nice. Now I figured a neat trick like this was bound to be broken on anything but IE 6 since that was what I designed it for. To my plesant supprise it wasn't, it rendered great on IE 5 and 6 for both Mac and PC. Not on Netscape 4.7 or 6, however. The alignment was all off. Worse, it was off by different amounts on different platforms. I ended up just canning the idea.

The problem I've had with Netscape up to this point is that many of the standard they impliment, they impliment WRONG. Now since I haven't used Mozilla much for design checking (I quit doing web design) I can't speak for it's release, but NEtscape 6 which was based form it's code still had some massive problems.

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[wishus]

Or another time, I was messing around with CSS and managed to create a neat little script that did text dropshadows. It took the length of the text based on font type and size (it only worked with one font) and calculated the correct offset for the top text. It worked really nice.

It is possible to abuse a standard and still have a valid CSS. If your effect relies on a certain font, how is it going to look on a text-only browser like lynx, or a system for the visually impaired? What if the user is using IE, but doesn't have that font installed?

The purpose of CSS is to separate the formatting of the document from the appearance. The style sheets cascade, meaning that a user could attach his own style sheet to your document to adjust for a disability, or lack of technology.

You may have written valid CSS, but you abused the standard and tried to do womething it was not intended to do. So, from a certain point of view, you were not "standards compliant" at all.

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape 6 and espically 4 have problems of just rendering HTML WRONG.

Netscape 4 is worthless now (as of quite a while ago). It can't even be compared to Mozilla/NS6 since it's ENTIRELY different code.

(it only worked with one font)

This is your problem. Mozilla typically implements the standards TO THE LETTER, but there are many things the standards don't specify.

The biggest difference I've seen with Mozilla's CSS is that a:hover and a:link:hover,a:visited:hover are not the same. This gets annoying because all the "a name=" tags get hover attributes as well, but that's what the spec calls for.

Now I figured a neat trick like this was bound to be broken on anything but IE 6 since that was what I designed it for.

And Mozilla met your expectation. How disappointing.

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[jkramar]

Hmmm... I underwent some similar (analogous) experiences using CSS floats and text-HTML-ing on my linux box, periodically checking with Mozilla and the W3C Validator; it was all standards-compliant (heck, half the CSS codes I learned off the spec).

I leaned back with satisfaction, only to find that MSIE still hasn't implemented (OK, fine, no MSIE I saw tried in any way to display) CSS fixed boxes. Actually, if you load up the W3C CSS page itself, on Mozilla, the navbar floats semi-transparently, the way it's supposed to, but on MSIE, it sits there, creating the impression that the W3C has bad web site designers.

A friend of mine kept nudging me and telling me how great MSIE CSS support was, and when I showed him the page along with the spec, he spent a half-hour searching for my non-existent coding error... :)

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

he said he was 'messing around', so I doubt universal accessibility was high on his list.

and regarding your abuse comment, have you ever heard of creativity? You know, like writing code that is innovative and does something that the original implementors never intended? I would hope that of all the browsers out there, open source browsers would be the most friendly to this sort of thing.

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[kubrick]

In Netscape 4.7, half the right hand column failed ot display. It to a real hack ofa workaround to make it display properly on Netscape and still maintain standards compliance.

Yes, but Netscape 4's CSS handling is buggy beyond belief. I have to say, it's just not worth it to spend the amounts of time it takes, for the people it will benefit.

"It's time for them to upgrade."

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[Pont]

Or another time, I was messing around with CSS and managed to create a neat little script that did text dropshadows. It took the length of the text based on font type and size (it only worked with one font) and calculated the correct offset for the top text. It worked really nice. Now I figured a neat trick like this was bound to be broken on anything but IE 6 since that was what I designed it for. To my plesant supprise it wasn't, it rendered great on IE 5 and 6 for both Mac and PC. Not on Netscape 4.7 or 6, however. The alignment was all off. Worse, it was off by different amounts on different platforms. I ended up just canning the idea.

Well duh it didn't work the same way in Netscape 6 (and probably wouldn't have in Mozilla either). IE 4, 5, and I believe 6 all get the CSS box model wrong. It has to do with whether the border adds to the padding etc. Anything that needs to be pixel-perfectly aligned will NOT work the same in Mozilla (or Mozilla-based) browsers and IE because Mozilla follows the spec and IE doesn't.

Re:Sometimes this is not IE's fault

[JamieF]

> Now I haven't used Mozilla 1.0 extensively yet, what with it just having come out,
> but I can tell you that Netscape 6 and espically 4 have problems of just rendering
> HTML WRONG.

Netscape 6 came out a *year and a half* ago. The excuse of "Mozilla 1.0 just came out" is totally bogus - Netscape 6.1 and 6.2 have been released since then, and are much better than 6.0. If you really wanted to keep an eye on Mozilla's progress, you could have downloaded nightly builds or stable milestone builds every few weeks, or months. The downloadable installers have been out there, 1 click away from www.mozilla.org, all along. Mozilla 1.0 RC1 has been out for over a month.

Why not do this:
1) download Mozilla 1.0 and see how your stuff works
2) post a comment describing how good or bad Mozilla 1.0 is

Nobody really cares how Mozilla 0.6 stacks up against IE 6 anymore.

the ATI video card bug

[Anonymous Coward]

The ATI video card bug is tracked in Bugzilla at:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1049 92

The bug can be often fixed by upgrading to one of ATI's newer, unstable drivers.

Mozzilla IRC client sux

[rossdee]

From the review:
"Chatzilla is perfectly adequate as an IRC app "

Totally inadequate more like.
It doesnt even have DCC
whats the use of an IRC client that doesnt do DCC
(To me the DCC chat is even more important that DCC send files - I need it to communicate with bots on some networks, and also to have a lag immune private conversation with my fiancee)

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[DrBlake]

IE has had this functionality for at least two years now. See this page for a download.
It says that it works only for IE 5 but I have used it for 6 months now with 6.0 without problems. I use it several times a day for Google and Dictionary.com searches and for internal DB searches that has simple URL access like the internal phone book.

The good Doctor

Re:bugs (nope)

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about this one.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id= 148002
I really wish people would think/look at source/search bugzilla before saying stuff like this.
Especially given the amount of time he says passed, and the fact he seems to care about it.

Get the latest beta of America Online

[yerricde]

We need to find an ISP willing to distribute Mozilla instead of IE.

Thirty percent of people who connect to the Internet do so through America Online. After AOL's contract with Microsoft (bundling IE in exchange for bundling an AOL icon on the desktop) expired, AOL switched CompuServe to Gecko, and the next version of the AOL client is headed that way as well (AOL keyword: beta).

Re:Get the latest beta of America Online

[rmohr02]

I haven't kept up on AOL, but it's nice to know their switching to Gecko.

Get the latest beta of America Online

Hrmm, I think I'll pass on that for now.

Re:Get the latest beta of America Online

[Anonymous Coward]

> Thirty percent of people who connect to the
> Internet do so through America Online

Is that 30% world-wide or 30% in the US?

The thing I really like about Mozilla...

[Trogre]

... is it's standards compliance.
Try the cool demos, using nothing but fully w3c-compliant HTML/CSS code.

Try that with IE. Honestly, IE still won't even support transpartent PNG's, effectively rendering (no pun intended) it useless as a serious web browser. No matter how popular it is.

Re:The thing I really like about Mozilla...

[Anonymous Coward]

rendering it useless

Stop exaggerating.

keyboard switching between tabs

[gregstoll]

things I'd like to know. For instance, is there a way to switch between tabs, using the keyboard? If I can't, it's arguably faster to have multiple windows open and cycle through them that way.

Yes, Ctrl+PgUp and Ctrl+PgDn, but I agree with your point. :-)

Beh?

[t_allardyce]

Damn, i should have gone to one of the 1.0 parties... now its 11pm and i'm stuck at home on a thursday :( oh well, i suppose i better install this "mozilla" thing i downloaded..

Moz can handle large downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen any problems downloading large files with Mozilla. The other day I downloaded the Serious Sam test file (weighing in at 71.8 megs) without a hitch. When I used to use IE to download files I would always have broken downloads or blue screens of death.

Open source doesn't mean its perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that doesn't like mozilla? You know what I think its great that the open source community put out a browser. I honestly think thats wonderful, and I love open source software. I use linux a great deal, and I am very happy with most of the open source software out there. On the other hand some of it really sucks ass.

There is one plain and simple fact that most of you keep missing (and I don't like it any more than you do, but it is still a fact) and that is that ie has a hold on the web and that won't be changing any time soon. Plain and simple most sites look correct in ie and they don't look correct in mozilla. I am glad that mozilla is trying to take the high road and follow the 'standards' correctly instead of following what has actually been adopted by the public as the standard, but the fact is that right now that doesn't work.

What is a mozilla user supposed to do when you get to a site that doesn't display properly? Do you just not use that site? Thats not always a good option. So do you open ie (possibly requiring a reboot) whenever you run into one of these sites? Sorry but thats not good enough in my book. Plain and simple ie works and mozilla doesn't. As an end user I don't care about why thats the case. I just want something that works.

The entire point of software is to make things easier for people. If the software fails to do that, for whatever reasons no matter how high and mighty those reasons are, then that software is broken.

So I hope you all can sleep better at night knowing that you are following the standards and fighting against ms. I on the other hand will enjoy actually using the internet because unlike you I can actually use it.

-fox

Re:Open source doesn't mean its perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

Plain and simple ie works and mozilla doesn't

...No, not quite that simple. When Mozilla comes acreoss a page "designed for IE" it's not as if Mozilla just gives up and goes home. In most cases if there's a problem, it's just that things won't be aligned quite right. I've never encountered a page that was unusable in Mozilla. But if I did, and it was a page I actually cared to try again sometime, I'd write the webmaster and let them know of the problem.

mozillas big contra

[Anonymous Coward]

i know i am late for this discussion but let me mention one thing.

i like GECKO but i dont like mozilla.

reason, i dont like all the XUL stuff within mozilla, if i want to use a more common desktop environment like kde or gnome or cde then i want to have my apps using the native supported widgetset. XUL doesnt allow you to have native widgets at all which makes the application not working correctly as my other environment stuff.

i have tried to use the frontend called galeon together with mozilla to have the appearance of xul dissapear but it always came up again. my final decission was to switch completely to kde and use konqueror the results are of course in no way compareable to mozilla but the integration into its environment is perfectly.

i also like netscape 4.x over mozilla, sure ns4.x can now be called dead but it uses the motif widgetset natively which embedds perfectly into cde some years back. mozilla embedds into nothing.

thats my 0.2 cents.

This is getting really old

[fondue]

"Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"

It's strange that I've not managed to find a site that Mozilla can't render correctly for the last six months or so. Do C|Net's reviews get to use a different version or something?

Any commercial website that does not operate correctly on non-IE browsers is cutting a swathe out of its customer base. This is why you will be hard pushed to find any. It really is that simple.

Beyond its skins and pop-up-killing abilities, however, Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does.

A strange complaint, when these two features alone massively enhance the usability of the product. I simply cannot use IE anymore, rather like the majority of apps that last had any new meaningful features added circa 1996. The Mozilla Organisation at least seems to value the end user over the Spam/Web-advertising lobby, unlike some.

As for CNET: It's sad that these people call themselves journalists. Oh well.

Re:This is getting really old

[BreakWindows]

It's strange that I've not managed to find a site that Mozilla can't render correctly for the last six months or so.

I'm glad someone brought this up, I thought it was just me. The only sites I've seen that didn't show up perfectly in Mozilla are dopey, overdone personal pages, like any girl who has a webcam and Microsoft's dHTML book. Shut up, you look at them too. Besides that, the closest I found was some fool who put a browser check on the front page and wouldn't let non-MSIE browsers view the content, leaving the message "This site will not display properly in anything but Internet Explorer 5 or above"....so I had Konqueror pretend to be IE 5.5, and everything looked fine. Put the source through to Mozilla, and it looked perfect there, too.

Even Microsoft's website displays well, and I can't imagine anyone with more of an interest in creating a site for IE than its manufacturor.

Re:This is getting really old

[rtaylor]

CIBC.. They upgraded their website about a month ago from a perfectly functional version to one that won't allow Mozilla to login.

Some weird javascript or something that bumps it back out to the frontpage. When I complained they said they knew and were working on it.

Funny thing is that other affiliate banks (Presidents Choice Financial) appears to use the same backend -- similar style, binary conventions and server cluster -- but it works fine.

Re:This is getting really old

[Syllepsis]

"Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"

It's strange that I've not managed to find a site that Mozilla can't render correctly for the last six months or so. Do C|Net's reviews get to use a different version or something?

This may have been fixed, I am too lazy to upgrade from RC2, but MSNBC seems to have a few minor visual glitches.

On the other hand, this is the only website that I still see having problems. Overall, I agree with you, that the web is 99.99999% rendered correctly.

Re:This is getting really old

[jpdbest]

CIBC.. They upgraded their website about a month ago from a perfectly functional version to one that won't allow Mozilla to login. Some weird javascript or something that bumps it back out to the frontpage. When I complained they said they knew and were working on it.

I also noticed this with CIBC's PC banking. I had been using Mozilla to do my online banking for a few months and it worked. The only thing I ever found that didn't work for Mozilla was attempting to use CIBCs E-Docs system for viewing bills online. When I'd click the E-Docs link, it would attempt to transfer me to the E-Docs website and fail for some reason (session authentication?). CIBC always stated on the online banking page that Netscape 6 (and hence Mozilla) was not yet supported. I think they decided to start checking the Browser ID string on logon, redirecting Mozilla based browsers back to the CIBC home page. Annoying.

(OT) 10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

[yerricde]

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

(Background: Mozilla 1.0's main competition in the Windows web browser market is Microsoft Internet Explorer. Because of Microsoft's monopoly lock on the PC operating system market, and the company's general greed, some Slashdot users call the company Micro$oft.)

The $ in MS is just getting old

Microsoft's first products were interpreters of the Basic programming language for various computers. In the Basic language, "M$" means "a string variable called M". Consider the use of M$ on Slashdot analogous to the $foo interpolation in the Perl language. (Ignore the fact that Basic doesn't actually do interpolation.)

IE does a better job in some aspects of security

[Nailer]

When I run the current version of Windows, I use both Mozilla and IE regularly.

• Mozilla recently had a major security issue with 1.0RC1, IIRC. Nobody running Mozilla would have known they were vulnerable unless they a) still has their home page set to mozilla.org (yeah right) or b) subscribed to a security mailing list (doubtful for most users).
  
• IE recently had a major security issue with version 6. Anyone running a vulnerable version would realize this as soon as they looked at the screen, because there's a flashing item in the task bar telling them a critical security update needs to be installed.
  

In this case, response times are irrelevant - someone using the vulnerable Mozilla still wouldn't know about the update as we speak.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

its even more ram hog then.

galeon is no browser you moron its a frontend.

a) it depends on mozilla 32 mb
b) it depends on gnome 70 libraries linked.

so where is it less ram hog ?

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[snake_dad]

I'd like to mention the possibility to create a bookmark for a group of pages, that you have currently open in separate tabs. Just open several tabs, load one of your favourite news sites in each of them, and create a bookmark, and check the "File as group" checkbox to be able to open all of them in one single mouseclick. I love it.

Differences

[Bilbo]

Fundamentally, it's a ground-up rewrite of the entire browser, so it does away with a lot of the buggyness of the old Netscape 4.X code base. The fact that it "looks the same" is intentional (some paople don't like sudden changes in the look and feel of their software), but can quickly be changed by selecting another "skin".

Of course, when you get down to it, it basically renders Web pages. So at a glance, there's not a lot of difference. Once you use it for a while though, you start to notice subtle things, like it crashes less often. I've been using the Moz since they began the .9.X releases, and I really like it, though there are some annoying bugs still, like squished lines of text in some windows (such as the text window I'm using to compose this message), and the fact that there are still IE specific pages out there that will never render "correctly" in a non-MS browser is something I don't think we will ever get around.

There are lots of new preferences too. I haven't tried the pop-up blocker, but that would be REALLY nice!

Another huge feature is the fact that the underlying rendering engine is modular, and can be embedded into other applications. This way, you get a lot of the same advantages that Microsoft claims when it integrates its browser "into the OS", such as uniformity of behavior between many different applications that all have to now deal with HTML and XML, without having to sell your soul to the OS vendor.

(I'm thinking of swapping Mozilla in to replace the old version of NS that my wife is using, without telling her, and seeing if she notices a difference... ;-)

pointy nipples

[isbhod]

just the simple fact that i can stop popups without disableing all javascript makes my nipples pointy. Goodbye IE, hello Moz.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are absolutely right. i had high hopes into mozilla but since it uses an environment unfriendly own widgetset i stopped using it. interaction between user and menues are slow, the items on it dont react correctly etc. and you cant really embedd mozilla into a desktop environment like kde, gnome or cde you cant compile in FULL native widgetset it always depends on that xul shit.

-1 Troll

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

You're STUCK with that? I don't think so. See, it's called open source, and... connect the fucking dots.

How does making a program open sourse suddenly make all users have a good techical understanding on how to edit progam config files etc? Or are you just being ignorant?

Broken vendor STL

[yerricde]

[The fact that Mozilla does not rely on the vendor's Standard Template Library implementation is] why Mozilla is such a bloated piece of NIH.

Mozilla uses its own template library because some vendors' implementations of the C++ standard library are hopelessly outdated or broken, and without its own template library, Mozilla could not run on those C++ implementations. GNU libstdc++ is not as ubiquitous as we'd like.

My thoughts

[Richard5mith]

CNET complaining that it doesn't render pages built for IE is a bit stupid. Blame the page designers, there's no real reason for any half decent web designer to build a site like that (I should know, I am one).

I've gone through a whole series of different web browsers on Windows, OS X and Linux over the years. On Linux, I'd choose Mozilla 1.0 without hesitation, clearly the best.

On Mac OS X, I stick with IE5. Omniweb, despite everybody saying it's brilliant, just doesn't do it for me. All the fonts are overly anti-aliased, and if you switch off anti-aliasing, they look rough. It also does strange things with simple tables and images on some pages. Chimera is almost there, fast, but still lacking a lot of features. Once it gets there, it'll be great. IE5 is slow, but it renders pages correctly, and 10.1.5 of X really helps with it's scroll speed on my Powerbook.

Windows 2000, IE6 is the no-brainer. And even with Moz out, it still is I'm afraid. The fact is, IE6 never crashes for me. Neither did IE5, on any of the Win2K machines I use. It never appears slow, renders every page I visit perfectly, gives me the font sizes I like, doesn't overly anti-alias text and for our internal office systems lets me do fun things with <div> tags. Where's the reason not to use it, other than for those who hate MS? I've never found any IE security hole to be a problem (how many people are going to be using Gopher links these days?) so I don't see that as a major selling point (and neither will the rest of the general public). And Moz's open-source status won't make it free from issues like that either, despite what people might think, just go look for known open-source security holes. There are lots. Apache, mySQL, PHP and more have all had them.

But in the end, Moz does a lot of things right, tabbed browsing is great (Opera may have had it first, but Opera never rendered pages for me as well as Moz does), the page rendering is almost always on par with IE6, as is the speed. I'm not a fan of the interface and I hate skins (pointless, useless things, just design an interface that looks good and works in the first place), but generally I was very impressed with it. Stupid things like forgetting the section I was last in when I go back to the Preferences, or continuously adding my shacknews password details to the store every time I posted, resulting in it asking me to keep selecting which username I wanted to use marred the experience somewhat.

What the Moz developers need to do now is stop copying every other browser out there, so they're not missing features, and start changing people's perception of how a browser should work to start with. Give people a reason to change. Think outside of the box. There's not been much change in the way a browser works since TBL created the web, even if HTML and the way people use the web has changed significantly. I'm interested to see if Apple do indeed produce an iWeb application (as is currently rumoured) because they would probably try something different.

Mozilla is still on my machine, but for now, I don't see much reason to switch.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never found any IE security hole to be a problem (how many people are going to be using Gopher links these days?)

Geezus christ. You're the exact type of person who would have his machine owned for years and never know it.

Go read about the Gopher vulnerability on Bugtraq via SecurityFocus or your security site of choice. Note the part where it states that you don't need to be running a full fledged gopher server to make use of the exploit. All you need is your malicious program listening on a port.

From the victim's side, you don't even need to click on a gopher:// link. There could be a normal html link which refreshes to the malicious gopher URL.

Finally, trust that this exploit is out in the wild. Once something gets sent to Bugtraq, everyone knows about it. There will be sites out there attempting to exploit users like yourself who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

Why do I even care to post this? Because exploits affect everyone. When that broken IIS server gets rooted and starts trying to spread itself by spamming requests to my Apache server, it affects me. Users like yourself and vendors like Microsoft are all part of the problem.

Re:My thoughts

[Richard5mith]

I've used IE every day for 5 or so years. Never once had a problem. I use Outlook (and used to use Outlook Express over that time) and never had a virus. I stay up to date with Windows Update when patches are made available, I don't open attachments I don't know, I don't click on links on strange web pages that try to fool stupid users. I run 11 free bsd servers, 4 linux servers, 4 websites, write perl for a living... need I go on?

I've had a Linux box hacked because of holes in the SSH server. So don't tell me open source software is always perfect. You can see that from Bugtraq yourself. Do you stop using Apache when you saw the list of holes it's had over time?

Yes b0rked IIS servers affect me too, but open your own eyes for a second and see that every platform has security holes, not just Microsoft made ones. Don't think Moz is going to be magically free of them either.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

IE does not require you to click on strange links, not that a link would have to be that unusual to forward you to the gopher crack, and I hope you disable javascript on untrusted websites... Anyway, it is more than happy to quietly install viruses on its own.
And the last major security hole in Mozilla was the ability to load local XML files under a certain set of conditions.
Compare that to this often linked list:
http://jscript.dk/unpatched/

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want IE to crash, it's fairly easy to do.

Just go post on ezboards for a few hours, it'll take no longer than 20 posts (tops) for it to come crashing down, in pre-2k windows it would regularly render the shell inoperatble also.

It's been the same since forever.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree OE is decent if you keep security patched (our ghost turns off alot of evil stuff and runs a script to re-turn it off on login), but the reason we don't use Outlook as our mail/cal solution here is when the server b0rks, it really b0rks. You don't just loose one user, you have the possibilty of loosing your entire database from a little bitrot, and thats a risk our admins aern't willing to take.

Granted GroupWise isn't a great client (honestly I'd rather use outlook myself), but it's alot safe job-wise

Re:My thoughts

[evilquaker]

On Linux, I'd choose Mozilla 1.0 without hesitation, clearly the best.

Except for Galeon, which is far better in three important aspects:

1. Middle-click opens tabs immediately to the right of the current tab
2. Block image from server actually tells you the name of the server you'd be blocking from... this way, you can get rid of the Doubleclick ads on Slashdot, but not completely b0rk the site by blocking ads from images.slashdot.org.
3. It's lighter and faster

About the only thing I miss is configurable mouse gestures and a Bookmark menu which doesn't scroll off the end of the screen...

Windows 2000, IE6 is the no-brainer.

Hmmm... I guess I don't have a brain then, because I use Mozilla on Win2k. Does IE have tabbed browsing, popup stopping and mouse gestures? Why the hell not? These are IMO must-have features for any serious web browsing (which I haven't had to do until lately at work...).

Re:My thoughts

[buhr]

Where's the reason not to use it, other than for those who hate MS?

There are several reasons, some of which you list, such as tabbed browsing, availability of skins, and a perception (right or wrong) that it is more secure. These things may not be important to you, but they may be important to others.

It's too bad your experience with the Password Manager was a bad one. I find it a useful feature. However, Mozilla shouldn't have saved a password without specifically asking you if you wanted to remember it. Perhaps you unthinkingly clicked "Yes" both times Mozilla asked you about it? In any event, it's easy to delete those passwords from the "Tools -> Password Manager -> Manage Stored Passwords" dialogue. You can shut off the feature entirely by unchecking "Remember passwords" under the "Privacy & Security -> Passwords" Preference.

I beg to differ...

[Jugalator]

Right now:

explorer.exe + iexplore.exe = 15,776 Kb
mozilla.exe = 14,908 Kb

You need to remember that Internet Explorer is nothing without its Explorer integration.

You can kill IE and keep the Windows Explorer, but not the opposite. Mozilla was designed to fit more than the Windows OS and therefore doesn't have as many dependiences on the Windows Explorer.

Btw, explorer.exe alone = 6,340 Kb right now. That's about 2 times, so not even when measuring with IE in favor, that facts isn't always right.

Finally note: I'm right now using 2 tabs in Mozilla and a *single* IE window, so I wasn't even favoring Mozilla...

Re:I beg to differ...

[swv3752]

A more apt comparison,
In a Mandrake 8.2 install, I compiled and installed Mozilla from src.rpm. (Source RPM)

I run wine 20020411 and IE 5.5.

Wine running by itself does not have a measureable footprint. With IE it takes up 27MB. Mozilla rendering the same page (msn.com) takes up 21MB. This is not entirely accurate, as i am just going by numbers in top, but it should offer a better comparison between the two.

Re:I beg to differ...

[Anonymous Coward]

INTERNET EXPLORER WORKS WITHOUT EXPLORER.EXE RUNNING, you fucking moron.

Jesus Fucking Christ. This site has more fucking idiots than AOL.

God.

IE compatibility is a must

[Nailer]

"The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"

Uh. Well. Duh.

Why is it so obvious that Mozilla wouldn't do a good job of displaying sites designed for IE? You'd think it was one of the primary goals for Moz. Otherwise, the only hope for a standards compliant web comes from Oepra and Konqueror.
Its pretty simple:

• Joe Average was gonna use Mozilla because he liked it, but it doesn't apparently want to show sites designed for IE
  
  
• So Joe Average will stick to using IE
  
  
• So Dave Web Developer can continue developing sites for IE, because that's what Joe average uses.
  
  

Re:IE compatibility is a must

[Anonymous Coward]

• AOL switches 35 million users to their new Gecko-based client.
  
  
• Dave Web Developer had damn well start writing standards-compliant code or have to explain to his boss why AOL users can't access the company's website.

Re:IE compatibility is a must

[King_TJ]

You'd be right, except even IE can't adhere to its own standards from version to version.
(Well, ok, in all fairness, perhaps they just tightened up the rules for some things that used to allow more sloppy HTML coding.) But still, with IE 6, I get lots of errors that don't happen with IE 5.x. That's not too cool.

Where do you draw the line for IE compatibility? 100% IE 6 compatible? Fine, but that means MS dictates all your required updates when they release IE 7 and modify things - or else you're "outdated and incompatible" again.

Instead, I say stick to all the rules of HTML and scripting that make good common sense, and conform to published standards. Beyond that, implement IE specific tags if it's a "no brainer" to do - but don't knock yourself out to be perfectly compatible.

I should clarify

[Schlemphfer]

I mostly use IE 5.1 on a Mac. And yes, I think the toolbar is gorgeous. However, the toolbar for IE on Windows XP is, in my opinion, only OK. If you read my post and were thinking about the Windows version, I could see how you would protest about it being called gorgeous. But it's still a lot nicer looking than the default Mozilla skin.

Here's a question...

[SCHecklerX]

Why do they still have the build ID in the title bar? Is there a way to remove that, short of recompiling myself?

Re:Here's a question...

[sconest]

You could try this

Re:Here's a question...

[Brad Wilson]

They point out very prominently that Mozilla is not intended to be delivered to end-users "as-is" and that they don't have any plans to market it to end users. It has two intended targets. First, developers; and second, distributors. That end users can and will download the binaries is irrelevant. They don't intend to court end users to Mozilla proper.

Re:bugs (nope)

[wikkid007]

I really wish people would think/look at source/search bugzilla before saying stuff like this.

Yes I really wish people would look at the source too... if anyone took a look at the source of the example URL for the bug you mention, they might realize that the list item tag was opened and then closed, before the content.

You can't blame the browser for incompetent web design. IE has always been more forgiving in regard to poorly formed html, but that's not necessarily a good thing -- it's just a thumbs up to writing sloppy html.

big disadvantages of mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

i am not going to use mozilla. well thanks for the 4 years wasted time into this project but mozilla is compareable to nautilus around 1 year ago. it sucks and is overhelmed with shit no one wants.

a) XUL for the developers a nice idea for the enduser its in no way integrateable e.g. you cant use native widgets so you cant compile it using KDE, QT, GTK, MOTIF natively.

b) i was using mozilla through galeon as frontend some while back in hope to get some faster alternative but the XUL crap cames through all the time and it pissed me off completely.

c) when compiling mozilla you cant do a make install as on 99.999999999% of other unix applications, you also need to cd into the mozilla directory (after manuall copying) and need to manually chown it.

d) using mozilla natively totally sucks, its slow, its interface doesnt react correctly, the shit within the prefs (e.g. checkboxes etc) whites out whenever i re-enter the preferences so you dont know what you have previously selected etc.

i am no friend of microsoft products but i must admit that if i ever have a need to install any windows system on my harddisk then i stay using IE since it feels integrated into the OS it uses the same widgetset, i can drag and drop things etc. the whole interaction is there.

i recommend that for the next step mozilla developers gonna separate the gecko from the rest of the mozilla crap to allow it to be installed as a standalone library (e.g. ./configure --prefix=/usr/local && make && make install) so serious projects like konqueror, galeon etc. can use it as REAL way of doing rendering.

Re:big disadvantages of mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

> i recommend that for the next step mozilla > developers gonna separate the gecko from the > rest of the mozilla crap to allow it to be > installed as a standalone library (e.g. > ./configure --prefix=/usr/local make install) so serious projects like > konqueror, galeon etc. can use it as REAL way > of doing rendering.

of course this shouldnt include the download of all the mozilla crap it should only include the rendering engine as its own library.

Now all we have to do...

[Bilbo]

Now all we have to do is start beating on people who write their pages in such a way that they only work "correctly" with IE. I've got a favorite hardware vendor who runs a great little store in town here. He's always had a useful Web site where I can look up things to compare prices before I drive over to the store. Great service and all that stuff. However, he recently changed the layout of his site so that it ONLY works under IE! I've tried it on Opera, and if you tell it to "lie" and identify itself as IE, then it sort-of renders correctly. Have to go in and tell them, "As a dedicated customer of yours, I really like your store, but it's really frustrating that I can no longer make any use of your Web page..."

Oh well.

BBC News review

[deepstephen]

There's also a review of Mozilla 1.0 on BBC News, and it's quite complementary about it.

This quote sums it up: "Mozilla is quick, stable, and virtually free of the default links to manufacturers' products that feature so prominently in commercial browsers."

Oh yes... and I'm using Mozilla 1.0 to post this, and it is very nice indeed. :-)

not as biased as you think?

[dumbArtMajor]

As a web designer who uses OS X, I have no allegiance to M$ at all, especially IE. But I didn't really think the article was that biased, to be honest. I don't know very much about Mozilla, and it broke down the feature set pretty nicely.

Granted, the comment about rendering differently than IE was just dumb, as anyone who knows anything about standards would tell you. And anyone with intelligence will see through his pandering News.com comment anyway.

But I'm not sure I'm seeing the "C-" grade. Could it be you're all just a little too close to it, like an artist having his painting criticized? I think it seemed like he liked it for a 1.0 release and he'd like to see some usability improvements so the general public could get down and dirty with it. Maybe it's not fair to compare it to IE6, but that's life. Anyone who's looking for a different browser or just open-minded will get the feeling that this is a viable alternative, and at least you don't have to pay for it like Opera, while getting similar features.

Bottom line: I downloaded it and I'll check it out.

Re:not as biased as you think?

[CaseStudy]

I think they got the "C-" from the 7/10 ranking and a failure to realize that 70% isn't synonymous with a C-, even if many teachers grade that way.

Re:not as biased as you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it got a 7/10 because IE got a 7/10, honestly if it got a higher ranking than IE 6 that would have looked especially bad, as a great majority of thier users are the 'tech-elite' high school type.

... and they have a very strange comment!

[Jugalator]

(regarding IE 6): "If you're a Netscape 6.1 fan, don't bother to switch."

Huh??

So, do this translate to the following scores then?

IE 6: 7 of 10.
Moz 0.9.3 / Netscape 6.1: 7 of 10.
Moz 1.0: (surprise!) 7 of 10.

Is that because the browser demands have increased somehow? I don't think so, since the web looks to be demanding more or less the same since IE 6 (or IE 5 for that matter...) was released. I have no other explanation for this than their reviewers either don't do in depth tests or are simply poor enough to not notice progress.

Re:... and they have a very strange comment!

[Ilgaz]

There is NO good reason for avarage user to switch from netscape 6.2.2 (YES, its the latest version, stupid "journalist") to Mozilla 1.0.

Its a risk too... I don't see it as a bug but, if he switches to Mozilla 1.0 , his prefs, bookmarks will be like a circus.

Mozilla, by no means is an end user product. Oh, if you make a end-user reviewer to review it, he would bitch about IRC client not logging onto MSN!!!!

Its said dozens of times.Its said on download page of mozilla too. I bet Mozilla developers reading those comments too, they will agree to me. Its not good to recommend an avarage end user to switch to Mozilla. First of all, there is no end user support and newbies need that support.

In a week or so, Netscape 7 will ship (maybe a bit later), they will have chance to upgrade to Netscape 7 from Netscape 6.2.2.

It must be corrected like "don't bother to switch" to "if you don't know how to create a new profile, DON'T SWITCH or you will see 160mb bookmarks file etc"

I wonder how they use such names "Journalist", "reviewer" shamessly but anyway, that comment is sent to the "journalist" calling him to review Mirc and saying its not logging onto ICQ... :-)

ie vs. mozilla

[arudloff]

not trying to support MS and their evil agenda or anything, but lets not get carried away with the standards argument. The fact is, IE renders a lot better than both netscape and mozilla. Hell, lets take away any and all arguments and look at subtle things -- like form buttons. Far superior in IE.

Re:ie vs. mozilla

[dpete4552]

IE vs. Mozilla? Yeah, lets look at the facts, shall we?

http://eq.hackersrealm.net/compair.php

Enough with the generalized comments like "my browser is better then your browser" or "your browser doesn't render pages as good as mine" etc... Show some URLs and straight up facts.

Re:ie vs. mozilla

[arudloff]

did you even read the original statement to begin with? I'm not talking about whats supported and what's not, I'm talking about what things make mozilla/netscape look somewhat "off" compared to the way they look in IE. Want some straight up facts? How about the example I've already given -- form buttons. They are cleaner in IE. Want another one? Style sheets -- mozilla doesn't seem to handle borders all to well on tags. mozilla has a LOT of promise. But right now, it's still just that. If I were still running linux, I'd undoubtedly be using it. But for now, I'm pretty comfortable with IE.

Re:ie vs. mozilla

[dpete4552]

Mozilla doesn't handle borders as well on tags? This coming from someone trying to defend a browser that isn't even fully CSS1 compliant?! rofl. Please give me an example of this, I've had no such issues.

Re:bugs (nope)

[Anonymous Coward]

Which was why I (yeah, spam address in there) had originally marked invalid - I thought it was such an extraordinarily stupid bug. Sort of like my complaining my links don't show up when rendered in a similar fashion.
But I guess given the original comment by WinDoze, there enough stupid people || stupid HTML composers to justify it being Evangelism.

This is not important

[athmanb]

There are two different kinds of people who might use Mozilla/Gecko.

First, the informed user who checks several browsers, decides opon their technical merits and chooses Mozilla because it's superior. They are usually well qualified to distinguish between a browser bug and a defunct HTML design.

Second, those who have it installed by default. They may curse at the browser because it doesn't render sites exactly like IE down to the pixel, but they don't have the ability to change the browser anyway.
And with the inclusion of Mozilla in AOL, the second group will be big enough anyway.

Re:Mozilla: useless for the intranet - IE only?

[WD]

Name a browser other than IE that supports NTLM authentication. I'm curious....

Pseudo-compatibility woes

[brsmith4]

People speak of incompatibilities with IE-specific sites and mozilla. I don't know about the rest of you, but would you mind giving me some sites that wont render correctly? I have failed to find any sites that do not render adaquately (by adaquately, I mean sites that get the job done... i.e. microsoft.com, when viewed in Mozilla, doesn't show those drop-down menus, yet it doesn't hinder my ability to traverse the site and find what I am looking for. The same applies to nvidia's site.) Since most of the sites that I encounter use PHP, as any good site should, I never have any problems. Because of this, I feel that negative judgement on mozilla, based on the fact that some reviewer visits totally obscure pages that idiots wrote to save time, is simply unwarrented and misguided. This judgement should not be passed on Mozilla nor on Microsoft or IE. It should be passed on the 'developers' who write code that is browser-specific, non-standards compliant, and to be simply put, garbage.

Re:Pseudo-compatibility woes

[ealar dlanvuli]

dlink.com *used* to have one page that positioning didn't allow the text to be read on. They seem to have redone the site in the past month or so though.

Other than that, I have not seen a single one.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Macintosh does have IE binaries, but since Microsoft fired the IE development team for Mac (who were actually doing a damn fine job), IE for Mac will rapidly fall out of date.

hmmm

[CaptTrips]

I think the paragraph "Good but no IE killer" pretty much sums up how much clout Microsoft has over C|Net. Let face it, Microsoft is one of C|Net biggest advertising spenders.

Can I also mention Bookmarklets?

[Eightlines]

Bookmarklets are also really cool. Essentially they are scripts that you write and can store in the form of a bookmark. Check out this site for details: here

I'm currently using Uptime, Whois, Zoom In/Out, Sort functions, and more all through my Bookmarklets. Terribly useful.

But reading the CNet articles reminds me of why I stopped visiting the site. I don't find it biased, more misinformed. I wish they had done more research prior to posting.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and yes, MacOS X is the dominant unix, by virtue of almost completely replacing an existing hardware/software platform by fiat. Not that I am at all opposed to this. More unix is good in my opinion, more platforms that my favourite GNU utilities will run on, even better.

(another reason I like Cygwin)

its not

[Anonymous Coward]

GALEON IS NO WEBBROWSER

i am reading a lot of shit in replies from clueless people that say things like 'if you dont like mozilla use galeon' GALEON is a fucking frontend to mozilla using the libgtkembedmoz library. it still depends on mozilla and depends on gnome with its libraries at the end its more bloat you get.

Microsoft Compressed Folders

[yerricde]

The problem is actually Windows, in that most versions do not know what a zip file is. I think that only recently there is unzip software included in Windows and tied to explorer.

This software, included in Windows ME and Windows XP, is called "Compressed Folders". It provides functions nearly identical to those of WinZip and WinRAR.

That makes the self-extracting zipfile offer no more functionality over a conventional zip file.

Unlike a vanilla compressed folder (.tar.gz, .zip, .rar, etc), a self-extracting archive (.exe, .rpm, .deb, etc) can automatically run the extracted setup.exe application that copies the components where they go and registers them with the operating system.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Phroggy]

For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.

The browser is absolutely useless too, because all Windows business users use Internet Explorer.

Uhhhh....

Seriously, if you don't need the mail client, that's why you have the option of not installing it. I, however, enjoy having a cross-platform client that works the same way on every system I use it on - something that Microsoft will never give me (they have trouble getting software to work the same way on one platform, let alone four).

...ever since Netscape shat out that awful 4.x source code so many years ago.

Yep, that's why the Mozilla team threw it away and started over.

Kindly crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[tono]

Had you known anything at all about the mozilla development cycle you would know that there has never been a .1-.5. the first point release was .6 which Netscape 6 was based on. Fruity troll.

Copycat browser

[kemikalzen]

I first saw Mozilla 1.0 today, seems like they stole (some of) the good features from Opera. Attaching G to google bookmark with %s input is Opera-style. Tabs is Opera. Mousegestures is Opera.

Re:Copycat browser

[kemikalzen]

I forgot to mention pop-up blocker and IM-functionality. Don't know if you can turn on/off javascript/browsers/navigatorID with a shortcut (that would be nice).

Re:Copycat browser

[kemikalzen]

oh yeah, zooming too :)

If there are any more features, please tell me.

Re:Copycat browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Except javascript pop-up control is more fine-grained - not that there's anything wrong with copying.

Re:Copycat browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mozilla does not zoom in the way Opera did last time I used it, by simply scaling up every pixel, a cheap solution, and quite annoying at times.
Mozilla just increases font size easily, which is much more useful.
(I have mine bound to shift+mousewheel)

Again, nothing wrong with copying. Mozilla has Opera's features, and quite a few Opera doesn't have... Opera should try grabbing some Mozilla code for CSS standards.

One more Mozilla problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla renders pages very slowly when attempting to connect to a server that's been slashdotted. ;-)

THAT

[thumperward]

is a brilliant suggestion.

Hell, it's working for XP: XP compatibility mode is for things which don't want to run on NT, but sooner or later anyone programming Win32 apps is going to write from an XP-compatible point of view, and label it as a feature of their product.

- Chris

Re:Too complicated?

[gilmae]

That was the very first thing i noticed when reading the review. What an odd thing to say. You install it, you run it. Works just like IE that way.

W3C Standards too complex?

[Cardhore]

I think part of the reason why it takes so much effore to write a (complete) browser is that there are so many W3C standards and they are so complicated. I mean, they are great for the end user to write pages in because it's really easy (if your browser supports them, of course), but even CSS2 is pages upon pages, nobody fully supports it yet, and it's four years old! Perhaps these standards are just too much? Even "simple" HTML is bizarre and overly complex by having things like headers and paragraphs that you can do in DIV's with CSS now. XHTML replaces it, but they leave in all the HTML stuff for compatibility. Of course, my favorite is that XML is an ugly re-invention of LISP s-expressions. I.e., you could write <HTML body="whtie">etc etc</HTML> or in an S-expression it would be: (HTML (@BODY whtie) etc etc), consume less space, and be easier to parse as well.

That's just for static pages...don't get me started on javascript (version incompatibilites), document object models, java, visual basic scripts...

Re:W3C Standards too complex?

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm. How does your S-expression consume less space?

(HTML (@BODY "white") )
Yes, closing tags is less convenient then just closing braces, but at least XML is a little more forgiving of failure to nest properly then a ) would be, verifying by eye is a pain in the ass too, as well as properly quoting for everything outside the tag (which is now inside the expression)

The reason for being "outside" a tag is simple, to emphasize the separation between content and markup.

As for the CSS2 spec, I would imagine that is mostly inertia. I've read large portions of the spec by now, and it is fairly clear, and most bits quite useful.
Granted, some portions of DOM go a bit overboard, but heck, nothing wrong with implementing them.

Re:W3C Standards too complex?

[Anonymous Coward]

damn. I thought plain text parsing automatically escaped HTML. Guess it strips it instead.
Well, whatever, the point is the only savings is the ending tag, which is useful for clarity.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

>>"So recompile it. That's what open source is for."

Nonsense. Why would the mere act of recompilation change anything? I suppose, though, you may have meant to say "rewrite the code to your liking, and then recompile it." As best as I can recall, however, writing code is hard, writing good code is really hard, and re-writing someone else's code to make something work better is really, really hard. This Stallman-esque expectation that the free availablity of source code will, somehow, make all things better is destined to be the single factor that confines open source to a cult following whose members are more interested in "building" than in "using".

No one can expect open source to compete with Microsodt or other commercial vendors until someone figures out how developers with professional skilss can earn a living from writing code that someone else will give away.

The true web browser.

[Steveftoth]

if a page isn't viewable on a text terminal, then it isn't a real web page, QED.

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[mrbrown8]

And Gecko violates Windows user interface conventions,

Not all GUI conventions that Microsoft put in place makes sense.

Check out the many entries in the Interface Hall of Shame that include Microsoft.

If it makes it easier to use, I'm all for it.

You are too negative.

[Steveftoth]

Which popular web pages are 'unviewable' with mozilla? Almost none that I see.
BTW, popular like the portal sites, newspaper sites, stores ,etc.

Opera has lots of missing standards support

[starvingartist12]

While everything seems to render perfectly in Opera (which probably has one of the best CSS rendering engines out there), the underlying DOM1/2 support is really bad.

No wonder Opera is "so fast"... it's missing even the most basic Document Object Model (DOM) support.

This means standard compliant ways of altering different elements on the page don't work at all. And I'm not talking about Layer tags or other proprietary MS solutions... I'm talking pure, standards as posted by the w3c.

Things like changing display attributes (to make things visible and invisible... great for expanding/collapsing bars) dynamically doesn't work in Opera, when the same exact standards compliant code works in Mozilla, IE:Mac 5 and even version 5 of Internet Explorer for Windows.

Sure, as a web developer, I could make a workaround for Opera users... but that's no different than putting proprietary MS IE code.

Opera seems to look great on the outside, but the underlying engine is flawed. No wonder it can claim to be so fast and so small... when several-year-old standards support is still missing.

And the worst part is that people that use Opera don't even realize this.

Re:Opera has lots of missing standards support

[Anonymous Coward]

I could really give a fuck less about gradients
and bars. Oh grow up.

Re:Opera has lots of missing standards support

[hkmwbz]

Hmm, apparently the Opera 7 core includes full DOM2 support, and is actually faster than Opera 6. Go figure.

Missing certain parts of DOM does mean that this is the reason why it's faster. You have no basis for this, especially since you haven't even tested Opera with the new DOM support. You should stop making flawed assumptions based on, well, ignorance.

And yes, workaround for Opera is certainly different from using proprietary code. Why? Because Opera doesn't introduce its own proprietary extensions, but is strictly standards compliant.

Opera's underlying engine is fast and gives user superior control of their browser. How you can call this "flawed" is beyond me. Although I guess many web designers hate it when people can control their own browsing experience. Oh well. I guess you would love support for disabling right-click too, eh? :)

Re:Opera has lots of missing standards support

[hkmwbz]

By the way, where is the "lots of missing standards support"? You have mtnioned that it doesn't support all of DOM. What makes that "lots of missing standards support"? I can only count a half. One if I am extremely generous, although it would be incorrect, as it does support a subset of DOM.

Uhm...

[TheSHAD0W]

I just tried to install Mozilla 1.0 on a virgin XP Pro box, and when I try to make it the default browser, Mozilla freezes. Does anyone have any suggestions? Would it help if I uninstalled, put in an earlier RC and then upgraded?

Mozilla is a development tool.

[Steveftoth]

The browser is the best tool you can have for developing a web application.

It's got a debugger for script, and the DOM inspector lets you add/remove/edit any element you see on the screen in realtime to get the proper look.

I don't know what more you could want.

Mozilla is like syrup, and _still_ shoddy

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla is still a browser that I won't use. And here is my primary reason for *not* using it:

I hate XUL. It's a bit like syrup; it looks sweet but it's slow compared to Windows' native UI -- and most importantly -- it doesn't feel, or behave, in the same way. (It feels... well; "amateurish" is a word that springs to mind.) Call me crazy, but I expect applications in Windows to feel and behave like... Windows applications? Not like friggin' syrup.

For example, I sometimes edit the URL in the address bar. (You know... selecting only a part of the URL, and replacing it with something else.) You have to click once in the address bar to get rid of the selected text in Mozilla. I don't have to do this in Opera or Internet Exploder. Sure, it's a small difference, barely noticeable to some, but this, combined with all of the other small departures from how GUI's should work in Windows are annoying the hell out of me.

Also, Mozilla assumes I want to use the same SMTP-server for all e-mail accounts in one profile. Who the hell came up with that *idiotic* idea?! I've tried adding a second SMTP-server using the "Advanced Outgoing Server (SMTP) Settings"-dialog. Doesn't work.

Yep, nothing has changed. It's _still_ an overall shoddy browser, IMO.

Re:Mozilla is like syrup, and _still_ shoddy

[Anonymous Coward]

i fully agree to you. XUL is the worst shit ive ever seen. no interaction with your environment etc. you cant even cut&paste some shit into the url or to some other places.

i would have no problem if mozilla would drop xul and use native widgets.

Comparison Chart

[dpete4552]

http://eq.hackersrealm.net/compair.php

Re:Comparison Chart

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla does allow URL based javascript filtering.
Just has to be set up in prefs.js

What the heck's a media bar? I imagine its purpose might require the creation of yet another sidebar tab.

Re:Comparison Chart

[dpete4552]

The Media Bar is the thing that pops up on the side (just like the Mozilla sidebar) and plays media (such as WMA files) in that little sidebar like thing automatically. I personally don't care for it. But if I'm going to mention the sidebar, I should mention the Media Bar.

opera has had this for awhile, too

[ChristTrekker]

Group some bookmarks into a folder. From the bookmarks menu, select "open all folder items" and voilà! Nice when combined with the ability to give nicknames to bookmarks and folders. Hotkey, start typing the nickname, and as soon as you have typed enough to be unambiguous it opens.

Heres a better review

[tk422]

From Eweek:

Mozilla Impresses From All Angles

Go Mozilla go

amen.

[Anonymous Coward]

i am disappointed is this all ?

IE memory usage isn't hidden that way

[ZeekWatson]

Yes... Do you know why??? Because most of IE is integrated into the explorer UI. Most of the bulk of Internet Explorer lies there

IE will run fine without the explorer.exe shell running dumbass. Lower memory usage and faster performance comes from moving certain functions/objects right into the Win32 API.

Mozilla is basically an OS running on top of an OS. It has its own native widget set, its own Cross-platform Component Object Model (XPCOM), god knows what else (check the source) and people wonder why it is dog slow?

Mozilla is FATware. That is what you get for re-inventing the wheel.

I use it for my email :)

Re:IE memory usage isn't hidden that way

[moogla]

Mozilla is basically an OS running on top of an OS
&nbsp At least it's smaller than EMACS... /me ducks

Re:IE memory usage isn't hidden that way

[brsmith4]

dumbass

1st) grow up. learn to tell people they may be wrong in a better way.
2nd) Why does Mozilla have its own native widget set??? It helps it to become more cross-platform compatible. If it had to conform to the native widget sets of all the OSes it supports, it wouldn't be as easy to port to other platforms. It also would have taken 8 yrs to reach 1.0 instead of 4.

Gecko layout engine handled it fine.

[starvingartist12]

IIRC, I thought the Gecko layout engine was fairly good several years back already and people were already using the source for their own web browser projects.

If the goal of the Mozilla org was to solely create a browser, I think they would have finished a lot faster. However, that was not the goal, and a lot of the time and effort was spent turning Mozilla into a viable development platform.

facts

[Anonymous Coward]

gecko owns, xul sucks, mozilla sucks

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Miguelito]

The UNIX and Unix-workalike browser market is essentially non-existant, and I can tell you that those of us who use UNIX for real work (as opposed to pirating MP3s and DVDs and other Taco-esque activities) would have appreciated a fast, standards-compliant browser with the Navigator 4.08 GUI and featureset much more than we appreciate the slow, RAM hog piece of unprofessional garbage that Mozilla has taken way too long to produce.

Funny, I use a unix box (linux and solaris) to "do real work" and I find mozilla to be a damn fine browser. I've been using it since the first public release days (.7.x?) when I had to compile it myself to use it under solaris. Even then, when it had far less features and wasn't super stable, I preferred to to IE.

Mozilla has also lost on the UNIX platform. Internet Explorer is faster and more standards compliant. Ironically, it's also a much better UNIX application. By the way, did you know that Microsoft includes CDE icons with the IE/UNIX distribution? That's class.

Bwah ha ha! IE under Solaris is one of the most unstable apps I've ever seen under solaris. It's one of the few apps that can be counted on to take down an X session or just hang the whole session. We had several people trying it under several different solaris versions (from 2.5.1 from way back in the day to 8 these days) and everyone that tries it hates it!

Better unix app? My ass! Sure, and NT is a better unix than unix.

Fuck you all.

Thanks but no thanks.

Here's a rant...

[zurab]

Mozilla is a great browser and an excellent tool for developers as well as casual users. Regardless, the notes on Mozilla site state that the browser is intended for developers primarily.

If this is the case then "Save Page As..." dialog default should save the page source exactly as supplied into the specified file. Mozilla, on the other hand and by default, saves the complete page *as viewed* with its images and creating directories on HD, and also performing Javascript calculations; basically ala IE. Maybe it would be OK if this was a default in NS, but for a browser targeted to developers source should be the default save page as functionality.

Re:Here's a rant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Javascript calculations, you mean retrieving dependant libraries?
The only thing you're missing from the source in this case is the true location of on-server URLs.
And yes, this behaviour can be disabled.
The benefits are much larger than the negatives, so it makes sense to have it enabled.
Blessing for me when stripping a site down for test cases.

A "C-" !?! Hell musta froze over!!!

[Mulletproof]

"Strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-"..."

Did this guy even read the entire story he was submitting on? Lets review.

"Mozilla 1.0 doesn't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does"
"But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page"
"Unfortunately, IRC client apps aren't very user friendly, and the same goes for Chatzilla"
"Chatzilla doesn't offer much help, either"
"instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted."

...Not to mention it placed first in only one of the XP Pro tests (mixed text and graphics)

I'm not a huge fan of IE, but it's the standard at this point in time. According to the author's of the review, it just doesn't do enough to topple the standard or convince people to defect from everybodies favorite comapany in droves. maybe the C- rating was a little hard, but surely not as inconcievable as this obvious Mozilla fanboy thinks.

Mozilla 1.0 != Netscape 4 or 6

[UncleOlethros]

Now I haven't used Mozilla 1.0 extensively yet, what with it just having come out, but I can tell you that Netscape 6 and espically 4 have problems of just rendering HTML WRONG.

Yep. They sure do--Netscape 4 and 6 had serious problems with standards compliance.

Happily, Mozilla 1.0 != Netscape 4 or 6. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how compliant Mozilla is with current standards.

Specify Bookmark Icon Location?

[Anonymous Coward]

In IE you can specify in the properties of each bookmark where the icon is for that page, I have my favourite sites icons stored on my computer, for faster loading times, and they are always visible even when offline.

Is there anyway to do this in Mozilla? I can't seem to find a way to do it. Also, bookmarks are sorted alphabetically, but can it be made so that all folders are listed alphabetically, then all files underneath them (IE Style :/).

Also, is there anyway to stop the poppup message "A connection was refused when trying to access ", you have to click ok all the time. :/

Can "Home" be put with the other icons: Back, Foward, Stop and Reload? Can't seem to do that either.

Other than that though... its great :P

Re:Specify Bookmark Icon Location?

[Codifex Maximus]

Sounds like a request to be put on Bugzilla don't it?

Oh yeah... =)

[Balinares]

Oh, and sometimes when I look in the task manager under windows after completely thinking I closed mozilla, I'll still see mozilla.exe running, and have to kill it from the process manager in windows 2000.

It is truely an annoyance. I suggest you do the same with explorer.exe. :)

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the general well-being of this discussion board, please, take a shower!

Welcome to the world of Software Libre

[Kiwi]

Given that there is and has been PLENTY of information on the NTLM-over-HTTP authentication process, it is inexcusable for a 1.0 browser to not have support for this protocol.

You seem to be rather ignorant of how software libre works. The way proprietary software works is that new features are added when enough people complain that the feature is not added.

The way software libre works is that a new feature is added when someone submits a patch which implements the feature in question.

If this particular feature is important to you, please start coding. You have already found the documentation which describes how this particular authentication works. That is a good start.

Now, if you have a patch which implements this feature and the Mozilla development team isn't taking the patch, that is a different story.

And, oh. Is there any particular reason you are not directly nor indirectly sharing your real name with us? When people start using anonymous IDs like "gblues", instead of their real names, that makes me thank that such people are engaging in actions which they are not accountable for.

- Sam

Re:Welcome to the world of Software Libre

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiwi? Is that you?

IE: useless for the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to IE's security problems, it sounds like these two browsers are perfectly complimentary.

Doesn't render exploerer pages..

[person-0.9a]

> Specifically building sites for IE is
> a shortcoming on the developer side.

I'm glad to see this. I've often thought browser specific pages are a reflection of the developers inability to create a robust web interface.

It seems to me that if a tester encountered a page that was built exclusively for the wrong product, you'd remove that page from the test.

This testing methodology might prove interesting in the future, however. We may very well see a complaint from C-Net after they attempt to install Microsoft Office from the command line on FreeBSD:

"Attempting to execute the SETUP.EXE on FreeBSD completely fails, making the install far too difficult for the average user. Why is this important? Lots of user have starting using UNIX on their desktop..."

Re: RBG sub-pixel Anti-Aliasing in X Window System

[dhart]

I'm using Mozilla with Debian Linux, XFree86 4.1, FreeType, gdkxft, and a 1024x768 digital LCD (laptop).

Font smoothing is done at a resolution of 3072x768 making The X Windows System a better platform than most Macs for web browsing. Granted the font smoothing algorithm in OSX is better, but FreeType+gdkxft provides 3x the number of pixels to work with!

Konqueror can use Mozilla

[tkdack]

But if you want to you can use the Mozilla rendering engine in Konqueror.

They forgot to mention price + portability

[Anonymous Coward]

IE is not for free, its price is hidden in what you pay for the OS.
And Mozilla runs on much more platforms...

Re:They forgot to mention price + portability

[Anonymous Coward]

mozilla aint free too. its the leechingtime, the time compiling it and the ram i need to buy because of its bloddyness.

Re:They forgot to mention price + portability

[ealar dlanvuli]

haha

/me opens the paper tomorow morning and sees the frontpage headline "AOL/TW switching to the hardware buisness"

Re:A "C-" !?! Hell musta froze over!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

um wtf, only the biassed comment "Mozilla 1.0 dosen't do much more for the average Web surfer than Internet Explorer does" is a valid statment in all of the above, and it's fairly easy to rebute.

Idoit (or troll, you decide)

"The bad" ?!?!?

[gnovos]

For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.

It's tantamount to saying, "For one thing, Mozilla doesn't use a big 'e' for it's icon."

If a site is designed to reder only IE, and other browers don't render, this shouldn't come as a big shock to anyone....

Re:Too complicated?

[archen]

Is there anything to back this up?

In other words it isn't integrated into your operating system with an icon right on your desktop, and associated with everything by default. You have to do complicated stuff like "downloading it" and "installing it". Scary world without Microsoft. Hell we'd have to do all that for ourselves ya know? *shiver*

C|Net: Click the close-box!

[alacqua]

C|Net: In IE, those ads temporarily hide part of the page, then go away. But in our Mozilla tests, the ads sometimes permanently blocked part of the page, and we had to reload the page until we got a different, regular, nonpositioning ad.

I'm not flaming mad over this review like some others, but this seems silly. Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be much easier to simply click the close-box and close the ads instead of reloading the page over and over again? In fact, many of the ads don't go away in IE but pop behind the main page. In those cases I prefer that the ads stay on top so I can click them closed that much easier.

I just disable "move or resize existing windows" and "raise or lower windows" in Mozilla and I've been happy. I'm afraid to disable some of the other stuff because I suspect that some legit sites use some of the features.

Re:C|Net: Click the close-box!

[ealar dlanvuli]

I especially loved how they said File>Quit exiting the program was not the behavior they expected. It's like they have never used anything but IE (which annoyingly forgot to add File>Quit, instead opting only to include File>Close) [how much of that is because IE processes are half in kernel space?]

Re:C|Net: Click the close-box!

[kubrick]

Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be much easier to simply click the close-box and close the ads instead of reloading the page over and over again?

Maybe they're like some of the /. ads that I get in flat mode, next to the story when you click through to read the comments: these use CSS positioning to overlay parts of the body text. Very annoying when you can't click 'Reply' or 'Change' in the comment toolbar because there's an ad in the way.

By 'unable to render properly' they meant..

[ealar dlanvuli]

That IE displayed garbage or a blank page?

Why don't you try the web-standards compliant links from http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/demos.html in IE 6, it's rather amusing. My boss and I just had fun making cracks at the poor nurses and doctors that have to use IE.

Answer: It's not.

[Danse]

How is that for Embrace & Extend (TM)?

They are simply doing the embracing part. They aren't extending them in proprietary ways, which is what Microsoft is faulted for.

To clarify CNET's rating system

[sharaht]

As a CNET editor, I'd like to clarify a couple of points about our Mozilla review. First: The CNET rating system bears little resemblance to the one you remember from school. We set the average at 5 and go from there. Hence, a 7 is actually quite a good score. Hardly any product gets a perfect 10--even 9s are uncommon. Second: Remember that both Netsape 6.x and IE 6.0 also scored 7s. As far as we're concerned, all the browsers are tied, each with different strengths and weaknesses. The next versions may or may not determine a true winner. Hope this clears things up.

Re:To clarify CNET's rating system

[ealar dlanvuli]

Get a better reviewer for the next version

Leaving things like "File>Quit exited the application" (which is exactly the desired behavior) in the review is *not* something to do if you don't want to look like your digging for things to screw it on.

I used Mozilla constantly last night

[XO]

And crashed it well over 60 times.
I've been using Mozilla 1.0rc1-3 for as long as they've been out.. and two days ago, I decided to make 1.0rc3 my default browser in Windows, along with using it almost exclusively in Linux.

rc3 was really good, albeit a bit slower than 1.0. 1.0 crashes ALL the DAMN time. COnstantly. My most common "crash report" has been "sitting there doing nothing". It's nuts.

Though it is a ton faster than 1.0rc1-3 were.
That's not very good though. IT CRASHES ALL THE DAMN TIME. And it still takes freaking FOREVER to start on computer w/ sub 256MB ram

Re:I used Mozilla constantly last night

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have kazaa installed?

99% of said problems can be traced back to that type of program.

Problems using Mozilla over a modem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been pretty eager to see Mozilla, and now that it's out, everyone sees how great its features are.

Maybe someone knows the solution to the one big problem that I have with it on Linux. When Mozilla starts up with no dialup connection, of course it cannot connect to any hosts. Then when I dial up, it still reports it is unable to make any connections. Playing with the off-line/on-line button does no good. The only fix is to quit and restart while on-line. Any solution to this?

Correction of reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsforge review
----------------

The "delay" is the IPv6 lookup. Since IPv6 is not supported on Windows, Mozilla on Windows appears faster. Personally, I applaud the fact that they are supporting IPv6 deployment: someone has to. A fix for the delay would be concurrent resolver requests. Most resolver libraries can't support this; we probably need to go to RFC on a new API.

Pipelining is supported in Opera, which was the first browser to do that (If you work at a proxy cache company, you know these things).

Built-in chat is a bad thing. If you are using Yahoo chat, MSN chat, or AOL chat, I can own your machine, 5 minutes after you start chatting.

CNET review
-----------

Same comment on speed vs. IPv6, here. It looks like these guys aren't capable of running tcpdump. 8-(.

The "it's not enough like IE, boo hoo!" argument is pretty lame.

works awsome

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best build I have used so far....They must have been hauling ass in the bug fixing department.

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[mooman]

Actually, I've been using an approach similar to this all along: Bookmarklets!

My toolbar is pretty much nothing but bookmarklets now. One for Google, one for Google groups, one for AltaVista, one for Yahoo Maps, etc. It's a clever use of JavasScript in bookmarks. Since the dialog boxes they popup are client side (since it's just JS), I save a roundtrip to each of the websites. In other words, I can actually execute my Google search without ever waiting for the main Google page to download and render. I'm submitting my query directly to the cgi...

If you're even moderately handy with JavaScript it's very easy to enhance the existing ones or write your own. There's a whole set of them targetted at web developers that let you do lots of handy features like computing color codes, changing browser dimensions, and so on.

I haven't tried out the keyword function you're describing, but given the bookmarklets I'm using, it doesn't sound like they do anything I can't already do...

Re:IE does a better job in some aspects of securit

[Anonymous Coward]

If you start up the browser using RC1 it shows you a big page with "This version has a security hole"

I'm prety sure most people know, I'm actually very impressed they did that (hopefully w/o violating anyones privacy). Knowing mozilla they do it by asking for a page and passing the version number in the request, and nothing else.. Now only if Real would opensource.. ^.^

Re: pop-ups

[wideangle]

Speaking of pop-ups, from the NewsForge article -- "It'd be even greater if it worked all the time -- the popups at some sites still keep popping -- nytimes.com, for example."

Can anyone reproduce this? I tried several pages on nytimes.com and nothing popped up for me.

I will switch from Opera...

[ljaguar]

when there is mouse gesture in Mozilla. Everytime I go on any other computer, I use the mouse gestures and am frustrated because it doesn't work. Crips, I sometimes even try mouse gestures on Explorer.exe.

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[mike_sucks]

You want Optimoz. It adds mouse gestures to Mozilla.

/mike

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[ljaguar]

And the gestures closely resemble those of Opera as well. But I will have you know, sir, Opera's mouse gestures are much more feature rich. I know now that Mozilla has mouse gestures, and I knew mozilla had tabbed browsing. However, Opera had both for long time now, and those two gems just integrate a lot better in Opera.

I never have to right click a link to do anything useful. I can switch from window to another. I can go back and forward. I never have to deviate my mouse more than two inches from where it was to do anything. And I do these with even less wrist movement than I would in Mozilla.

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[mike_sucks]

Well, if that's the case, stick to Opera, then.

I would like to point out a semantic difference, however. Opera had an *MDI* before Mozilla had tabs, but Opera didn't have tabs until after Moz first implemented them. Big difference.

Anyway, I must be diametrically opposed to you - I hate using a mouse and avoid it whenever I can. I find I operate a computer much faster that way.

/mike

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[Ilgaz]

If you have maximized windows in opera, you would see tabs too...

Funny is remembering the people bitching about MDI while they love those stuff in NS 7,Mozilla 1 now.

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[juhaz]

Oh, they would bitch about it in moz too, if it could not be used without MDI at all. When you WANT tabs, they are good, but when browser forces to use them all the time they suck.

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[ChristTrekker]

You do know there are key-shortcuts in Opera for just about everything, right?

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[Ilgaz]

Yep I agree to that, but Opera (you should see the first version at '94 or '95, bleh) started that way...

Now they implemented SDI too... I was feeling "imprisoned" in MDI, now I figured (when I have chance to switch to SDI) it's better to be MDI :-)

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[juhaz]

I think combination of both is best.

So you can, for example, keep slashdot in one window, and stories/comments in tabs, and totally unrelated websites in different windows, and things like that, unclutters the window list and keeps things bit more "organized".

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[mike_sucks]

Yep, I wasn't dissing Opera's kbd navigation.. I was just saying that I prefer avoiding using the mouse whenever possible.. there is bugger all I need the mouse for in Moz as well, BTW.

/mike

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[mike_sucks]

The difference being, of course, that a MDI is always there, always taking up screen real-estate, which sucks.

Moz's tabs are prefect because when I do use them, it's for collating related pages together which I can easily flip through (./ articles, Google search results, Javadoc, etc). But when I'm not using them, the tabs are not there, not wasing screen space. Wonderful!

/mike

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[ljaguar]

I use slackware. I use windowmaker. Needlessly, I spend alot of time on bash. I find that it's faster most of the times. I don't have to scroll through the window to find what I want, I know the name of the file. Combined with name completion, it's good, to say the least.

But, in webbrowsing, you don't need a keyboard at all. In Opera, I never need keyboard. Of course, other browsers don't need keyboard either. But the difference is, I can do it amazingly fast, with style. (Not to mention, Opera has very thorough keyboard navigation scheme; it's one of those things they advirtise!) I never have to move my mouse down to the tabs, I can do that with the mouse/wheel. (It's like alt-tab for mouse!) With linux, I never have to even reach for CTRL-C or CTRL-V!

You might say that keyboard navigation is fast. You might say (in windows) right-clicking and going through menu to click "copy" is bad.
Others might say that mouse is easier to use. The mouse is certainly more comfortable, as you can lean back, have a cup of coffee in one hand and mouse in the other.

With Opera mouse gestures, it's as fast as anything you can do in keyboard. I dare you to come up with an example where keyboard is needed. (Aside from filling out forms.)

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[mike_sucks]

"I dare you to come up with an example where keyboard is needed"

Typing in a URL? It's something I tend to do a lot. As well as fill in forms a lot. Just my typical useage pattern, I guess. But there's also interacting beyond your web browser, when you are still using it. For example, as a Java programmer, I'm alwyas using Javadoc (if you're not familiar with it, Javadoc is massively useful, HTML-based, API documentation). Here, keyboard navigation is essential when switching between the emacs and the browser to refer to the docs, then switching back to hammer some more code out. Decent keyboard nav makes this process much, much faster.

/mike.

Re:I will switch from Opera...

[ljaguar]

" Decent keyboard nav makes this process much, much faster."
Well, like I mentioned, Opera touts its keyboard navigation.

"Typing in a URL?"
That's why I have the most frequently visited sites on the bookmark bar. And for frontpages like slashdot and lwn are loaded by default. My default window files open lwn and slashdot on background and a blank page on foreground. You would admit, clicking a button is faster than typing an address at any rate. I also don't remember last time I typed in a URL. (On my linux box anyways)

One of cool things on Linux is that whatever you highlight is copied into clipboard, and in conjunture with a neat feature in Opera/Linux, if you press the middle button, you go to the site specified by the clipboard.

For example, I used to be irritated when people gives me the URL without making it a link. One would have to copy the URL, make a new window and paste it in, and press "enter". With Opera, I highlight, move mouse down (pressing the right button, (making a new window)), and press the middle button. Takes me less than a second.

They ought to be...

[s2r]

I'm sure those guys at C-net use IE crap.

Re:Too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know what the reviewer was talking about.

You see, in IE, the stop button is a stop sign shape with an "x" which is easily recognized to mean stop, while in mozilla they use a red stoplight. However, since stoplights can be used to mean "Go" and "Speed up before the light turns red" as well as "stop" it is much more complicated than the IE method.

I was obviosly just kidding there but I have to imagine that the IE "stop sign" is better than the red light for color blind users, not that it matters with the word STOP written under the icon.

-Greg

It's so slow

[Kanasta]

I normally have NS4 and IE5 on my AthXP1700 system. Both work fine. NS4 is faster than IE5 in normal cases, but sometimes it decides to 'think' about a webpage (maybe with crappy JS?) for a few minutes before letting me get back to work.

I didn't like IE5 because I can't ctrl-tab across pages.

Now we have Mozilla, and on MY system, it's slower than both. Maybe I'm used to things happening immediately when I click a button. Moz just seems to 'think' about every action a while first.

Plus it loses the ctrl-tab ability, not to mention all the other usability issues that kept me with NS4 rather than to use IE5.

So, I guess in this age of eye-candy, Mozilla is king ("ooh look-skins!"). Anyone with wrist pain can get stuffed eh?

Back to NS4 and waiting for Mozilla 2.

Re:It's so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

NS4 dosen't do lots of tables efficently, thats the major 'lag creator' in my experience. For changing tabs just use ctrl+pg_up, it's no more difficult than ctrl+tab (except you have to relearn it =/)

Re:It's so slow

[ainsoph]

Moz just seems to 'think' about every action a while first.


umm.. computers don't think. People do.

So, I guess in this age of eye-candy, Mozilla is king ("ooh look-skins!").

There's a lot more going on there than pretty skins bro, ever hear of web standards? Didn't think so. Here's a couple of hints for ya.

w3.org

webstandards browser upgrade

Webstandards

While yer at it, you may wanna validate some of those pages you surf in NS4.

Did you know what people have been writing webpages with CSS for the past few years?

Back to NS4 and waiting for Mozilla 2.

Thats it, I am finally using some DOM sniff code and routing all the 4.0 browser people to AOL, where they belong.

save link TARGET as... barf

[red_crayon]

"save link as"

has become

"save link target as"

barf. this is IE-speak

Re:save link TARGET as... barf

[jonasj]

"save link as"

has become

"save link target as"

Well, duh. *Of course* it has, since that is what this feature *does*! It doesn't save the link; that would mean saving the URL, not the document. Rather, Save Link Target As saves the *target* of the link. Just like the Send Link feature in the File menu sends the URL of the current page while Send Page sends the page itself.

Re:save link TARGET as... barf

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh. *Of course* it has, since that is what this feature *does*! It doesn't save the link; that would mean saving the URL, not the document. Rather, Save Link Target As saves the *target* of the link. Just like the Send Link feature in the File menu sends the URL of the current page while Send Page sends the page itself.

Don't you think you're being just a wee bit pedantic?

Re: RBG sub-pixel Anti-Aliasing in X Window System

[foonf]

I'm running the exact same thing, you're right, it does look better than anything else I've used. Unfortunately the gdkxft patch which debian includes in their Mozilla builds probably isn't ever going to make it into the main mozilla tree, and moreover it mangles some characters unacceptably. Now, whenever Mozilla gets ported to GTK 2.0, that will be fun...

How do they know. When it's 1.0

[llzackll]

What is it that turns it into 1.0? Have all the known bugs been fixed? Just curious about what their criteria is for being 1.0.

Re:How do they know. When it's 1.0

[Anonymous Coward]

the API is mature enough for a API freeze, and the browser is a peer to IE in #bugs.

The Mo is for Mo Bugs

[nukeade]

I used rc3 for a bit and went back to IE. It has a problem with its ftp (try saving something off of a web server... how very odd) and some plugins don't seem to be compatible. Compared to IE, it deserves a C-, no offense to those who have put so much work into it. It needs more work, and when it's clearly the superior choice, I'll use it.

~Ben

Macs for web design.

[rapidweather]

Yes, I'd like to get one of those new e-macs, and put Mandrake on it (in it's own partition, of course) and then I would have a real nice web design machine, I'm sure. Last night I put this page together using a Macintosh Quadra 660av, and had to copy and paste the page into the file manager at geocities to get the page up.
(here it is)

• http://www.geocities.com/rapidweather/mac.html

I tried to upload the page in the usual manner, but geocities said it was an "invalid file" . Later, I downloaded the file, to gnotepad via Opera 6.01 for Linux, made some changes, and then tried to upload it again to geocities. Same thing. "invalid file". So, I would hope the later Macs don't have this problem, not found in Windows 3.1, Windows 95 or 98, or in RHL or Mandrake. I've used them all to put pages up, and apparently the 68k mac has this little problem...

It works in Windows XP.

[Futurepower(R)]

When I read your message, I happened to have 6 instances of Mozilla with a total of 17 tabs running under Windows XP. (Don't hassle me about this; I have to support my customers, and I am wrestling with the bugs and insufficiencies in XP.)

I added a bookmark in one of the instances and then started a 7th instance of Mozilla. The bookmark was still there, and the history was there too. So maybe the bug you have found is specific to your situation in some way.

Re:It works in Windows XP.

[Eil]

(Don't hassle me about this; I have to support my customers, and I am wrestling with the bugs and insufficiencies in XP.)

Sir, please try not to be so defensive. I think the vast vast majority of everyone here has to run Microsoft products from time to time. Even those who say they don't. :P

Now then, I may be wrong here but I think when you click on the icon for Mozilla under Win32, it just opens a new window inside the instance of Mozilla already running (if there is one). One easy way to tell: If the "auto-load" (or whatever it's called) feature is enabled, your taskbar would show two lizard icons when you try to run multiple instances of Mozilla. Another way to tell: if you see two mozilla.exe images listed in the Processes tab (not the Applications tab) of the Task Manager.

I'd verify these myself, but I won't have access to my desktop computer (with WinXP) for another week.

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[Punto]

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=%s

I wonder if they pass that string directly to sprintf or whatever.. (and yes, I'm too lazy to find out for myself)

my gosh! IE has 97% of the browser market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, where have I been -- last I kept up to date on the stats, netscape was at 47% browser share...what happened?

Re:my gosh! IE has 97% of the browser market?

[ealar dlanvuli]

NS has sucked since 2k, and Mozilla hasn't been a viable option until roughly last summer.

Even I have been using windows for web browsing until last year because there was no option other than Internet Exploiter, and I generally can't stand the windows Interface (Read UI, none of the other bugs that normally get attributed to it, though those exist also).

This would make Mozilla look bad

[ColGraff]

Users would just switch to IE to get rid of the "error messages."

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just that you so faithfully reproduce what seem to be standard cliches of the times (such as "no paying customer means bad quality", etc.)...back in the DOS vs Mac days I would suspect you would have been saying "GUIs are slow and for idiots" just because it was the popular thing to say.

... is submit Tech Evangelism bug reports

[bunratty]

There's no need to beat anyone! Just sumbit a Tech Evangelism bug report on Bugzilla for these sites, and Mozilla engineers will cheerfully help the site owner make it work with all browsers.

Love this browser but love Opera more

[Utopia]

Opera is still my first choice for a web browser.
I truly don't think Mozilla deserves a 'C'.

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[elbobo]

this functionality (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=%s etc) is included in the powertoys/tools for ie6 as well. concerned parties please do your own microsoft downloads searching.

Re: pop-ups

[Anthracks]

I just went there for the first time after installing Mozilla, and a CheapTickets.com ad popped up in my face. That's weird, I wonder what about their ads makes it possible? Anthracks

Standard Windows

[blazerw11]

1) 95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP Which Standard?
2) Windows widgets don't exist on Linux i386, Linux PPC, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, OS/2, Solaris, FreeBSD, Irix, BeOS, HPUX, BSD/OS, etc. However, Mozilla looks the same on all.

My little feedback note to CNet

[theolein]

RE: Mozilla 1.0 review. Is it just a coincidence or does dear old Rex's comment about CSS positioning not doing the same things as IE does mostly involve just one site that I know of: ZDNet, the tabloid of web news articles, owned by dear old Rex's company?

And talking about Mozilla being complex, I suppose if entering a URL or clicking on a link is complex then I must agree. And how does this relate to wading through IE's security settings and not having a clue as to what they do.

I think they all need to make a special browser for you Rex. The irony is that with Mozilla, that is possible.

MOZILLA CAN LOOK LIKE IE

[Ender Ryan]

Not to be an asshole, but you're a moron. Mozilla is completely themeable, there is even a theme which makes it look almost exactly like IE. There is also the Modern theme which is very nice.

View / Apply Themes / Get New Themes

I just got Mozilla....omfg

[farfolen]

I love it...now all I need to do is get off my lazy bum and start a cox.net account and I can rid myself of every Microsoft except the OS.

Re:A "C-" !?! Hell musta froze over!!!

[blazerw11]

"instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted."
File->Quit - always (and has always) closed the application. Had they clicked File->Close, only the debugger would have closed. See how the common user interface helps even the most ignorant of newbies. (Well, except you and the reviewer.)

...Not to mention it placed first in only one of the XP Pro tests (mixed text and graphics)
Except that you got it backwards. 100 was the best score. (Didn't you think it was weird that one browser ALWAYS scored a 100?) IE only won once. Mozilla based browsers won the rest.

offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

A question about Mozilla on a story about Mozilla is off topic? Hope they catch you in metamod.

Poster "need's" a lesson in English language

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no apostrophe in "needs". :-)

Re: pop-ups

[wideangle]

Found the bug, (140638) but after browsing numerous pages on nytimes.com and maccentral.com, I still can't get popups to appear. (Mozilla 1.0 2002053012, Open unrequested windows unchecked)

Some of the code nytimes uses:

function pop_me_up(pURL,features){
new_window = window.open
(pURL, "popup_window", features);
new_window.focus();
}

function pop_me_up2(pURL,name,features){
new_window = window.open
(pURL,name,features);
new_window.focus();

Re: pop-ups

[chris_mahan]

That's because you should also disable javascript.

Everyone loves mozilla so much...

[recursiv]

but answer me this:

can it render my friends list?

Re:Everyone loves mozilla so much...

[ealar dlanvuli]

yes it renders your friends list 5017% faster than IE does.

It uses 20M less memory than IE does

These aern't the broken pages your looking for
"These aern't the broken pages were looking for"

Re:Too complicated?

[jonabbey]

Well, there's the sidebar, for one, and the tabs, everything under the tools menu, everything under the 'Window' menu that relates to email, newsgroups, irc, html page editing..

Mozilla does a lot more than IE does. As some have pointed out, in so doing, it helps maintain the original vision of Netscape as a tool to wrest the center of gravity away from Microsoft's API's and towards the panoply of open network standards.

That does make it a meatier enchilada than some IE users may be used to.

Re: pop-ups

[jonadab]

> I just went there for the first time after > installing Mozilla, and a CheapTickets.com > ad popped up in my face. Did you disable unrequested windows in the Scripts & Windows preferences pane? By default, popups are _not_ disabled. You have to set that as a preference. If you _did_ set the pref, and still got popups that were not in response to a user click event, but happened when a page was loaded or unloaded, then you should check your system for spyware. Certain file-sharing software is known to come bundled with software that runs in the background and does this.

IE "standards"

[kyras]

Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.

I know this is /., so everyone is going to get all pissed off about this statement (perhaps rightly so), but don't blame the guy who wrote the webpage. Have you ever tried writing DHTML/JavaScript/CSS that worked in multiple browsers? It truly sucks. Yes, it's partly Microsoft's fault. But let's face it, if you're stuck writing a webpage, would you rather:

A. Write it to work with IE perfectly, which 90% of your visitors use anyway, hope it doesn't fuck up too much in NS4.x/Mozilla, and be done in ten minutes.

Or,

B. Write it to work with IE, NS4.x, Mozilla, Opera, blah blah blah. Be done sometime before armageddon, with any luck.

Yeah, I thought so.

Re:IE "standards"

[ealar dlanvuli]

C: write it to the W3C specs and send a bug report to MS if it dosent work.

oh, thats not an option? hm, no wonder all the 'web designers' think it's the superior product... er should that be "no wonder everyone that thinks it's a superior product is a 'web designer'"

99% --Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

CNET quotes the OneStat survey from earlier this Spring showing about 97% market share for all MSIE versions combined. This is an unreliable survey, and by citing it CNET shows a bias towards Microsoft. Read the OSNews coverage of the OneStat survey. There are some insightful comments in that thread.

Here are some more trustworthy numbers. 93.5% for MSIE is about as high as you can safely estimate. You can also check out Google's graphs, which suggest that any estimate of more than a 93% share for all versions of MSIE would be innacurate.

Re:best thing never mentioned: keywords for bookma

[tswinzig]

I wonder if they pass that string directly to sprintf or whatever.. (and yes, I'm too lazy to find out for myself)

Why, are you planning on running a buffer overflow attack on yourself?

Don't forget the Managers!

[joelpt]

Virtually the sole reason I've moved from the wonderful Opera browser to Mozilla: the 'Managers'. All these are found in the Tools dropdown menu.

Form Manager: store all your personal information in Mozilla (name, address, cc#, etc.) -- all password protected if you so desire (also very configurable) -- then when you have to fill a form in, click Edit->Fill In Form. Ahhh.. finally :)

Password Manager: like the form manager, but remembers your login/password(s) on a per-site basis, and auto-fills them in for you when you return next. Also protected by a (master) password if you see fit.

Cookie Manager and Image Manager: browse and edit your cookie list, and restrict which images are shown in your browser as you see fit.

Download Manager: not quite as cool as Opera's transfer window, but keeps all of your downloads in one convenient window -- enough with the zillion individual download popups, I say!!

Mozilla is almost everything I want in a browser. The only thing I'm still wanting is the "remember where I was browsing" feature of Opera. While Moz does tabs, it doesn't remember which were open for you and reopen them upon your next session (and it also has a known issue with the preference which makes new windows open new tabs instead). Here's to hoping such features get implemented in the near future! :)

You are right!

[Futurepower(R)]

You are right! There are 6 Mozilla icons in the taskbar, but only 1 Mozilla.exe in the processes list.

But that's slicker than I thought! Less memory usage that way. I think Mozilla is a lot better than most people have yet come to realize.

I wasn't being defensive about Windows XP. I was saving a lot of people the bother of posting their complaints. *grin*

Dubious Statistic

[grinwell]

I'm surprised that after 473 comments, no one has brought up the extremely dubious statistic that:

Because since IE browsers now hold around around 97 percent of the browser market, many developers design sites that cater to IE's various standards.

Cnet kindly provides a link to a tiny blurb promoting a net-metric site which gives that dubious figure.

Seems like a convenient FUD.

Re:Dubious Statistic

[ealar dlanvuli]

Funny, IE capable operating systems only represent 96% of the google hits.

Are you telling me everyone on every platform that can use IE does? I find that very hard to believe.

Re:Reviewer Wrong?( Perhaps right once)

[Anonymous Coward]

It happened to me also in the pre-1.0 versions. Everytime I tried to run Netscape or Mozilla inclding new versions as they came out, the system would hang on a PB Titanium. I thought it was just System X being corrupt but finally when i was going through the files, I discovered that the Mozilla file was 800 megs. Once I got rid of the file, the hanging went away.

Cool new toy!

[mdonalds]

Makes IE look really slow, ugly and old. Stability isn't quite there yet, as it has fallen over three times today.

Bitching about CNET's review

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christmas, what's wrong with them? Mozilla kicks IE over and then beats it down into the ground, yet it gets only a 7 out of 10? The reviewers are clueless. Here's an example:

1.0 includes a number of extras just for them. In the Tools > Web Development menu, you'll find a JavaScript debugger and a feature for verifying your Web page's HTML structure. Some of these tools behave in unexpected ways. For example, when we ran File > Quit from the JavaScript debugger, instead of closing just the debugger window, it closed all of our Mozilla browser windows, as well--definitely not the behavior we expected or wanted.

Ok, this is proof that they are clueless. In happens to be that for any Mozilla window, going File Quit closes Mozilla, as opposed to File Close which closes the individual window. How annoying would it be if I had to close each window seperately, and didn't have a function for closing all of them (true that tabbed browsing greadtly reduces this problem, but still.. sometimes I want to close all windows in one fell swoop.)

of course they gave it a C-! Microsoft owns them

[Anonymous Coward]

Tina Gasperson's review over at NewsForge makes an interesting contrast to CNET's review ; strange how they give a rating that would barely merit a "C-" after describing Mozilla's robustness, standards compliance, speed and convenience features.

C-Net is a Microsoft shill. They consistently report how wonderful Microsoft products are and gloss over any problems. Heck, doesn't Microsoft own them, now, anyway?

Re:how do they stay in business?

[rifter]

C|Net review *was* pretty pathetic though.
How do they stay in business?

Easy.

1) Review Open Source projects badly, insert FUD, to piss off /. readers.

2)Sell Advertising (banner ads and popups)

3) Profit.

CNET: no update of download count or user reviews

[jopet]

try following their download link? does the download counter change? no. Do they show download mirror links? No. Try submitting a user review. Wait. Does it appear at their download page? No. It seems CNET basically sucks bigtime.

of course, why you asking?

[jopet]

Why shouldnt it render your friends list?

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[nalfeshnee]

i know this is a troll, but i thought it would be informative to point out two benefits of moz as regards ram and the development cycle.

development cycle-wise, mozilla with its mere 4 years is 2 years faster than IE (6 years from IE3 to IE6), and 4 years faster than opera (8 years), both of which are closed-source, commerical products.

and as for being a ram hog, IE uses 10MB of ram for every page it loads on my win2k box here in the office. moz starts with about 30-odd, and adds about 0.5 MB per new page.

thanks for listening,

nalfy.

quick question on possible bug

[jbert]

Am I doing something stupid, or does Mozilla 1.0 stop rendering a page at the first control-L (page-break) character?

This causes me no end of grief since most/all/many RFCs contain embedded RFC characters - meaning I can't read them (e.g. rfc2060).

Before I create a bugzilla account and report back there, can anyone reading here tell me if I'm missing a config setting/doing something stupid/etc.

ta.

Re:quick question on possible bug

[ealar dlanvuli]

I didn't check that particular one, but all RFC's have always rendered correctly for me ever since around .9.x

Easter Eggs

[Captain Large Face]

Has anyone else experienced the strangeness that is the about:mozilla page (Mozilla users only obviously)? I accessed this page using 1.0 RC3, after noticing the About Mozilla tag leads to the url "about:", not "about:mozilla"

Standards, versus "what everyone does."

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the things that irks me about the mozilla project is the pigheaded attitude that many of the contributors have towards allowing stuff display the way that it already does in every other browser.

A prime example of this is the argument over the correct use of 'alt' tags. In Netscape 4.x, and in all versions of IE, the alt text for an image is displayed when you hold your mouse over the image.

IE, and Mozilla will display the contents of the 'title' tag, if set.

Netscape 4 doesn't understand TITLE tags, and thus ignores them.

Mozilla understands both ALT and TITLE, but will not display the contents of the ALT tag on mouseover even when TITLE is not present.

Given the abundance of (mis)use of alt tags on pages around the web, it seems only sensible to retain 'backwards' compatibility and display ALT if a value for TITLE is not specified, but the programmers are adament about this point, saying that alt tags are for textual browsers (or graphical browsers with images turned off) and should never be used for mouseover info.

Granted, this is true, but hardly consistant with what is out there.

It's a noble cause to try and change the world to accept standards, but I hardly think that mozilla is going to do that. Instead, people will just get pissed off when they hold their mouse over an image and get nothing, and web developers will continue to make pages that work in IE.

The correct action, it seems, for compatibility with the old (netscape 4) and the new (IE, mozilla), is to set both ALT and TITLE to the same value.

Kudos to slashdot for doing so, and setting both tags on the slashdot logo at the top of these pages.

Good effort, but it doesn't deserve 1.0 status yet

[Anonymous Coward]

There are heaps of bugs still outstanding on bugzilla.mozilla.org, many of which have been there for months, and sometimes years. Some are still quite serious problems (see what mozilla mail does when you receive an email with a very long header line - eg, from/subject/to).

Bugs like that really affect the usability, and should have damn well been fixed before 1.0.. I really don't understand why they released it with so many problems still to fix.

Works fine.. except Java

[alecbrown]

I much prefer it to IE or Netscape6, although Java Applets just never load. Strange...

Re:Mozilla ain't that great.

[jukal]

>there has never been a .1-.5. the first point release was .6 which Netscape 6 was based on. Fruity troll.

who cares, whether it was 0.1, or 0.6. I built the thing for myself before 0.6, but that does not matter. Anyway, the experience I and probably many others got during the years remains the same. It is my pure feeling on Mozilla, I don't like that I have to have that opinion, but that's exacly how I see it at the moment.

Opera Lies About it's ID? Well, only sort of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera always includes the string "Opera" in its User Agent, so it's very easy to identify.

-Toby Inkster

about:config

[IamTheRealMike]

A quick tip if you're somebody who likes to customise things, try entering about:config into the URL bar. Warning: on my (fast) PC that kills performance for some reason, but you'll get a list of every "hidden" pref you can use. Look at the prefs.js file in your profile, and you'll discover about a million different things to play with that aren't exposed via the GUI.

I've been told that soon about:config will be fast, and you'll be able to edit settings from it as well. Mondo cool :)

Slow hog

[CaptainPhong]

I've used Mozilla on a number of Windoze and Linux systems, and it always seems to be the most bloated, slowest browser. On my Athlon 1.2Ghz with half a gig of ram, it's close, but not quite. Admittedly, IE has a big advantage being integrated in the OS, but still... On some of the "smaller" computers I have to use (100-500Mhz range, 128 or fewer megs of RAM), it's downright unusable. Compare that to Opera, which is just fine on a Pentium 166 Linux box with 64 megs of ram and pokey-slow hard drives. How can all the other browsers justify their bloat when Opera can do almost everything useful in such a tiny space?

Where are people pulling these benchmarks from that say Mozilla is so fast? Is it the only thing running on the system? Do they not consider start-up time important (i.e. when opening up lots of windows)?

Re:Slow hog

[ealar dlanvuli]

Where are people pulling these benchmarks from that say Mozilla is so fast? Is it the only thing running on the system? Do they not consider start-up time important (i.e. when opening up lots of windows)?

Because it is, after startup (which takes roughly 1 second after the files get put into your memory cache, similar to the way IE is by default) it's faster than IE. I don't use opera, so I can't compare it to that.

The really imprtant part is now fully featured geko-based browsers with native widgets will become alot more common, and the geko core prety much blows everything else out of the water preformance wise in my expeiences with k-meleon.

Re: pop-ups

[Anonymous Coward]

A small percentage of the time, nytimes loads a different script. Instead of opening the window in the Body onLoad, it opens it in an IMG onLoad. Or something like that. It was talked about on a MozillaZine forum thread a while ago.

30% of the USA. I should have clarified

[yerricde]

Is that 30% world-wide or 30% in the US?

AOL, the parent company of Netscape Communications, has at least 30% of the ISP market in the US, not counting Time Warner cable. AOL is also expanding its foreign markets.

Okay, but could you explain how?

[Futurepower(R)]

Great! Read my earlier post about this. Note that Mozilla and Opera operate the same, if Opera works as you say.

I haven't been able to figure out how to get Opera to open multiple windows, and therefore assumed it didn't. Could you explain how?

Note that the mail client in Mozilla is able to compose HTML. It's good, clean HTML, without the junk inserted by MS Word or MS Frontpage. The Opera mail client does not support HMTL composition.

As I write this, I have Opera open with 29 tabs (research on web hosting providers), and 6 windows of Mozilla with a total of 17 tabs (research in other areas). Both browsers are excellent.

I didn't know about dragging and dropping tabs in Opera, because I didn't know about the possibility of more than one window.

Re:Okay, but could you explain how?

[hkmwbz]

When you start Opera, you get a choice on how to handle windows in Opera. You can either use MDI (the classic Opera way), or the "new" tabbed interface, where you basically operate with separate windows, but you can open tabs (pages) inside each window. Every window is separate and has its own window on your task bar. Select the "Windows on desktop" option when starting Opera to use the new tabbed interface rather than standard MDI.

When it comes to composing HTML e-mail, I am very much against this. I think e-mail should be sent as pure text, and I am pleased to hear that even Opera 7 won't support sending HTML e-mail (read the Opera newsgroups), since it isn't considered to be a good thing. I am actually surprised that Mozilla allows this, since people who know what they are talking about often seem to hate HTML formatted e-mail. I know that the HTML e-mail I receive is either spam, or it is just plain text without any HTML formatting, but wrapped in a HTML e-mail. Quite useless if you ask me.

But this is a neverending debate. I don't think either side will ever agree on whether or not HTML e-mail is a good thing.

95%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when 95% of the web is using IE...

...I'd say it's the standard.

ref: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

Re:95%?

[ealar dlanvuli]

yeah, but now that NS is back in the game; AOL is finally getting rid of IE (they have been 'about' to do that ever since 97 or so it seems), and IE isn't the *ONLY* browser you can use to actually view web pages (as it has been until last year or so in moz development), that might start shifting again.

I personally find IE having 95% of the marketshare disgusting anyway. If 3ds max has 95% of the marketshare, thats fine, as they have a great program. IE on the other hand provieded identical service to the competition, and won big because they cheated. The absolute worst is they completly ceased all forward development as soon as netscape was dead.

Re: pop-ups

[GreyDuck]

I don't know about nytimes.com, but winamp-skins.com uses a .js file linked from the HEAD tag to launch its popup... and Mozilla's pref setting doesn't stop it. Grr. I poked around at bugzilla but couldn't find anything referring to this behaviour. I'm still deciding if I should take a stab at writing a bug report.

Re:Too complicated?

[ealar dlanvuli]

I personally find it about 500 times easier to navigate the logically assigned sub-menus than it is to navigate the 40thousand options under 'security' or whatever its called in IE nowadays.

Re:IE does a better job in some aspects of securit

[David Gerard]

"I'm actually very impressed they did that (hopefully w/o violating anyones privacy)."

Don't worry, it's just looking at your User-Agent string :-) The script looks at the date on the Gecko tag.

~22% of the USA, ~9% worldwide

[Anonymous Coward]

As of May, data gathered from ISP Planet, CyberAtlas, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the US Central Intelligence Agency, and the ISPs themselves as of May credited AOL with 17.5% of the US market and 7.7% worldwide. Compuserve accounts for an additional 2.0% US/0.7% worldwide. Time Warner RoadRunner a 1.6% share in the US and 0.5% worldwide.

Re:Good effort, but it doesn't deserve 1.0 status

[ealar dlanvuli]

because its a peer to Internet Exploiter 6.0. I'm prety sure thats what was in the back of everyones mind for this 1.0 release.

Until now IE has been better, now they have an equal number of bugs (if there was a bugzilla for IE it would have all those rendering 'features' listed as bugs, why is it diffrent when its mozilla instead of IE?). Come 1.1 and it will be better than IE.