Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla 1.1 Alpha Released

theBrownfury writes: "Mozilla.org has released Mozilla 1.1 alpha, the first post 1.0 milestone. This release has been in the works for almost 2 months now incorporating over 1700 bug fixes and more than a dozen new features. Including: Quartz rendering for OS X 10.1.5 users, new layout performance enhancements targeted at DHTML, faster startup times and more. Here are the release notes and the link to the releases page or FTP for downloads."

380 comments

  1. Wooo! by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hopefully this version will fix the problems I get loading pages with lots of dhtml... takes forever to load those :( (for example, flat mode comments @ shacknews.com)

    1. Re:Wooo! by Cally · · Score: 2
      > the problems I get loading pages with lots of

      > dhtml... takes forever to load those

      There's a bug with large background images slowing page rendering; I haven't checked for a few weeks, it may be fixed now. Otherwise, perhaps it takes a long time because it's, like, a big file? Have you tried saving it off locally and reloading? (clear the cache if you want to be really anal about it ;)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  2. excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.

    Mz 1.1 is quite stable really. Only one crash in the several days I've been using it.

    Btw, you need to go into the preferences and turn pipelined http on - it's off by default. In my experience, it increases speed by about ~25%. Very good stuff.

    1. Re:excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it's one of 'those' sites that positions everything with 300byte gifs, it loads alot faster than 25%.

      I benchmarked it against IE on one of my p0rn sites, it loaded the page in under a second, IE took over 4, every time.

    2. Re:excuse me but by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      > This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.

      No, I think it's great. Much better than announcing the day it's released and then having moz.org become slashdotted. This way the mirrors are up to speed before the masses decend...

      ...Carl

    3. Re:excuse me but by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "Btw, you need to go into the preferences and turn pipelined http on - it's off by default. In my experience, it increases speed by about ~25%. Very good stuff."

      Interesting ... at home on my blazing slow 28.8* I have found that it is neither faster or slow than non-pipelined browsing when using multiple pages at once. Are you using a broadband connection?

      *[no rants please about upgrading my connection, there is nothing better available, not even 56K, where I live]

    4. Re:excuse me but by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Turning pipelining on always seems to break some secure sites (moz just sits after loading like 1-2 images and never gets the rest unless I disable pipelining)

    5. Re:excuse me but by cswiii · · Score: 2

      I'm very suprised by this..?

      AFAIK, http pipelining is a function of HTTP 1.1, and I didn't/don't think that a lot of people or places are actually serving up HTTP 1.1 data.... much less is are any of those groups enabling pipelining, because it is implemented incorrectly, to varying degrees, across so many httpd server packages.

      I'd be interested if anyone could verify or correct what I've said... but seems that my last bit of research regarding http pipelining said something to that effect.

    6. Re:excuse me but by vondo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.

      No, it wasn't. It was released on the 11th. There has been a freeze for a while, builds might have been calling themselves 1.1a, but the official release build was on the 11th.

      See here or here for the history.

    7. Re:excuse me but by The+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative
      on my blazing slow 28.8* I have found that it is neither faster or slow than non-pipelined browsing

      In that case your connection will just about always be saturated, and you'll get no benefit from `pipelining', which works by downloading several files at a time. It's only useful if you usually have some unused bandwidth.

    8. Re:excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on a 56k. I've heard that the faster your connection the more it speeds things up.

    9. Re:excuse me but by rabidcow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, I wish they'd add a "disable pipelining for this site" option, as for image loading and such.

    10. Re:excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Btw, you need to go into the preferences and turn pipelined http on - it's off by default. In my experience, it increases speed by about ~25%. Very good stuff.

      Just so people know: Not all http-servers support pipelining properly. While these semi-broken servers wont crash Mozilla you may sometimes notice http-headers spilling on to the screen. See bugzilla entry #144574.

    11. Re:excuse me but by CvD · · Score: 1

      Eh... it's still stable with the Java plugin? I can't seem to go to any site with a java applet and not have Mozilla freezing up.... it sucks a lot.

    12. Re:excuse me but by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1
      Interesting ... at home on my blazing slow 28.8* I have found that it is neither faster or slow than non-pipelined browsing when using multiple pages at once. Are you using a broadband connection?

      Maybe you're behind a (transparent?) proxy that doesn't support it? It should fail gracefully, so without some digging you may never know whether what you get is actually pipelined.

    13. Re:excuse me but by ayden · · Score: 2

      I've been using Mozilla since 0.92. Only in the last month did I turn on pipelining. In Win2k, the difference is dramatic: now, Mozilla is almost as fast as IE. So I would say yes; under Win2k piplining makes that much difference.

      Under Linux, however, I've noticed no difference.

      BTW, I'm using a cable modem.

      --
      "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
    14. Re:excuse me but by darinf · · Score: 1

      interesting suggestion... 1.1alpha already blocks some servers like IIS/4.X and NES/3.X that are known to not handle pipelined requests properly. there are a number of other sites that we know have problems, but we probably will never get them all. a user configurable black list sounds like a decent way to deal with this problem. thx for the suggestion!

    15. Re:excuse me but by jesser · · Score: 2

      Yes, I wish they'd add a "disable pipelining for this site" option, as for image loading and such.

      I'm glad Mozilla doesn't have such an option. It would discourage users from filing bugs such as "site x doesn't work with pipelining enabled" (144442, etc), which would prevent us from ever turning pipelining on by default. It would also add to Mozilla's already cluttered prefs, and would be hard to remove once it was there.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    16. Re:excuse me but by asa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mozilla 1.1 Alpha was not released "days ago". It was released on 2002-06-11 in the late afternoon.

      --Asa

    17. Re:excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority web servers are http 1.1 and pipelining compatible these days....

    18. Re:excuse me but by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Maybe you're behind a (transparent?) proxy that doesn't support it? It should fail gracefully, so without some digging you may never know whether what you get is actually pipelined."

      Well I am behind a win2k NAT box at home so that could have something to do with it.

      But my ISP is not one of those lame AOLesuqe monstroities. I doubt they would insert lame configurations. They officially support linux and when you dial them for help, a competent tech (sometimes the owner) answers.

    19. Re:excuse me but by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      ah, excellent point!

    20. Re:excuse me but by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 1
      Well I am behind a win2k NAT box at home so that could have something to do with it.

      May well be. I know that e.g. Junkbuster breaks pipelining because it doesn't properly support HTTP/1.1. Might want to google and see if it's a known issue.

      But my ISP is not one of those lame AOLesuqe monstroities. I doubt they would insert lame configurations. They officially support linux and when you dial them for help, a competent tech (sometimes the owner) answers.

      They might simply not know. No other browser (AFAIK) supports pipelining, so any issues related to it might not have turned up yet...there may be unknown bugs in lots of NAT/proxy/firewall software.

    21. Re:excuse me but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey hey hey! I heard from a friend of mine that AOL is already playing with piplining on their proxy. Remember they are the ones paying for a lions share of Mozilla.

    22. Re:excuse me but by blufive · · Score: 4, Insightful
      you'll get no benefit from `pipelining', which works by downloading several files at a time. It's only useful if you usually have some unused bandwidth.
      No. Pipelining involves:
      1. sending multiple HTTP requests in one network packet, and
      2. using a single network connection for multiple files, rather than one file per connection
      The net result being that the browser spends far less time messing about with negotiating IP connections or waiting for the server to respond, and more time downloading data.

      This has the greatest effect on high latency connections, not low bandwidth ones (though, of course, the two often go hand-in-hand), so that a 28.8 modem to a website hosted by your ISP probably won't show much difference, but a cable modem to a creaking, cruddy server on the other end of the planet will.

    23. Re:excuse me but by nil_null · · Score: 1

      I used 1.1a a bit last night, but switched back to 1.0 because it was crashing every time I visited Slashdot! The page didn't even get to load or anything. It had no problems with other sites I tried, though.

      The more I use Mozilla 1.x, the more I'm liking it. All those little things that I felt were missing with earlier releases are now included (such as good keyboard controls for bookmarks). I'm finding more and more useful features as I go along. This is only going to get better.

      I've got pipelining on. I think its increasing speeds (I'm on cable), but I haven't really done any serious comparisons. In any case, it hasn't caused me any problems.

    24. Re:excuse me but by pjsabo1 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't released days ago. today is the 12th, if you look at the build date of 1.1a it is 6/11.

    25. Re:excuse me but by David+Gerard · · Score: 2

      A lot of servers and proxies claim to do HTTP/1.1, but don't do pipelining properly. This is why pipelining is switched off in Mozilla by default.

      The way they're dealing with the problems at the moment is to have a list of bad servers/proxies, and, if Mozilla spots that the server is one of those, drop back to HTTP/1.0 for that connection.

      The goal is to get pipelining working reliably and transparently so that it can be switched on by default. Anyone who's used Mozilla with pipelining will understand why that's a Good Thing :-)

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    26. Re:excuse me but by Vyyper · · Score: 1

      I've been using 1.1a since build ID 2002060808 (the 8th.)

    27. Re:excuse me but by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      ...but switched back to 1.0 because it was crashing every time I visited Slashdot!

      get the feeling someone is trying to tell you something? ;). how does k5 load up in the 1.1? other linux sites? the problem is only with /.? coincidence ... I think not.

    28. Re:excuse me but by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      *[no rants please about upgrading my connection, there is nothing better available, not even 56K, where I live]

      Dude, upgrade your connection!

      :-) j/k

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  3. Java Problems... by PoiBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully they've finally fixed some of the problems running Java applets. For example, I can't play games at http://games.yahoo.com using Mozilla. I've seen tons of bugs at Bugzilla, but not being a Java expert I don't know what is what.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can't run Java applets when you don't have a Java Virtual Machine installed. By default, Mozilla doesn't have one installed.

      Head over to:
      http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/index.htm l

    2. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mozilla needs at least Java 1.3.1_02 on Windows and Java 1.4.0_01 on Linux for applets to work properly.

      Even then, lots of applets are MS pseudo-java (and only work in the Microsoft VM) rather than real Sun/IBM/etc. Java. AFAIK the games.yahoo.com used the MS-Java specific crap (for no good reason) last time I checked.

      Applets actually written for Java 1.3/1.4 work brilliantly, I find, and the fact that 1.4 applets get the DOM of the page they are embedded in is cool, too. Next step: drag-n-drop applets in Composer :-).

    3. Re:Java Problems... by BabyDave · · Score: 1, Informative
      In my experience, when you have installed a Java VM there are numerous problems, ranging from slight display glitches in the applets, to the occasional random browser implosion. These problems don't occur when you're using IE.

      [For reference, this is with Mozilla 1.0 and Sun's JRE, either 1.3.1 and 1.4.0_01. YMMV with other VMs]

    4. Re:Java Problems... by GnomeKing · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was playing dominoes on games.yahoo.com just last night - on mozilla 1.0

      I had a lot of trouble installing java on moz 0.9.8 a while ago, but when I did a full reinstall with 1.0 it went without a hitch, installed, and runs absolutely perfectly...

    5. Re:Java Problems... by codingOgre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true I just played Collapse right now in a tabbed window with moz 1.0 and it worked fine.

      Make sure you have the Java plugin installed!

      --
      Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
    6. Re:Java Problems... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      wow. I have ZERO trouble playing games at yahoo.com.
      did you follow the steps to get java correctly installed? I followed both proceedures on the mozilla site to get java working well and both make the java-intense yahoo.com games to play pretty much flawlessly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I tried to play pool on yahoo games using sun java but the installation was very clunky. It would just lock up the computer until I installed the Blackdown version of Java.

    8. Re:Java Problems... by Spacelord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem isn't IE vs Mozilla ... the problem is applets written for Microsoft's bastardized Java VM vs the official SUN implementation.

    9. Re:Java Problems... by Gutzalpus · · Score: 1

      I use games.yahoo.com all day long on mozilla 1.0 and I've never had a problem. What sort of problems do you actually have with it? Have you tried installing the latest Java plugin? have you been installing new versions of mozilla without removing previous ones for a long time? It should work with no problem...

    10. Re:Java Problems... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 2

      Not really....

      I've forced IE to use the Sun JDK and plugins and it didn't have any problems using applets, while Mozilla (0.9 something, 1.0 wasn't out at the time) choked on several of them. Hell, it couldn't even find parts of the Sun plugin.

      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    11. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you test unfinished software what do you expect. It has worked fine since about .98 (maybe .98+ I only use nightlies). It worked before that too if you actually read the relase notes.

    12. Re:Java Problems... by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      Strange, I've been playing there with mozilla since version .96 on Linux and I've never had a problem.

    13. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let Java 1.4 take over in Internet Explorer and you'll have the same kinds of problems.

    14. Re:Java Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Java 1.4.0_01 on Linux for applets to work properly

      Both Mozilla 0.9x and 1.x on both Linux x86 and PPC run most of applets published on the web perfectly, being installed with Java 1.3.x. So, relax your Java requirement for Linux platforms.

      Moreover, Java 1.4 has lots of compatibility issues with software written for Java 1.3.x For example, Tomcat, JBoss and PostgreSQL JDBC both fail to work with Java 1.4. So, don't recommend java 1.4 once it's broken.

      Does anyone know when Sun is going to fix broken compatibility of Java 1.4.x ?

    15. Re:Java Problems... by consumer · · Score: 1

      No, the Yahoo games run great on Linux with Mozilla 0.99. I didn't even upgrade Java - just used whatever came with Mozilla.

    16. Re:Java Problems... by scrytch · · Score: 2

      Even then, lots of applets are MS pseudo-java (and only work in the Microsoft VM) rather than real Sun/IBM/etc. Java.

      Show me one still in use. I was hard-pressed to think of one from 4 years ago except for MSDN's navigator widget (now IE-specific DHTML)

      AFAIK the games.yahoo.com used the MS-Java specific crap (for no good reason) last time I checked.

      Works fine with the plugin for me. Perhaps you should check your configuration instead of blaming everyone else.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    17. Re:Java Problems... by kianusch · · Score: 1

      If some of Java-Pages don't work, you might still have old Binaries (for Java) installed.

      Change into your ../mozilla/plugins/ directory.

      # rm -rf java2 *java*

      Now reinstall the Java-Plugin ...when making Symbolic Links use full Path-Names

      # ln -s /usr/local/j2re1.4.0_01/plugin/i386/ns610/libja vaplugin_oji.so /usr/local/mozilla/plugins/

      Now try Playing games on Yahoo. - Worked for me.

      Regards

      Kianusch

  4. For some reason... by OccSub · · Score: 5, Funny

    getting to that FTP server before it gets slashdotted kinda reminds me of when Indiana Jones is diving under some massive stone door, which is about to shut him in the acient temple.

    1. Re:For some reason... by larien · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, he at least had a chance of success...

    2. Re:For some reason... by richie2000 · · Score: 2

      Wasn't a problem. I just DLed 1.1a, installed it and am using it now. It slurped all my old Netscape settings and it feels.. Snappier than N6.2. I just might stay with this one which is an Historical Event because I have been using Netscape since 0.98...

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:For some reason... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Netscape 6.2 is based on an old version of Mozilla, so it stands to reason that Mozilla 1.1a is better than Netscape 6.2.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    4. Re:For some reason... by richie2000 · · Score: 2
      Better than, sure. Quicker than, colour me surprised.

      It isn't like Netscape 6 is snappier than Netscape 4, now is it? But Mozilla sure seems to be.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    5. Re:For some reason... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      I never tried Netscape 6 (I've been using Mozilla since 0.6), but I do know that Netscape 4, especially on Linux and Solaris, is anything but a stable application.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    6. Re:For some reason... by richie2000 · · Score: 2

      I can't argue with that, mostly since I never really tried it on those OSes (I kinda left *NIX Netscape at around 2.04) but the Win32 version of NS 4 was reasonably stable (with the inherent wobbliness of Windows accounted for, atleast I never used Win95/98/ME (I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid - I never inhale!)).

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    7. Re:For some reason... by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      Makes me think more of the big ball that pursued him after he went a few steps past that door.

    8. Re:For some reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah your comment was offtopic, but
      it made me chuckle! thanks.

    9. Re:For some reason... by David+Gerard · · Score: 2

      Uhhh ... beware.

      1. Using an old profile - particularly a Netscape 6.2 profile - is well known to lead to weird stuff happening, as the profile format has changed a lot in a year.
      2. This is a bug-testing release, and a lot of shiny new ones are to be expected.

      So before assuming something is a Mozilla bug, I would STRONGLY advise using a fresh profile.

      Getting data out of an old-format profile is detailed in the FAQ section on profiles. (No, there isn't an automatic tool. Wanna write one? No, there isn't much doc on profile formats either ...)

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    10. Re:For some reason... by David+Gerard · · Score: 2
      Better than, sure. Quicker than, colour me surprised.

      Yep. Over the course of a year, Mozilla has gotten better, faster and smaller. And more stable. And a hell of a lot less leaky of memory.

      How many apps manage that while adding features, huh?

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    11. Re:For some reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller? I've been using Mozilla since M13, and the source tarball and binary builds have grown considerably larger.

      Plus, most projects get faster and stabler in the run-up to a full release -- KDE3, Evolution, FreeBSD 4.0 etc.

      I love Mozilla, but I don't see anything amazing in its development.

    12. Re:For some reason... by David+Gerard · · Score: 2

      I meant in terms of memory footprint. Also, M13 wasn't yet feature-complete.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    13. Re:For some reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netscape 6 doesn't have any netscape 4 code. It is based in mozilla, with is made from scratch.
      By the way, better use the original Mozilla than netscape impure stuff ;)

  5. This is a milestone by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This is a milestone, not a regular release. Many people will want to wait for the mozilla 1.1 release. This kind of stuff makes you look forward to mozilla 1.1 already though :-)

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:This is a milestone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      when can we expect the following feature to be released?
      • Calendar
      • Server-side Bookmarks
      • Both-way compatibility with OpenLDAP
    2. Re:This is a milestone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calendar

      write it yrself plz

      Server-side Bookmarks

      write it yrself plz

      Both-way compatibility with OpenLDAP

      write it yrself plz

      hth thx bye
      ps plz upload asap thx

    3. Re:This is a milestone by colmore · · Score: 2

      Has our culture really reached the point where we are too lazy to type vowels?

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    4. Re:This is a milestone by jvj24601 · · Score: 1

      Has our culture really reached the point where we are too lazy to type vowels?

      Ys.

  6. Well done to the team (again) but.. by wackybrit · · Score: 2, Informative

    Once again we have to say well done to the Mozilla team for finally delivering a very usable product. It's great to jump between Linux and Windows and to have the same browser. Some people have complained about its memory use, but if your machine is halfway decent, it's really a simple Web browser that gets the job done.

    However, there are several things that stop me from using it 100% of the time. I still stick to IE for about 25% of sites, because.. of all the little bugs! I'm hoping some have been cleared up in this Alpha. They include:

    * Keyboard not responding sometimes when you open a new Mozilla window (this is in Bugzilla)

    * When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.

    * Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute.

    * Mozilla often bawks if you're loading large JPEGs into it direct from hard disk.. and it just displays a blank/white screen with scrollbars.

    * Many sites still don't display well in Mozilla. This is the Web developer's fault, but still.. Mozilla can do all of those DHTML menus and stuff, yet I still run into problems on sites that use them. An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!

    1. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by 1010011010 · · Score: 3, Informative

      * Selecting text for copy/paste is difficult. I often have to select more than I want, and then trim it down.

      * In the Windows browser, selecting text will even do strange things like go back the the previous page, or close the browser window! It may be the gestures getting confused, but it's highly annoying.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    2. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by voidstart · · Score: 1
      * When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.
      I had this same problem. For me it was caused by HTTP Pipelining. If you have it enabled, try disabling it.
    3. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute.


      WTF?

    4. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      * Selecting text for copy/paste is difficult. I often have to select more than I want, and then trim it down.

      huh?, this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it. Mozilla handles it much more gracefully.

      Set your gestures to the middle mouse button and never worry about it again, it's simple really.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    5. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Cally · · Score: 5, Informative
      * "IE compatability mode" -- if you do View / Page info, you'll see that pages without a DTD at the top are rendered in "quirks" mode. This tries to cope with broken HTML of the sort that litters the web.

      Tobe honest, I don't see the other problems you mention. When you say "mozilla is often the first app to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces..." -- well this just never happens to me, on NT4 or Linux. Are you trying to use win9x or something? If so, I suggest you nuke that PoS first, install a real operating system (I'd count NT as "real", others may disagree ;) and a pound gets a penny most of your issues will clear up.

      The other major cause of issues is installing over a previous version. Try nuking your ~/mozilla (on Windows: %SYSTEMROOT%/profiles/[username]/Application Data/Mozilla ) and reinstalling.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    6. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Nerant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some points you raise:
      "* Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute."

      And this is a problem in Mozilla why? You yourself state that it's because of your RAM or your overheating CPU. I don't understand how changing software will fix your hardware problem.

      "* Many sites still don't display well in Mozilla. This is the Web developer's fault, but still.. Mozilla can do all of those DHTML menus and stuff, yet I still run into problems on sites that use them. An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!"

      This wouldn't help anyone: sticking an IE compliancy patch would only encourage web "developers" to stick to supporting IE specific html. Mozilla renders standard HTML, not "Microsoft HTML". You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML. Once again, you expect the Mozilla team to make such a terrible compromise when you clearly state that "This is the Web developer's fault"

      --
      Be kind. There are too many mean people out there already.
    7. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by delphi125 · · Score: 3, Informative
      They also include:

      * Not supporting my (home) wheel mouse. Telling users they need new drivers is not an option!

      * Losing an entire folder of bookmarks being dragged. The bookmark section in general needs a fair amount of work

      Despite that, the pop-under tabbed browsing is the best thing since er the wheel mouse. I just want 'em both!

    8. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by GnomeKing · · Score: 1

      In the Windows browser, selecting text will even do strange things like go back the the previous page, or close the browser window! It may be the gestures getting confused, but it's highly annoying.

      Then change your optimoz / mouse gestures settings...

    9. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!


      And an optional Mozilla (ie Actual Real W3C standards) Compliance for IE would be be even more useful!
    10. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      if you do View / Page info, you'll see that pages without a DTD at the top are rendered in "quirks" mode. This tries to cope with broken HTML of the sort that litters the web.
      Yep, Slashdot.org is in quirks mode =)
    11. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by stang · · Score: 5, Informative

      this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it.

      I just figured this one out the other day.

      To select a portion of the word, drag your cursor so that the next word is highlighted, then back up. IE extends the selection word by word, but retracts it character by character.

      --
      "200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
    12. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Redundant

      no no no no no NO! I hope they NEVER make an IE compliancy plugin or whatever.. only the laziest and worst web developers write IE specific code. If the browser displays HTML standard code (it's not code it's script btw.. calling a HTML jocky a programmer is an insult to programmers everywhere) then the website that is written correctly will display corectly.

      Never EVER allow sloppy work to ever become acceptable. and anything that is IE specific is sloppy work.

      I know I'll get flamed and modded down for this, but it's true. there's a standard out there people for HTML and DHTML, USE IT!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by RickHunter · · Score: 2

      You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML.

      While I agree with you, I'd like to defend the original poster by saying that this isn't always an option. Especially not when dealing with corporate web pages, even those of small companies.

      Many web designers charge more, sometimes much more, to produce standards-compliant web pages without all their Javascript and IE-specific tricks. And a lot of companies, especially small ones, will fight tooth and nail against anything that makes their web page less flashy or "attractive" to users.

      (The biggest irritation here for me is the thousand-and-one nonstandard ways of using drop-down navigation menus. To say nothing about the horrible usability of said menus in the first place!)

    14. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by esarjeant · · Score: 1

      That's odd, my experience with loading large JPEG's was exactly the opposite. Other browsers (Opera, Konqueror, older versions of Netscape) would "bawk" at large JPEG's loaded from the local filesystem.

      In contrast, both IE and Mozilla loaded these images without a hitch.

      I have experienced the keyboard focus problem once, but that could have purely been a fluke. No issues with links working / not working, that went away with the early versions of Mozilla.

      --

      Eric Sarjeant
      eric[@]sarjeant.com

    15. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not supporting my (home) wheel mouse. Telling users they need new drivers is not an option!

      How many times have people had to go to a hardware company's support site to get the latest drivers for their hardware? Or even the latest version of ActiveX to support the new game they want to install? In windows this has been a fact of life for years and this is not a mozilla only problem. At least you have an option of getting a new driver, most hardware companies are completely oblivious to anything but windows.
      I've been using mozilla for almost 2 years. I've never had a problem with the wheel mouse. I've installed it on both linux & windows machines. And I've used several brands of wheel mice including the genius net mouse which is'nt even a wheel but a toggle switch really. And they all worked perfectly. You need to give alot more information.

    16. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by barnsleyBigUn · · Score: 1

      The Microsoft selection system is quite cool, as long as you play a little and then realise what it's doing...

      Click and drag right will select the entire word (upto punctuation) ... if you only want part of the word then select all of it and move left to select character by character.

      It took me half an hour to get used to it and now i find simple selection annonying.

    17. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, I see your point. Personally I can't stand it.

      Well perhaps mozilla can impliment that, but I do hope they leave it an option, I can hardly stand jumping 3 characters ahead of my mouse.

    18. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Neil+Watson · · Score: 5, Informative
      When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.


      If you are using a proxy like junkbusters then This will solve your problem:


      10.3. I'm using a transparent proxy (such as Junkbuster) and I'm having weird browsing problems. What's happening?

      Some transparent proxies (including some versions of Junkbuster) do not handle HTTP/1.1 properly. The first thing to try is to go to Edit | Preferences | Advanced | HTTP Networking and select 'Use HTTP 1.0'.

    19. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by tseng_mike · · Score: 1

      * When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.

      If you have pipelining enabled you might want to disable it until this is fixed.

    20. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by G-funk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      nah the most important thing IMHO is

      FOR FUCK'S SAKE I WANT ANTIALIASING IN MOZILLA!!! It's not that fucking hard!!!!!!!! Konqueror does it. every other fuckin app does it! I'm using Uncle Bill's fonts, why the fuck must it still be ugly?????

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    21. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      I don't know if this is a Mozilla problem or not (but I have read the bug reports) - but I've installed mozilla on umpteen computers, both windows and linux, and never had a problem with a scrollwheel.

    22. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to remember that you can use Ctrl or Alt while you drag to select single characters....

    23. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even think mozilla had mouse wheel support 2 years ago, and until up to a year ago the mouse wheel was totally erratic and unpredictable

    24. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by pinny20 · · Score: 1

      Think you're a bit confused:

      ActiveX = COM/DCOM
      DirectX = Hardware Abstracted API used mainly for games

      So you would upgrade DirectX when a new game comes out, not ActiveX :)

    25. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win98 still beats any other windows version I tried (including NT4, 2k, XP).

    26. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      If I place the mouse cursor over a word, left-click, and drag, nothing happens. To select text, I have to place the cursor at the end of a section of text, and drag backwards to select the whole section; then, paste into Notepad (for instance) and trim the parts I didn't want.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    27. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Peyna · · Score: 2

      NT4 (SP2) ran much better than 98 on my old P-133 with 128 MB of ram. It has 98 on it since my parents use it, and that thing has more problems than something with lots of problems. (How's that for an analogy?)

      --
      What?
    28. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Or just hold down shift and press the left arrow to back up. I do most highlighting with the keyboard, it's more efficient for me in most cases.

      --
      What?
    29. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're using Uncle Bill's fonts.

      Get some real fonts.

    30. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by sab39 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh. I've had antialiasing in mozilla since about 0.9.9... I don't know exactly how it was turned on because I use the debian packages, but those packages give you a nice little option at install time of whether to enable antialiased fonts.

      Admittedly I needed a bit of hackery to set the font in the UI, because by default the UI font uses a non-antialiased font (it picks up the GTK setting and there's no GUI to change that). But you can even override that easily by putting the following in a file called userChrome.css in your profile directory:

      dialog, window, menu, menuitem {font-family: sans-serif !important}

      That last remaining issue will go away when the port to GTK2 is completed because GTK2 will allow an antialiased font to be the default. Alternatively, you *might* be able to pick a truetype font as your default GTK font and have it work now, but I haven't tried that so I'm not sure.

      Stuart.

    31. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by inquis · · Score: 2

      About the gestures.

      This seemingly random behavior is due to the mouse gestures being mapped to the left mouse button by default. You can change which button you use to use mouse gestures in the preferences panel.

      -inq

    32. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by yasth · · Score: 1

      Actaully the only time you are almost certain to be able to cause some pain is with companies. I've had great luck with this. If someone can't browse thier site, and thus can't buy from them, well that pisses people off. Business managers don't care that they are getting 95% of all people, because that 5% that they are losing could well make the difference between success and failure(also it wastes advertising, and promotion). Honestly though the last time I had serious trouble with a corprate site was months ago.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    33. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by buzzbomb · · Score: 1

      Many web designers charge more, sometimes much more, to produce standards-compliant web pages without all their Javascript and IE-specific tricks.

      In that case, they are unprofessional and you should look elsewhere* for your needs.

      * Yes, this was a shameless plug.

    34. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a rel note relating to this. You have to toggle a check box if you use some early implentation of Logitech drivers. It is not Mozilla's fault that some company's drivers had a bug.

    35. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Intersesting. I just tested on your post. IE seems to think that the xt in the word next is one character and jumps over them both, although I can select either the n or the e fine...

    36. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      There's also a POSIX standard for /bin/sh, but it doesn't prevent the Bash developer's team from extending, embracing, and slowly making it impossible to run Linux scripts on boxes without Bash installed. NEVER allow sloppy work to become acceptable. (sloppy work meaning badly written shell scripts that use Bash-only features but are supposedly 'cross platform.')

      It's almost the same problem.

    37. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, most sites seem to think that the way to deal with customers and spammers abusing their contact addresses is to remove them altogether.

    38. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked through the bender source. Slash would be a bear to get to full XHTML1.1 strict + CSS2 spec, not to metion breaking lots of old browsers. It would make for an interesting side project to see how the slash development team accepts massive rewrites of their code though. Personally, I'd start from scratch, but people say I code funny anyways.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    39. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by wackybrit · · Score: 2

      If you're in Windows and you have Adobe Type Manager, you get it *g* I love Adobe Type Manager, it antialiases my fonts almost everywhere.

      Of course, if you're on Linux.. not quite such a great font manager just yet :-(

      Although.. I'm sure I see antialiased fonts on my notebook in Mozilla.. (running Gnome 1.2, Enlightenment, under RedHat 7.0)

    40. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking, cause I'd love some... it might enable me to see Bush as a man of the people.

    41. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get some shame, then.

    42. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by scrytch · · Score: 2

      In IE I can quadruple-click (this isn't that hard when you have a mousekey set to doubleclick) and select the whole paragraph. Mozilla isn't even consistent about selecting the whole line when I triple click.

      It's caret browsing that's real ... neat. I'd call it a lifesaver were it not for the fact that the moment I hit page down, it doesn't go from the caret, it goes from the position the page was in before I started scrolling it with the caret. And naturally it doesn't even move the caret with it.

      Was still using an old mozilla because I wanted to keep the site navigation bar, then realized how useless it is when there's no keyboard navigation controls for it (none documented at any rate). Now it's just that I don't feel like taking all day to download it. Maybe if they fixed the bugs that were plaguing kmeleon, I'll get that instead.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    43. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      It's not just Linux either.

      AIX 4.2 has ksh as /bin/sh, so you can get bit that way too.

      Smart developers know what's a sh feature, what's a ksh feature, and what's a bash feature and code appropriately, but there are far too few smart developers. And even the smart ones can get lazy and include a feature just to make life easier or because they forget that "export VAR=value" is just fine in ksh/bash, but not sh.

      The story is similar for just about any standard you care to name.

      And, the fact of the matter is, standards are determined not by a committee, but by the real world. If 90% of the web pages use IE "features" that aren't "standards" compliant, then what's the real standard out there? The user doesn't care what's written on some piece of paper, they care about what they see in their browser.

    44. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by jmcmurry · · Score: 1

      Another approach is to send comments to companies with web applications which work fine in Mozilla and tell them "thanks for making your site work fine with Mozilla."

      I've done this with a few online banking and credit card sites that I use. I sometimes get back a note telling me thanks for saying thanks. Many web developers want to do the right thing, and they appreciate getting something good to show the boss.

      Evangelism can mean encouraging good behavior as well as discouraging bad behavior.

    45. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by HFXPro · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have had problems with loading images from the harddrive using Mozilla. They load just fine in Mozilla. However, it seems Mozilla forgets to release the device context for drawing the image. This causes you to loose all GDI resources after viewing just a few images. This is a Mozilla running on Win9x problem. I have not seen this problem in Linux, Solaris, or Windows NT kernal based OS. I'm guessing maybe the way the device contexts are managed is different...??? Interestingly enough, the same doesn't happen when viewing images which are not on the hard drive.

      I have already reported this bug to Mozilla and it was being worked on last I knew.

      --
      Reserved Word.
    46. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by o'reor · · Score: 1
      Never EVER allow sloppy work to ever become acceptable. and anything that is IE specific is sloppy work.
      That's right, but this is also probably due to the fact that lots of web developers use FrontPage x.xx or any such poor HTML code-producing tool because of their power and ease of use. Once again, are there a whole lot of affordable tools that could be widely used, producing really standard code, with the required ease of use ?
      This is where Mozilla, IMHO, has a lead to take : the Composer tool, which comes in handy to edit single HTML pages, should have more features developped, allowing it to manage entire web projects. Come to think of it : this is already a powerful tool; enabling it to handle several files, to have a nice IDE for JScript/ECMAScript, and (which I would really appreciate) a set of HTML/webpage templates, would make it an excellent alternative to other IE-friendly-crappy-code-producing tools. Of course, this is another whole load of work...
      Just my 0.02 euros anyway.
      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    47. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he's got shit-for-brains. Actual conversation I've had:

      Overclocker: Hey, I've overclocked my PC.

      Me: You need to be careful and keep an eye on things. Any problems?

      Overclocker: Well Access crashes, but I don't use that.

      Fucking stupid, stupid people.

    48. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Malc · · Score: 2

      "Tobe honest, I don't see the other problems you mention. When you say "mozilla is often the first app to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces..." -- well this just never happens to me, on NT4 or Linux."

      It happens to me all the time under Win2K. It's like Mozilla uses up too many GDI resources or something. If my display starts going haywire, it means that I'm about to experience a BSOD, normally in nv_disp.dll (one of the nVidia display driver DLLs). Even closing Mozilla at this points triggers the BSOD. Mozilla is the only app on my system that causes this problem. I have to ensure that I quit the app and restart it on a regular basis - quick launch is a big no-no.

    49. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by kubrick · · Score: 2

      (it's not code it's script btw.. calling a HTML jocky a programmer is an insult to programmers everywhere)

      I wouldn't describe it as a script either -- it's marked-up text, and that's all. On the other hand, writing web applications I have to do quite a bit of HTML output via templates and what not, so I guess I'm writing code to write HTML for me -- writing HTML at one remove.

      As to the standards stuff -- I agree completely, I only wish more people thought it was important :/

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    50. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Just throwing out a question here... does anyone know of a relatively lightweight proxy -- Junkbuster fork or otherwise -- that supports HTTP 1.1 without also providing HTML filtering, thus holding up delivery of the page?

      I had a look a while back, but didn't really find anything that made me want to shift from Junkbuster.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    51. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Hector73 · · Score: 2, Informative



      this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it.

      I just figured this one out the other day.

      To select a portion of the word, drag your cursor so that the next word is highlighted, then back up. IE extends the selection word by word, but retracts it character by character.


      Like it or not (and I am in the "not" camp) that's the Microsoft usability standard. All their apps
      (except Office which has its own set of usability standards) do this. Makes using WordPad as a source editor quite difficult...

    52. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      IIRC GDI resources are irrelevent in NT based systems.

    53. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Nope, works fine IE6.0 in Win2000. Perhaps you're hands are a little jittery?

    54. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah, should have been "your". That's what I get for changing thoughts midstream.

    55. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by reschly · · Score: 1

      I think you mean triple-click, not quadruple (quoth the IE6/Win2k user)

      --


      I believe that the existence of women is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
    56. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by adx200 · · Score: 1

      The Proxomitron just released version 4.3 a day or two ago. It now supports both HTTP 1.1 and pipelining. Windows-platform, only, though.

    57. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Malc · · Score: 1

      Maybe not GDI then, but definitely some resource issue related to the graphics.

    58. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by damiam · · Score: 1
      Slash's HTML is completely customizable. Assumming you can get a good XHTML+CSS layout, it shouldn't be hard to integrate it into /.

      A sorta-relevant example - Scoop, a Slashlike blogging tool which normally uses tables, can be used to make very nice CSS pages. The same thing could be done to Slash, except it would probably break NS4 compatibility.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    59. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by damiam · · Score: 1

      Squid?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    60. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by damiam · · Score: 1
      Mozilla does do AA, you just need to enable it - it's a hidden pref (turned on automatically by the Debian packages, dunno about the official ones). Add this to /etc/mozilla/prefs.js (or possibly your own prefs.js file, but that may or may not work):
      // TrueType
      pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
      pref("font.freetype2.shared-library", "libfreetype.so.6");
      pref("font.FreeType2.autohin ted", true);
      pref("font.FreeType2.unhinted", false);
      pref("font.antialias.min", 16);
      pref("font.directory.truetype.1", "/var/lib/defoma/x-ttcidfont-conf.d/dirs/TrueType" );
      pref("font.directory.truetype.2", "/usr/share/fonts/truetype");
      pref("font.director y.truetype.3", "/usr/share/fonts/truetype/openoffice");

      // AA with Bitmap scaling.
      pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.enable", true);
      //pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.always", true);
      pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.min", 16);
      This will enable AA for all fonts greater than 16pt. You can also enable AA for all sizes by changing the appropriate numbers. This is even easier with a GTK2 build of Mozilla.
      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    61. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by ianezz · · Score: 2
      And even the smart ones can get lazy and include a feature just to make life easier or because they forget that "export VAR=value" is just fine in ksh/bash, but not sh.

      Fine for ksh and bash, but not sh? It doesn't seem so looking at the Posix 1003.2 draft:

      3.14.8 export - Set export attribute for variables

      export name[=word]...
      export -p
    62. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I've not noticed that, you should start a bug if there isn't one already.

      It is definatly not the desired behavior.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    63. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't necessarily call Squid a lightweight proxy...

    64. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be having problems in Mozilla if your tripple clicking, as 'select-line' is double click in Mozilla :)

      just a thought hehe

    65. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Does the caching layer introduce any overhead? (I'm sure it can be switched off, but does it introduce compromises into the design of the rest of it?)

      I'll have a look, anyway -- I may have discarded it for providing way more than I needed :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    66. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by scrytch · · Score: 2

      Ah you are right, I was thinking of an editor I had that used triple-click to select the physical line and quadruple for the logical line. IE goes straight to selecting the logical line (one paragraph or to the next br tag i presume. It's with IE where the behavior gets odd if I double-click ultra-fast (that is, use the doubleclick key), where it often selects the whole logical line anyway.

      Anyway, Mozilla's behavior of not ever extending the selection to the logical line is fairly annoying, though not a show-stopper. Its sluggishness in swapping in often is. But it looks like kmeleon is still dead, with no interest by the kmeleon folks in actually fixing the bugs affecting them (this is where I do say it's ok for kmeleon users to at least tell kmeleon developers "fix it yourself, you have the source").

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    67. Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      I looked in my preferences panel and dont find anything about gestures is it note installed by default or am I looking at the wrong options. Mozilla 1.0.

      Robert

  7. no karma Re:release notes by leuk_he · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you only read the posting you should seen it already links the release notes.

  8. Re:release notes by robkore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can whore for karma too...release motes here

    Usually helps if said link is not in the above posted article, but nice try anyway. 'E' for effort.

  9. roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Informative

    and to fill in the next mozilla realaes lets look at the roadmap:

    1.1alpha 12-Jun-2002
    1.1beta 17-Jul-2002
    1.1 09-Aug-2002

    Security fixes in mozilla 1.0 not included here.

    1. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "Security fixes in mozilla 1.0 not included here."

      If you look at the roadmap we can see that 1.0, 1.01, 1.02 etc are on a different branch than 1.1alpha, 1.1beta, 1.1 and 1.2alpha. Does this mean that each branch will have progressively different bug fixes and feature sets? Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas? Or am I simply reading it wrong?

      What's up with this?

    2. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by Frank+Hecker · · Score: 2

      Does this mean that each branch will have progressively different bug fixes and feature sets?



      Yes. The 1.0.x series of releases will contain bug fixes, but no new features. The 1.1, 1.2, etc., series of releases will contain both bug fixes and new features. In addition, there may be some bug fixes made to the 1.1, 1.2, etc., releases that are not made to the 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases, because the risk of fixing the bug is too high (that is, fixing a particular bug might cause multiple other bugs to appear).



      Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas?



      Yes, in the sense that you can decide either to install the 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases, or you can decide to install the 1.1, 1.2, etc., releases. However I expect most Mozilla users to install 1.1, 1.2, etc. The 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases are for people who don't care about the new features but instead want a stable version that doesn't change much from release to release; for example, a company building a Mozilla-based product may be interested in this.


    3. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by Frank+Hecker · · Score: 2

      Does this mean that each branch will have progressively different bug fixes and feature sets?

      Yes. The 1.0.x series of releases will contain bug fixes, but no new features. The 1.1, 1.2, etc., series of releases will contain both bug fixes and new features. In addition, there may be some bug fixes made to the 1.1, 1.2, etc., releases that are not made to the 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases, because the risk of fixing the bug is too high (that is, fixing a particular bug might cause multiple other bugs to appear).

      Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas?

      Yes, in the sense that you can decide either to install the 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases, or you can decide to install the 1.1, 1.2, etc., releases. However I expect most Mozilla users to install 1.1, 1.2, etc. The 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc., releases are for people who don't care about the new features but instead want a stable version that doesn't change much from release to release; for example, a company building a Mozilla-based product may be interested in this.

    4. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Basically the trade off will be security/stability vs features. You can have a cutting edge browser (1.1, 1.2, etc.) or you can have a very stable browser (1.0.9).

      I wonder if the developers working on the 1.0.x releases will get bored quickly?

      --
      What?
    5. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by leuk_he · · Score: 2

      Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas?

      That all depends what bug fixes there will be in 1.01. I bet most develops will keep using the bleeding edge 1.1 trunk and only real bugs and security fixes will make it on 1.0.x The 1.0 manifesto states that 1.0.x is mainly for stabilty of the API and a reference implementation. This may not be the best version.

      The maintarget for 1.0 is for vendors to have a reference implementation.

      Like linux.: There is a and 2.2 and 2.4 kernel version. They all are maintainted. From 2.2 you know it is stable, but you are not sure it works with the latest hardware. from 2.4 you know It is fast but you do not know if your old applications work on it. for 2.5 you know it has the most features, but you are unsure if it is stable. In the end you let ret-hat or suse choose for you like you let netscape (or ...) choose your mozilla trunk.

    6. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by inquis · · Score: 2

      This has been discussed before.

      1.0 was the API freeze release. Browsers in the 1.0.x series will be guaranteed to have an API which is feature- and bug-copmatible with the original 1.0 release. This means that developers can target 1.0 and not have to worry about the API changing every release in the "stable" branch.

      1.x (past x=0) is the branch for continuing development. The API can and will change in these releases.

      The point of the branching is that developers can target 1.0 and be confident that their applications won't be breaking on the very next release. Also, the developers can continue hacking at the code like they like to do, and the bugfixes that don't break the API can be backported to the 1.0.x branch. Best of both worlds scenario, really.

      -inq

    7. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by asa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if the developers working on the 1.0.x releases will get bored quickly?

      They are the same developers that are working on the 1.x releases. Why would they get bored checking in a fix to the trunk and to the branch?

      --Asa

    8. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by asa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The branch will have a subset of the fixes that land on the trunk. It will not have all of the new features that the trunk has, although some of the features will eventually migrate to the branch after they are well tested on the trunk.

      Mozilla builds a set of technologies from which end user products can be built. We provide these technologies to everyone but our primary consumers are companies and organizations that use our technologies in their products. The stable 1.0 branch and the 1.0.x releases on that branch are intended for companies and organizations looking for the most stable technologies they can get. The 1.x development trunk is intended for testing large changes and new features as well as working toward a Mozilla 2.0. We intend to have stable points on the 1.x trunk about once a quarter for those vendors who are a little less conservative or need the latest and greatest feature set for use in their products.

      So to answer your question, yes, we will have two different development paths but one will be tracking the other as closely as stability will allow. You won't _have_ to choose from anything but if you're interested in helping us test our latest technologies then please grab trunk (1.x) builds and report any problems. If we need help testing builds on the more conservative 1.0 branch then we'll let you know.

      --asa

    9. Re:roadmap: Re:This is a milestone by mentin · · Score: 1

      They simply decided to make up for four year delay with so many releases ;)

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
  10. did they find them??? by OklaKid · · Score: 0

    those four people that need to be found so mozilla.org can update their license??? i reccomend a house to house search in Redmond Wa. starting at bill gates & monkeyboy ballmer's house, they might have kidnapped em...

  11. DoS in Mozilla/X by kyhwana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone know if this has the fix for the remote DoS
    when X/XFS is running?
    (For those of you who don't know, you can kill X
    by including "body { font-size: 1666666px; }" in a stylesheet

    --
    My email addy? should be easy enough.
    1. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by MavEtJu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As you can read on bugtraq, the general attitude is that it's more a problem within X and/or XFS than in Mozilla.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    2. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by kyhwana · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the DoS doesn't happen in any of the other browser for X, so it'd be nice if mozilla could handle it the same way.

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    3. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      It also happens in The GIMP and I'm pretty sure it works in every program which does call that X or XFS call with these parameters.

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    4. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by Tom · · Score: 2

      yes, but gimp does not take data from a remote site, mozilla does. therefore, if handing that data to the local machine unchecked results in a crash, mozilla must check it, while gimp should check it.

      X crashing because I entered an obvious bogus value in a gimp dialog is one thing. X crashing because I clicked a hyperlink in mozilla is a very different thing.

      that doesn't mean the underlying bug in X should not be fixed - it should. however, mozilla should still check stuff before handing it to the local system.

      disclaimer: I wrote the bugtraq posting. the above is why I labeled it a DoS in mozilla.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by OpCode42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone know if this has the fix for the remote DoS when X/XFS is running?

      See, this is why I'm keeping with ext2. ;)

    6. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by dossen · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect the XFS in question is the X Font Server, since it is highly unlikely that the file system has any bearing on a crash caused by font settings.

    7. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by jesser · · Score: 2

      X crashing when you enter a bogus value in gimp is a big deal, because when X crashes, you lose all the other programs you're running. X should never crash.

      When Windows crashes, most slashdot posters make fun of Windows, but when X crashes, many slashdot posters and even some bugtraq posters blame an application running under X. I don't get it.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    8. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by OklaKid · · Score: 0

      a possible workaround could be to open preferences in Apperence\fonts uncheck "Allow Documents to use other fonts" i have not had the chance to try this out myself, as http://www.adeliesolutions.com/Projects/ will not load up for me to test this on...

    9. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by dveditz · · Score: 1

      As the bugtraq posting (and the bugzilla report) makes very clear, this does not prevent the attack.

    10. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by wolruf · · Score: 1

      This is tracked with bug 150339: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150339

      --
      wolruf@gmail.com
    11. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by Kevin+DeGraaf · · Score: 1

      See, this is why I'm keeping with ext2. ;)

      Uhh, no. The original poster meant X Font Server, not XFS (the journalled filesystem from SGI).

      TDM TLA's! (Too Damned Many Three-Letter Acronyms) ;-)

      --
      We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
    12. Re:DoS in Mozilla/X by danox · · Score: 2

      thats not really the point. the parent's author actually did blame X, but he went further to say that if mozilla is running on a client that has a known bug, it should make an attempt not to trigger that bug. The same could be said for any win32 applicaiton.

      also I don't think the author meant that gimp crashing X was not a big deal in the way you meant it. Of course it is a big deal, but not when you compare it to the other posibility of an unknown host being able to trigger a crash in X

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
  12. Re:crapzilla???!!!??? by OklaKid · · Score: 0

    450 MHz is starting to get long in the tooth... how much RAM do you have, and how may other apps did you have running too... some people bitch about software being slow & buggy and never consider the ancient computer they are running it on...

  13. FAST!!! by Nomad7674 · · Score: 1

    Wow, Mozilla 1.0 was just released, with much pomp and circumstance (or if you read CNET, much weeping and gnashing of teeth) and already we are seeing a 1.1 milestone being announced. You'd think the Mozilla team would take a month or so off to recover. Guess this is one of the lesser-publicized advantages of OpenSource - vacation time is not an issue because the volunteers (those doing it out of love or a feeling of duty to the community) aren't being paid anyway!

    1. Re:FAST!!! by iabervon · · Score: 2

      Actually, this was so soon because 1.0 was slow in ways that didn't delay 1.1; 1.0 was mainly a standardization release, which involved committing to the APIs it uses. 1.1 is things that weren't important to have done in 1.0, which were therefore not included so that 1.0 would actually get released.

  14. IE compatibility patch... by gusnz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, there's one IE emulation script here that I know of. It's a regular .JS script, designed more for designers to adapt scripts easily than for clients, but it shows off the advanced side of Moz's JS 1.5 support (getters/setters for properties...).

    This brings up one of my older thoughts: you know how we can format sites with user-defined stylesheets, how about user-defined .JS files added to each page you load (without a local proxy)? Is it possible to add DOM properties with the user prefs JS files somehow? This could be very useful -- emulate IE, any other browser, customise the behaviour of any document function...

    1. Re:IE compatibility patch... by Nicopa · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would one want to do that? It would be very easy to add support to Microsoft'isms in Mozilla proper. Why don't we do that? Because it shouldn't be done.

  15. Impressive... by v4mpyr · · Score: 1

    to say the least. I'm running a 450mhz w/ 128M of RAM and this new milestone is super fast and stable (something I haven't seen in ages). Beats the snot out of 1.0 and Opera, IMHO.

  16. Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! by OklaKid · · Score: 0

    i would still trust mozilla before i would trust M$-IE even with mozills's bugs & all, look what you get with IE--> vulnerabilitys needing to be patched every week and it takes Micky$oft months to make a patch, IE= popup advertising, backbutton vulnerability, and dont forget cybercrooks & malicious websites can read & write to the Windoze OS thru IE... with mozilla i have much better control of surfing the WWW where IE hands over control to the WWW...

  17. delivering a very usable product? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Unfortunatly not, well interms of usablilty,
    The prefreances box is still not resizable, this is one of the most WTF bugs, evryone uses the preferances box so why is it so hard to see what going on.
    Try setting your Mail & New group / Send format, the options fall off the bottom of the page.

    Mozilla also fails to use my system colours, this is another clasic 'You fool' usability bug.

    Somone at AOL/Netscape should be driving fixes for this type of bug, because they piss people of far more than taking a while to display somthing, or occasionally having to hit refresh.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:delivering a very usable product? by unapersson · · Score: 1

      OK, name a web browser with a resizeable preferences panel ;-) They fit perfectly on mine. The whole reason this was done was to stop the developers cramming more and more options in (preference creep).

      If they're not fitting on your display though you should file a bug, to show the UI module owner that it's causing real problems.

      It should use your system colours if you use the classic theme.

    2. Re:delivering a very usable product? by szap · · Score: 1
      OK, name a web browser with a resizeable preferences panel ;-)
      Um. Mozilla on Linux?

      Of course, the pref window hints the window manager that it has no resize bar, but it isn't enforced. On my WindowMaker, I can just resize it using Meta+Right-drag, or just ask WM to maximize the window. (Yay, WindowMaker!) However, the default size's fine for me.

      The one workaround for certain huge option screens like the prev poster mention is to stick it inside a scrollable vertical widget (or frame, depending on what GUI background you're used to).

      On the other hand, the Category selection panel on the pref window itself has a fixed size, which might be unusable on some setups.

    3. Re:delivering a very usable product? by unapersson · · Score: 1

      OK, name a web browser with a resizeable preferences panel ;-)

      Um. Mozilla on Linux?

      Okay, I asked for that. s/preferences panel/preferences panel (on windows)/

      I think Windows (and perhaps Mac) is where this non-resizing policy is enforced. On Windows at least, virtually all browsers have fixed sized preferences panels.

      Of course, the pref window hints the window manager that it has no resize bar, but it isn't enforced. On my WindowMaker, I can just resize it using Meta+Right-drag, or just ask WM to maximize the window. (Yay, WindowMaker!) However, the default size's fine for me.

      I could try this (I use WindowMaker too) but haven't needed to resize the panel yet. It is possible that Mozilla leaves it to the window manager to enforce this, so you might find a different result with a different window manager.

  18. New release very soon after 1.0 by TuringTest · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.

    If someone there is worried about people facing this 1.1 new release when, in press releases they have been told about 1.0, then don't worry. The big milestone of 1.0 is about compatibility: the interfaces have been frozen so further development will be easy to do. This is a concert only for enterprises developing applications based on Mozilla technology (PDAs, portable aps, embedded devices), not for the desktop end user.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  19. Re:release notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thou receiveth what ye giveth.

  20. Ahhh where have the tabs gone by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    I always though tabs worked a bit funny (not closing the current tab), but now there worse, they close the most reciently opened one first, apparently this is a bug fix in the 1.1 release.... more like a buggered fix...

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Ahhh where have the tabs gone by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2

      I've got used to opening tabs in the background and closing them as I've finished with them. With this 'enhancement' It'll close my first (primary) tab instead. Great :-(. I hope that's removed or at least set as an option fairly quickly.

  21. Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! by DrXym · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll bite.


    So how many bugs are open on IE? How do you know it's 10x as many bugs? For that matter, how do you actually raise a bug on IE if you find one? Microsoft do their best to hide that kind of information.


    The fact is Internet Explorer is closed source. You have no idea how many bugs are open on it, how many are fixed between builds, the quality of patches, the quality of the code or even what features are being worked on at any given time. Mozilla allows you to do all which consequently means a lot of people are motivated to find and reports bugs and often submit patches.


    Besides, a lot of the so-called bugs on mozilla are covering feature work, more deal with embedding and API cleanup, more are dupes, more are issues restricted to specific sites and more deal with issues on specific platforms. They might all be labelled "bugs" but the number of crash/non-functional/quirk issues are actually a subset.

  22. Any comments on how this compares to Chimera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now that Quartz rendering is supported, does anyone have experiences in how stable and fast this is compared to Chimera (the Aqua version of Mozilla, not the old X11 browser).

    1. Re:Any comments on how this compares to Chimera? by u2zoo · · Score: 1

      on my tibook g4 500, 1gb of ram - Chimera is still out performing Mozilla in the page rendering dept. Sadly I have no real numbers for you to gloss over. :-D

      I bet you bug the Chimera folks they would be more than happy to put the numbers up again... heck they've probably already run the benchmarks again.

    2. Re:Any comments on how this compares to Chimera? by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

      I think this was only a small change to the code to take advantage of a 10.1.5 feature that allows any Carbon app to request Quartz rendered, anti-aliased text. I don't think there was a radical shift in how the Moz UI is drawn. So, in this case, the Chimera UI will still win out since it's using native Aqua components. As for anti-aliased text, I think it's been in Chimera for a while.

  23. Re:crapzilla???!!!??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to have 64MB, now 320. Mozilla is just as slow even with 320mb. You don't need several gigahertz of processing power to run a WEB BROWSER, its not rocket science.

  24. Re:crapzilla???!!!??? by colmore · · Score: 2

    that's funny, i've been running 1.0 on a 250 MhZ Celeron, and it works just fine. (64 Megs RAM)

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  25. Text comparison. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I took a couple of screenshots of Slashdot rendered with and without the Quartz rendering of Mozilla 1.1A.

    Wow. What a difference.

    http://www2.canisius.edu/~graciem/mozilla.html

    --saint

    1. Re:Text comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope your university doesn't mind it that the Slashdotters have just burned up about $500 worth of bandwidth through looking at your screenshot :)

    2. Re:Text comparison. by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 1

      You forgot to close the ALT quotes on your second image. So the second image doesn't show up, at least in IE (had to copy-and-paste from the source to load it).

      Might want to fix that.

      --
      four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
    3. Re:Text comparison. by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

      And, ironically, it shows up fine in Mozilla.

    4. Re:Text comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much compared to what is burned up on stuff like Kazaa.

    5. Re:Text comparison. by saintlupus · · Score: 2

      You forgot to close the ALT quotes on your second image. So the second image doesn't show up, at least in IE

      Thanks for the heads-up. It's fixed now.

      (Hey, it worked in Moz. How was I supposed to know? :) )

      --saint

    6. Re:Text comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert rants on the evils of non-standard MOZ-HTML blahblahblahblah.

    7. Re:Text comparison. by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      Call me crazy, but I reckon the Mozilla 1.0 looks much better. Maybe it's just the display on my laptop....?

    8. Re:Text comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to clean the screen... Or get some sleep. The text is getting fuzzy.

    9. Re:Text comparison. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2

      Not to sound like a Troll or anything, but do you not find that rendering to be far to blurry? It actually hurts my eyes trying to read it.

    10. Re:Text comparison. by saintlupus · · Score: 2

      Not to sound like a Troll or anything, but do you not find that rendering to be far to blurry?

      Seems okay to me now, but I'm on my work machine with a Studio Display LCD - the original Moz rendering was jagged because the display is so crisp.

      I've got a CRT on my system at home - it'll be interesting to see what it looks like there.

      --saint

    11. Re:Text comparison. by RocketScientist · · Score: 2

      Agreed. This is friggin beautiful. I'm on a powerbook, so I've got the whole LCD thing happening too, and the antialiased text is a big help for readability on any LCD.

      Big difference. If anybody from the team is reading, thanks, this is great.

    12. Re:Text comparison. by bunratty · · Score: 1
      Hey, it worked in Moz. How was I supposed to know? :)
      Do what every self-respecting web designer does and validate the HTML on pages you generate. Then your pages will have a much greater chance of working correctly in every browser.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    13. Re:Text comparison. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      It is blurry. I haven't succeeded in downloading it (mozilla 1.1a) yet, but right now I'm using OmniWeb, which also uses Quartz for rendering, and it's gorgeous. No blur at all. I now find it hard to use "regular" browsers.

    14. Re:Text comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mozilla 1.0 one looks 10x better on my laptop... weird :-)

      Maybe you have to see it on a Mac.

    15. Re:Text comparison. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      'Hey, it worked in IE. How was I supposed to know?'

      heh

    16. Re:Text comparison. by shadowofdarkness · · Score: 1

      agreed the second one is blurry but then again what looks good on a lcd may be blurry on my flat crt

    17. Re:Text comparison. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Reality Distortion Field and all that.

    18. Re:Text comparison. by MicroBerto · · Score: 2

      Is it Mozilla's responsibility to compensate for inadequate web programming?

      --
      Berto
    19. Re:Text comparison. by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2

      Looks very blurry on my LCD. Not as bad as inkjet printing on toilet paper but enough for me to clean my glasses (which helped some).

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    20. Re:Text comparison. by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

      What a difference indeed.

      Does Quartz even take advantage of hinting? In the original screenshot, the lines of the letters seem to be much better separated. It distorts the letter forms somewhat, sure, but it's a whole lot easier to read. The second screenshot is a blurry mess.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    21. Re:Text comparison. by edwdig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. In the 1.1 screenshot, the text looks like a blurry mess to me. If I look at it from up close, the blurring is painfully obvious and just doesn't look good. I tried backing up away from the screen, and it's hard to read. I don't get why it's supposed to be an improvement.

    22. Re:Text comparison. by rawg · · Score: 1

      I just bought a Mac G4 Cube with OS X on it. The fonts are driving me crazy. I've always heard how much better they are. All I see is a blury mess. Its very hard to pick them because some letters will look good and others will be blury like -,i,t,l and others. I am just hoping its my 15" monitor. I need to get a 22" or 23".

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
    23. Re:Text comparison. by arbat2 · · Score: 1

      How disgusting. The Quartz rendering makes my eyes water it is so blury. The top one is crystal sharp (on my flat 17" CRT [LG795FT]). I really hope that isn't the quality of Apple's antialiasing.

    24. Re:Text comparison. by Clith · · Score: 1

      Those of use using Silk have been enjoying Quartz rendering in Mozilla for quite a while now..

      --
      [ReidNews]
  26. Re:crapzilla???!!!??? by OklaKid · · Score: 0

    450 MHz does not mean a lot (other than it is old), what OS & what desktop WM if it is linux? what all do you have running besides the browser... some people never *really investigate why some app is running slow and they just whine about it, oh well one monkeyboy does not stop the show...

  27. Re:And so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually that bug is *not* Mozilla's fault. If you keep up to date with bugtraq, it was later clarified to be an X-Windows problem.

  28. Mozilla versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is *every* Mozilla release worthy a slashdot article? I mean, hey, Mozilla roxx - no doubt about it, but announcing release candidates, alphas and betas is a little bit overkill..

    Or maybe I'm just being cranky?

    -$|{

  29. GTK2 port of Unix versions? by Turmio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In traditional /. style I prefer to ask silly questions instead of go googling or reading Bugzilla so here it goes.

    Does anyone know if they're planning to replace GTK 1.2 with GTK 2.0 soon as default toolkit on Unix platforms? By default I mean it uses GTK 2.0 if found without having to use --with-toolkit=gtk2 configure option of whatever it's called. I think basic GTK 2.0 support has been in since February or so and I personally tested it sometime in April or May (had to get some patches somewhere and apply to source from CVS, wasn't yet committed back then) and it worked fine on my mainstream system (i686 PC running Debian/unstable). Also some days ago I grabbed some snapshot debs from an APT repository announced on galeon-devel mailing list. Packages included Mozilla with GTK2 support and Galeon compiled from source from the HEAD branch of their CVS. That GNOME 2.0 version of Galeon is already almost quite usable, very cool.

    Anyway, IMHO, it would be appropriate to begin public testing of new rendering back-end in early stages of 1.1 alphas by compiling official snapshots for Unices with GTK 2.0 support enabled. Any words regarding the issue?

    1. Re:GTK2 port of Unix versions? by sebol · · Score: 1

      Go and check galeon-devel mailing list
      Galeon for gnome2 require gtk2's mozilla.

      this might help
      http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ageocra wler.c om+mozilla+gtk2

      --
      -- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
  30. Where is Mac OSX version? by EricWright · · Score: 2

    I can't manually log into the ftp server, and the link from the releases page returns a 0 byte file. I know others have gotten this version, so where is it? Anyone got a reliable mirror out there?

    Eric

  31. why mozilla still sucks by bluebomber · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Okay, I figured, "Hey, a 1.1a release. Maybe most of the kinks are out." So (once again, foolishly), I download, install, and voila! It still sucks. On Win2k. Even after nuking my previous installation and all mozilla-related settings.
    • My mouse wheel doesn't work. (Yes, I fiddled with the settings.)
    • 17.3 billion privacy and security settings and it still can't render my ISP's crappy webmail page properly.
    • Dialogs that don't fit all of the controls within the window.
    • Address import from Outlook that takes about 20 seconds and imports a grand total of *1* out of *250* names -- but doesn't even get the address associated with that *1* name!

    I don't have the patience to play with this silly thing for another 20 minutes to find enough other bugs to round out this list. Needless to say, this isn't really the quality you'd expect from a 1.1-level release.

    (Yes, I posted this with 1.1a. After hitting "submit", I will uninstall and go back to nice, reliable IE.)
    1. Re:why mozilla still sucks by zenyu · · Score: 2

      Hey, a 1.1a release. Maybe most of the kinks are out.

      Did you try 1.0? 1.1 is clearly marked as an alpha release, it's supposed to have kinks. I've had no problems with 1.0 on Linux or Windows 2000. I miss the download manager, but that's about it. I'm looking forward to the 1.0.x releases for greater stability on MacOS 10 so I can get my mac friends using it.

    2. Re:why mozilla still sucks by Christopher+Whitt · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you check mozilla.org you'll see that 1.1a is Mozilla 1.1 ALPHA! The roadmap clarifies more:

      The mozilla 1.0 stable branch will continue as 1.0.x, and the 1.x series will continue as test milestones for evaluation of the latest features added to the trunk development. Each release cycle will be about 13 weeks long, consisting of 5 weeks work then an ALPHA release, another 5 weeks then a BETA release, then a week or so freeze before the milestone.

      This release is 1.1 ALPHA. Lots of nice things in there for those who are following Moz and don't mind the shortcomings, but if you just want to complain, stick to IE.

    3. Re:why mozilla still sucks by jesser · · Score: 1

      but if you just want to complain, stick to IE.

      Why not stick to Mozilla 1.0?

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:why mozilla still sucks by orange7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, mozilla has a nascent version of that now: Tools/Download Manager. Cool, eh! I didn't notice it until just recently; a pleasant surprise.

      A.

    5. Re:why mozilla still sucks by rweir · · Score: 1

      Each release cycle will be about 13 weeks long, consisting of 5 weeks work then an ALPHA release, another 5 weeks then a BETA release, then a week or so freeze before the milestone.

      5+5+1=13? Must be using Pentiums.

  32. Aha.. if your ISP has a transparent proxy.. by wackybrit · · Score: 1

    My ISP has a transparent HTTP gateway/proxy.. and all HTTP traffic goes through it. Perhaps this is what is incompatible with HTTP 1.1 or pipelining. However, using HTTP 1.0 means you can't access virtual hosts on servers, AFAIR?

    Anyway, thanks for the advice, hopefully it can help most people with proxies, transparent or not.

  33. Does anyone know ...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it works with Microsoft Proxy Server V. 2.0 yet? This is keeping me from using mozilla at work. Any workarounds?

  34. Where is the source? by rizzo · · Score: 2

    Why haven't they put the 1.1a source up? I don't want to do all the CVS jazz (yes I know it isn't hard).

    --

    "More organs means more human." - Zim

    1. Re:Where is the source? by StarHeart · · Score: 1

      I agree, "Where is the source tarball?". The commands mentioned in the README on the download page don't work because of a lack of CVSROOT. Even with the CVS working I wonder if I am getting what has been released today or that plus new patchs. A nice pre-made tarball is nice. Just drop it in the right directory, modify the spec file, and try to compile a rpm.

      --
      Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
    2. Re:Where is the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@cvs-mirror.mozilla.org: / vsroot

      The password is "anonymous". None of which keeps me from agreeing that it's silly not to release a source tarball at the same time as the first binaries (or even before).

  35. Mozilla under Win2K? by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's better on *nix, but under Win2K version 1.0 was "unable to resolve" about half the web addresses I typed into it. Anyone else have this problem? Does 1.1 alpha fix this?

    --
    sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
    1. Re:Mozilla under Win2K? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your DNS is broken then.

    2. Re:Mozilla under Win2K? by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 1

      If it's a DNS problem, why does Opera/MSIE work just fine?

      --
      sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
    3. Re:Mozilla under Win2K? by dylan_- · · Score: 2


      under Win2K version 1.0 was "unable to resolve" about half the web addresses


      That's very strange. I've been using it under Win2K and it works just fine. Any particular sites it does this on? Always the same sites?

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  36. Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! by DrXym · · Score: 2

    And I like said, it isn't 1700 bugs since the bug system also tracks features and other work. A lot of work was in a holding pattern while Mozilla 1.0.0 was in feature freeze and QA. I also wonder where this 1700 figure comes from since it's not mentioned in the release notes and Bugzilla only lists 172 bugs as being fixed with a 1.1alpha target.

  37. OpenBSD port? by dirtyeye · · Score: 0

    Anyone know if they plan to do an openbsd port

  38. Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by io333 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if FullScreen (F11) has been returned to 1.1 in the Linux version?? I don't know why it was taken away in the first place and really miss the feature. I have a small (17") monitor and really miss the extra space savings. I think it was there until Version 0.98 and then poof!, she was gone.

    On the Windows side of things, there are exactly two things keeping mozilla from being my Browser Of Choice:

    1. No fullscreen button to switch back and forth between the modes.

    2. No hotspot for the mouse to pop out the sidebar automatically.

    This is why:

    With those two buttons I can surf all day and *never* touch the keyboard. The way the browser is now I always need to be hitting F9 to get the sidebar to come out or go away, and F11 to switch between the fullscreen/screengarbage modes.

    I realize I can try to aim for and click the center of the left side of the sidebar to get it to come in and out, but even with my optical mouse and superior fragging skills I still find getting exactly into that little space a bit of a challenge depending on my sleep+alcohol levels.

    With IE, drunk/tired surfing is simple. I slam the mouse pointer to the left and bang!, there are all my lovely bookmarks. I don't have to aim; I don't have to make my eyes focus; and most of all I don't have to try to find function keys in the dark.

    When I'm trashed or otherwise feeling like the rest of the masses, I always end up booting back up into windows to surf because the interface is more mouse-only oriented.

    And by the way, the reason I havn't downloaded 1.1 and tried it myself is because just for once, for more than one day, I would like to have a browser running on my Linux box that isn't called a beta, let alone alpha.

    1. Re:Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by io333 · · Score: 1


      >>>When I'm trashed or otherwise feeling like the rest of the masses, I always end up booting back up into windows to surf because the interface is more mouse-only oriented.

      What I meant to say was that I always end up booting back into Windows+IE....

    2. Re:Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by Misch · · Score: 2

      1. No fullscreen button to switch back and forth between the modes.
      Have you tried Mouse Gestures yet? Latest versions include gestures to go to full screen & back again. True, it's not a pretty button, but, hey, you get what you pay for.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    3. Re:Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest Galeon browser, which is based on Mozilla, has the full screen option.

    4. Re:Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by io333 · · Score: 1

      I will whenever it gets un /.ed.

    5. Re:Whatever happened to FullScreen in Linux? by io333 · · Score: 1

      Galeon wants a lower version of the mozilla installed & is super BuggyCrashy when a newer version is tacked underneath.

  39. Virtual hosts on servers by moogla · · Score: 2

    You can still use virtual hosts on servers. That is not required by HTTP 1.0 (it is by 1.1) but all your popular browsers since 5 years ago give the information anyway.

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
  40. Features Mozilla really needs by aoty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kudos on the excellent browser. I couldn't be happier with it... well, maybe a little happier.

    I'd love to see a way to allow/block particular plugins for certain websites, as we can now with cookies. A way to globally turn all plugins on/off easily would be useful as well.

    OT... the start up speed from 1.0 to 1.1a is significantly faster on my machine, and 1.0 was fast enough for me!

  41. Not Good on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has a nasty bug with Flash and Linux. It is unusable if you need to use flash plugins... hope they fix it soon.

    1. Re:Not Good on Linux by OklaKid · · Score: 0

      does anyone need flash or infectedX (activex) or animated gif NO!!! it would suit me fine if all graphics were removed from the internet and all was just pure text, information and news is what i am after anyway...

    2. Re:Not Good on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not ask your opinion, you idiot! It was a warning to the people that use flash.
      I got flash to work if esd isn't running.

  42. I've got bugs in my pants.......... by 1000101 · · Score: 1

    "This release has been in the works for almost 2 months now incorporating over 1700 bug fixes and more than a dozen new features." 1,700 bugs!!! And everyone around here is always complaining that Microsoft releases buggy software. Geez....

    1. Re:I've got bugs in my pants.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bug fixes" doesn't always mean something was a bug. It could have been a missing feature.

      I'm not saying there aren't a lot of bugs in mozilla though. Just try scripting a page which uses a lot of CSS2 and you'll see what I mean.

    2. Re:I've got bugs in my pants.......... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Mozilla 1.1 is an alpha, not a final release, though. Are you really saying that Microsoft only release alpha quality software? *grin*

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    3. Re:I've got bugs in my pants.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Open Source is always alpha software. 1.0 is not supposed to be alpha. 1.0 is released. What is 1.1? Right a bug fix for 1700 bugs that were released in 1.0

      That is typical open source mentality. No O.S. software ever has any bugs because the software is never actually released. Even 1.0s are "alphas".

    4. Re:I've got bugs in my pants.......... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      No, Open Source is always alpha software. 1.0 is not supposed to be alpha. 1.0 is released. What is 1.1? Right a bug fix for 1700 bugs that were released in 1.0
      No, 1.1 is a version with both bugfixes and new features. But you clearly have not read the story you are replying to. The story says:

      "This release has been in the works for almost 2 months now incorporating over 1700 bug fixes and more than a dozen new features."

      In case you didn't know, 1.0 was released a week ago. Do you even know what these 1700 bugs were? Do you really think they've done this the last week only? If so, I am extremely impressed with the efficiency of open-source software. It clearly works a lot better than closed-source software, as more bugs are fixed, and they are fixed faster.

      Not only that, but the extremely few security holes in Mozilla must mean that they are doing something right. After all, anyone can investigate the code for security flaws.

      Draw your own conclusions.

      (For the record, I work for a closed-source company and I am not involved in OSS development at all.)

      And how on Earth do you know that OSS has more bugs than closed-source software - for example MSIE? You have no way to know that, because their bug count is a secret.

      That is typical open source mentality. No O.S. software ever has any bugs because the software is never actually released. Even 1.0s are "alphas".
      I know that you are just trolling, but I would like to point out that bugs do exist in alpha software, and are considered as such. In light of this, your comment makes no sense. You are really saying that the term "bugs" is only used for release versions?

      Considering your flawed logic in both your comments, perhaps we should conclude that you don't quite know what you are talking about, and are just fighting in the dark, trying to get some nice hits on against OSS, but failing miserably...

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  43. Xlib by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Last I heard (which is a long time ago), the plan was to use pure Xlib. Mozilla already uses its own XUL widgets for almost everything.

    People who prefer Gtk over XUL should probably use Galeon instead of Mozilla.

    1. Re:Xlib by gehrehmee · · Score: 2

      That would be great... if mozilla actually did native widgets instead of XUL stuff for... for example... scrollbars. Last I heard somebody was actually looking at how to fix this, but it's been a while since I heard an update.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    2. Re:Xlib by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Moz does use XUL for scrollbars within the app. If you're thinking of HTML form controls, then the XBL form controls effort is replacing them with proper, fully paid up XUL constructs. After that, only a few more things need to be eliminated (like the you-need-a-plugin dialog) and then it can switch to pure Xlib. GTK was just slowing things down anyway.

  44. Quartz Rendering for i686? by N8F8 · · Score: 2

    Not sure what it is, but from the looks of another user's screenshots it seems to improve font rendering. What can I do for !686? I'm running RH7.3 with Radeon 8500 on one machine and ATI Rage Mobility 128 on another. The fonts looks look crappy. Like reading a page where the ink has bled.

    Not to mention that I can't get the screen resolution below max (16KX12K) on my laptop. I've run Xconfigurator a dozen times and tried the CTRL-ALT-Minus trick but it won't change.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Quartz Rendering for i686? by That+Bajan+Guy · · Score: 1

      Add some TT fonts to your XFS server. I copied mine from my windows install. Worked wonders.

      --
      -- Sapere aude.
    2. Re:Quartz Rendering for i686? by N8F8 · · Score: 2
      Thanks, does this look like the proper instructions?:

      Using TrueType Fonts with Red Hat Linux

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    3. Re:Quartz Rendering for i686? by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

      Quartz is the new graphics engine API in Mac OS X. A small change in the Moz code was made to take advantange of a new hook in OS X 10.1.5 (recently released) to render anti-aliased text in a Carbon application (one that has been minimally ported from a Mac OS 9 codebase).

    4. Re:Quartz Rendering for i686? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Read my comment here.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  45. SVG support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are we going to get SVG support in stock Mozilla binaries? Can't even find the SVG build on the nightlies directories.

    1. Re:SVG support? by xer.xes · · Score: 1

      Compile with --enable-svg-support or something like that...

      It was dropped for 1.0 (might appear in 1.1 though), for some reason that slipped out of my mind :).

      --
      xer.xes -- 4181
    2. Re:SVG support? by xer.xes · · Score: 1

      Check here for more information:

      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/

      --
      xer.xes -- 4181
    3. Re:SVG support? by MauricioC · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's --enable-svg

      The reason is a licensing issue related to libart, AFAIK

  46. Re:Java Problems...Solution by PoiBoy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Previously I had just copied the entire plugins subdirectory over to the most recent Mozilla release. For the past few versions, whenever a Java app tried to launch it's own window, Mozilla would completely crash.

    Here's the solution: cd over /usr/local/mozilla-1.0/, remove all Java-related files and the java2 directory. Then go to java.sun.com and reinstall.

    Everything now seems to work fine. Don't ask me why it works, though.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  47. Re: API Freeze by distributed.karma · · Score: 1
    Can someone verify that they have actually frozen the API? I'm a bit sceptical, especially as they said the 1.1A has been in development way before 1.0 release.

    It does seem a sensible and common practice to only change the API at major number releases, but for instance the Linux kernel 2.4.x is sometimes incompatible with binary modules for 2.4.y.

    --

    --
    If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

  48. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    filter them out in your preferences if you don't like it.

  49. Mail Read loses state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have multiple IMAP accounts and the annoying thing about the mail reader is it loses stat. I select a message X in account A, then check my mail in account B and come back to account A. Now X is no longer selected, in fact no message is selected and the scroll bar is completely scrolled to the top. I sort my messages in descending order and expect Mozilla to remember atleast the postition of the scroll bar (imagine scrolling 1000 messages!).
    Does any one have a fix?

  50. Poor mozilla font rendering in Red Hat 7.3 by jonabbey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, I found that the biggest problem with Mozilla in RedHat 7.3 was that I had installed the AbiWord word processor when I installed the system. AbiWord happens to have some really poor quality fonts named according to the Microsoft convention.. Arial, etc. So any web page that gives you something like

    <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">

    will cause Mozilla on X to go and find the lousy AbiWord fonts, no matter what you try and do in the Mozilla font preferences.

    The solution is to comment out the reference to the AbiSuite fonts in /etc/X11/fs/config from finding the AbiWord MS-named fonts.

    Mozilla on RedHat 7.3 was totally unusable until I did this.

    1. Re:Poor mozilla font rendering in Red Hat 7.3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like bug #1030.

  51. RPMs for Nighly Builds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know if there are any plans to update the RPMS in the nightly builds folder on the FTP server? The current files were built on May 19.

  52. The machine is moving by Nasheer · · Score: 1

    The release of Mozilla 1.0 is reason for great rejoice for the community (including, but not limited to the OpenSource one). But this release did take too long, and honestly, I didn't believe it would ever come to life. The Mozilla Project had difficult days and many drawbacks.

    Fortunatelly, as says a Brazilian quote: "Everything ends well. If it is not well, then it's not the end, yet"..

    It's good to see the next step taken so quickly, and I hope it never get stuck again. I'm proud to say that "I use Mozilla v1.0"!.

    Go, Mozilla!

    --
    - Please, ignore everything written above.
  53. Re:Java Problems @ chat.yahoo.com by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

    I have problems with http://chat.yahoo.com with mozilla 1.0 & Sun JRE 1.4.0-b92 (I can't seem to type in *any* text input field). Games.yahoo.com works fine for me.

  54. how do i???! by nege · · Score: 1

    I remember once accidently getting tabbed browsing to work...it was awesome! I cant for the life of me get it to work anymore (I am now using the 1.1a) release. Under the help section it just says [content to be provided]. Anyone have any ideas?

    Thanks!!

    1. Re:how do i???! by shadowofdarkness · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is as simple as

      ctrl+t

    2. Re:how do i???! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or go to edit-preferences... appearance-tabbed browsing to set it on-and-going

      =)

  55. Ouch! Bad bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a serious bug that practically impedes the use of localizations (i.e. translations) in this version.
    Really hope this get fixed quick.. :((

  56. Release party in SF DNA Lounge by sfmarco · · Score: 1

    http://www.mozilla.org/party/2002/flyer.html

    MOZILLA RELEASE PARTY
    8pm - 2am.
    FREE ADMISSION!

    Main Room:
    Cybrid -- live PA (Aelectro / Exact Science)
    Ritter Gluck (CODE / Infinite Kaos)
    Shane (CODE / Epiphany / Cloud Factory)
    Amber (CODE / Sister SF)
    Ghreg (CODE / Phosphene / Spectral Concepts)

    Lounge:
    Michael Ang (mozilla.org)
    Bre-Ad (Exact Science / Hot Hair Care)
    Science
    Zephyr

    Acrobatic and fire performances
    throughout the evening by P'Revenge.

  57. Too bad it doesn't run on UFS by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, due to a bug in one of Apple's libraries (not sure which, IANADH -- I am not a darwin hacker) Mozilla (any version since .8.x) crashes instantly if launched from a UFS partition in Mac OS X.

    Really sucks, because when I got rid of OS 9 on my tiBook, I reformatted it all UFS, thinking I'd never have need for HFS+ again. Oops...

    At least Chimera doesn't have that problem (although there are a slew of others...)

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:Too bad it doesn't run on UFS by ProfKyne · · Score: 1

      Really sucks, because when I got rid of OS 9 on my tiBook, I reformatted it all UFS, thinking I'd never have need for HFS+ again. Oops...

      Yeah, reconsider that. There are a TON of things that don't work right with a UFS filesystem on OS X. I'd say you are safe if you limit yourself to Darwin-only operations and just use X11 for windows, but if you ever plan to use proper Aqua applications, you will be glad to have stayed with HFS+.

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
  58. Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but... by dasunt · · Score: 2

    Its amazing. Slashdot, presumably inhabited by the computer literate, can't make a stable win9x system. Hint : It isn't hard. Just have nice hardware, with decent drivers (no $10 bin vid cards), put on a custom install lacking a lot of cruft, turn off Java in IE (which leads to a lot of crashes), and don't install crap (avoid the $5 software bin).

    Win 9x has bugs, some quite bothersome in a few situations, but it is very workable as a work station. Just realize this - windows 9x does not really understand the idea of protected memory - bad programs will crash the system. It also doesn't protect itself, so if you install a program that overwrites key system files, instability might result. Finally, have some sort of real time antivirus measures installed. Viruses cause a lot of instability.

    I'm sorry, but if you can't create a win9x system that won't habitually crash, you don't know computers (at least not windows). The 9x series might not be robust enough for servers, but it is solid enough for the desktop with infrequent reboots (I'm currently doing about one a month.)

  59. Try this by Cally · · Score: 2

    I took a couple of screenshots of Slashdot rendered with and without the Quartz rendering of Mozilla 1.1A.

    Wow. What a difference.

    http://www2.canisius.edu/~graciem/mozilla.html


    Right click on the img, do "view image". I get a screenful of garbage as moz renders the PNG as text. How amusing ;)
    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:Try this by Deven · · Score: 2

      Right click on the img, do "view image". I get a screenful of garbage as moz renders the PNG as text. How amusing ;)

      Well, that might have something to do with the fact that the webserver is returning a content-type of "text/html", not "image/png"...

      --

      Deven

      "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

    2. Re:Try this by ajs · · Score: 2

      That is correct behavior. When you view any file and the server says it's type text/html, the browser is required to render it as such. When it's the target of an IMG element, then the browser is allowed to try to guess at the image type (and mozilla does so correctly).

  60. What is this by rocket97 · · Score: 0

    Can you install Linux on this?

    --
    "The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:What is this by shadowofdarkness · · Score: 1

      Are you serious that you do not know what Mozilla is? If you are it is a internet browser.

    2. Re:What is this by rocket97 · · Score: 0

      Really? I am so sorry, I feel down right stupid now. But you never answered my question, can you install Linux on that?

      --
      "The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
    3. Re:What is this by I+The+Man+in+Black+I · · Score: 1

      Do you want fries with that?

      --

      <sig>what-mib-says | mib2english</sig>
  61. Re:crapzilla???!!!??? by Trevin · · Score: 1

    Some people rave about new software versions being so fast and gloss over the fact that it requires a much faster processor and more memory to get that speed. IMO, if you're going to compare the speed of a new program with that of an older program, you have to run them both on the same hardware -- preferably the hardware that was already in place running the older program.

    I have a friend who doesn't buy into any technology hype at all. He still runs Netscape Navigator _3_ on his laptop, because it works well enough for him, it's quick, and it doesn't take up gobs of memory or hard drive space.

    Personally I have an old 100MHz '486 which I use as a secondary / backup computer. It's still perfectly serviceable. (I was even able to find a VLB IDE controller card last year when my SCSI hard drives died -- amazing!)

  62. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Reziac · · Score: 2

    Further hint: don't install M$Office (the #1 stability culprit) or any IE version past v5.01. There *are* alternatives (like this newfangled Mozilla thing :)

    This Win95 box crashes so seldom that when it does, it's an astonishing event, and has *never* BSOD'd (nor has anything ever been reinstalled). Hell, I even have a WinME box (the worst Win32 ever made) that after I got done beating it into submission (98lite, MFD DOS patch, turn off Restore, done), *never* crashes. It CAN be done, people, and it's not rocket science. It's not even in the same difficulty league with setting up a relatively turnkey linux disty.

    I'd turn this around... with all the consumate geeks working on Mozilla, why is it still the least stable app of all those I have installed?? It's the only app on my Win98 box (which itself usually runs for 2-3 weeks between shutdowns) that routinely crashes. And on reading the 1.1a release notes, I had to shake my head at some of the bugs not fixed (with low Bugzilla numbers, so they've been here a while).

    Ah, well. At least when Mozilla crashes, it doesn't take Windows with it.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  63. "Modern" theme is designed to use own colors by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

    "Mozilla also fails to use my system colours, this is another clasic 'You fool' usability bug."

    No, wrong.

    The Modern theme is designed to use its own colors. The Classic theme (kinda like NS4) does pick up system colors.

    Moz's XUL-based themes allow you to design themes either way. It would be a bug if a theme that *did* have specific colors was overriden by the system.

    There are probably some new themes out there you'll like. Click the "Get New Themes" link in the Themes preference panel.

  64. I love Mozilla by HFXPro · · Score: 1

    The more I use Mozilla, the more cool features I find. All I can say is Mozilla rocks my friggin world. It is now my browser of choice on all OS's. The only reason I ever use IE anymore is if I have to access a page that only works with IE. Usually, I manage to complain to the webmaster about his inability to preform code with is compliant with the web standards.

    --
    Reserved Word.
    1. Re:I love mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually IE stands for "Internet Exploder", since it has ruined meaning valid-html...

      P_TRIG

  65. CSS SUPPORT WHEN???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the most important thing Mozilla needs to work on is CSS support. Theirs sucks. I can place things absolutly, with no margins, etc, and line them up just using px placement....this should be simple....it looks fine in IE, and the placement is way off in mozilla. CSS is basically unusable for web sites because of this incompatibility (I know, I am a web designer). CSS is a great addition to the tool sets we have to develop web sites, but the lack of support makes CSS usless now.

    1. Re:CSS SUPPORT WHEN???!!! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      You are getting it all wrong. It is MSIE which doesn't do absolute positioning correctly. Browsers like Mozilla and Opera have done it for ages, but MSIE just can't seem to catch up.

      You are a "web designer" you say? And you don't even know this? Get a new job, dude :/

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  66. Themes and styles. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Can the themes be disigned in a way that applys a style to your system colours, e.g. by using PNG's and colour blends/masks?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Themes and styles. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      I don't see why not. The way mozilla uses themes is they are all defined in CSS files. Since, in the CSS files, you can set, say, a widget to be a file, you could give it a system colour and use the PNGs alpha channel to shade it the appropriate colour.

  67. I had that problem... by mblase · · Score: 2

    ...on Win2K, until I uninstalled Mozilla *and* the Java engine and reinstalled both through the Mozilla installer. Now it all works fine.

    Mozilla itself recommends you uninstall the last version, rather than installing on top of it. They don't mention that it's probably a good idea to uninstall the Java engine as well.

  68. Faster startup times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, whatever, but are they ever going to make it faster to use the browser? I'd like to see it run at least as fast as Netscape 4. Just now I tried pulling up my Roxen web-based administration interface, and I could see the delay between loading each individual graphic image on the page. Even with pipelining turned on. I tried running a search on dice.com using Mozilla 1.1a and Communicator 4.78 simultaneously, and even though I clicked the button on Mozilla first, Communicator was the first to display the results. The most noticeable difference though is in the UI widgets; whatever widget set Mozilla uses, it feels very sluggish -- there's a noticeable delay between clicking a button, like the menu bar or a dialog Cancel button, and seeing the response. With Communicator's Motif widgets, the response is practically instantaneous.

  69. Not that remarkable... by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

    It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.

    Microsoft does the same thing -- everytime someone publishes a security hole...

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  70. 1700 Bug Fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "1700 bug fixes" In other words, 1700 ways they could have written the code better the first time. Hypocrites.

  71. I've found the cause by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll file a bug report now that i know it works for someone else.
    The problem is, I use mixed fonts and different font sizes for things, and it looks like the preferances dialog is'nt taking accoun of this properly.
    Changing you font to 'I can't see that well' or 'Can you see from the back of the room' size, and things go really tit's up.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  72. Thanks by N8F8 · · Score: 2

    Thanks, i don't think I installed AbiWord, but I did install OpenOffice, SciTE and some other stuff. I'll give it a try.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  73. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight; in order to get a stable Win9x system, I have to limit my choice of software? Thanks, but I'll stick to Linux.

    I can understand the drivers argument, but the moment you start saying not to use any user-space software because it could bring the system to its knees, I know there's something wrong with the system.

  74. I'm with you, Mozilla 1.0 looks better by mccrew · · Score: 1
    Call me crazy, but I reckon the Mozilla 1.0 looks much better.

    I'm with you, Mozilla 1.0 looks better (on my Viewsonic tube). Perhaps it is only LCD screens where there is a noticable difference?

    -Steve

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    1. Re:I'm with you, Mozilla 1.0 looks better by e_n_d_o · · Score: 1

      I've got a ViewSonic ViewPanel VA800 (The 17.4" consumer model flat-panel sold at Best Buy, CompUSA, etc), and the top shot looks great while the bottom shot looks terrible.

      What I'm really happy with is running Gnome2/GTK+2 with antialiasing and subpixel rendering.

      I take it that some people LIKE the fuzziness of the bottom version.

    2. Re:I'm with you, Mozilla 1.0 looks better by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Well I'm using a fairly entry-level LCD (1024x768 TFT on a sub GBP 1000 laptop), so I guess it's noe just tubes. I know that some fonts seem to look particularly bad on non-anti-aliased Mozilla compared to anti-aliased IE, but I think that Arial and other Sans Serif fou=nts look just fine without the blurring effect that most AA algorithms seem to produce.

  75. Plugins by blair1q · · Score: 1

    DOES IT MAKE IT ANY FUCKING EASIER TO INSTALL SHOCKWAVE PLUGINS!!!?

    The reason Mozilla will never be "better" than IE, even though clearly it will, is that simple things like downloading and installing plugins are turned into an impossible act on Mozilla.

    (If you click on a link with shockwave, you get a box saying to download the plugin, but the Macromedia site doesn't recognize Mozilla as a browser, and points you at a directory of files. You choose the one for IE or Netscape and try it. The first thing it wants to run the installer is a plugin for Macromedia Director, so you go through the failed-recognition-DL procedure again. When you try to install Director, the first thing it wants to run the installer is Shockwave. Catch-22. Just fucking lame. Partly Macromedia's fault; mostly Mozilla's fault for not having a corporation behind it that understands that synergy with plugin providers requires TALKING to them.)

    --Blair

    1. Re:Plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alter nates/

    2. Re:Plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      On the other hand, I'm not so sure I want a browser (or a mail reader) installing plugins without user intervention..

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

      User intervention is fine.

      Circular dependency bugs are not.

    4. Re:Plugins by RealityThreek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quit being ignorant.

      Mozilla is not meant as an end user application. It is meant as a resource for developers and bug testers. The fact that you even thought it was for end users shows how good of a job they are really doing. This point as been mentioned numerous times, and it's even stated when you download Mozilla.

      There are distributions of Mozilla meant for end users. Netscape 6.0+, Galleon, hopefully AOL soon. =)

      --
      :wq
    5. Re:Plugins by thre5her · · Score: 1

      Actually. the Netscape plugin detects Mozilla builds automatically and should work.

    6. Re:Plugins by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Someone mod that up as Funny.

      "A resource for developers and bug testers"?

      You mean its only purpose for being developed is to be developed.

      And it's obvious goal of mimicking IE to the pixel and hitch is just a parlor game.

      What's the point of having different code bases with different bug paradigms for the development platform and the release product?

      --Blair

  76. When can we strip attachments from mail messages? by jinak · · Score: 1

    When the mail app can remove encoded attachments from mail messages, I'll be all over it. See Bugzilla Bug 2920 (which is over 3 years old) for details.

  77. I love mozilla by Zapdos · · Score: 2

    I will never use IE, which if you don't know, really means "It Explodes"

  78. Minor annoyance by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

    For me, the most annoying thing with Mozilla is when I click on a link, the boss walks by and I minimize the window, the page loads, and then the window pops back onto my screen.

    Without fail, it is followed by; "Chris, can you do ... for me?", or "Are you busy right now?"

    1. Re:Minor annoyance by Eil · · Score: 2

      Add to prefs.js:

      user_pref("mozilla.widget.raise-on-setfocus", false);

    2. Re:Minor annoyance by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Very cool.

      Thank You.

      --chris

  79. Does this fix the X font remote DoS exploit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an amazingly simple way to crash a Linux system. And it's been there for months, if not years. This just goes to prove that no one is seriously looking for security problems in Linux or any of it's components or programs. (Hey, Linux is perfect! It can never have a security hole!) And save all the X is not Linux and Mozilla is not Linux apologies. Linux is a package and everything that it includes to make a functional desktop system (including X and a web browser at minimum) must be looked at as a *system*.

    So far any time anyone lifts the lid ony any part of the system, even a tiny bit, spiders and flies emerge in droves. Please start actually taking security seriously and stop dodging the issue ("it can't happen here", "X isn't Linux so it's not our problem" etc.) or it will be Linux's ultimate failure. Imagine if the entire US gov. had already switched to Linux and Mozilla and this came out. Ooops! Gotta patch 50 different programs on every desktop on a monthly basis, now that sounds familiar. :(

  80. games.yahoo.com worked on Linux for me by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    I too was appalled to see the

    "This game will not work on unix or Macintosh systems"

    footnote on games.yahoo.com (for the fabulous 'twisttext' game).

    But I tried it under Linux, and (once I got the latest JVM installed), it worked fine.

    Go figure.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  81. I didn't know... by Mals · · Score: 1

    that the lizard could run this fast!

  82. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But isn't this is even more limiting to what software you can install. Besides if you install buggy software in Linux it can crash too. I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but IMHO Windows 98SE is the BEST operating ever made. Not all slow and bloated like the NT/2k/XP line, not crippled like ME, and well I'm not going to trash Linux, cause I do like it it's just not as good overall as 98SE, yet anyway.

  83. Re: API Freeze by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell (and I'm fairly confident in this) is all new feature development always occurs on the CVS trunk. A while before a new release they cut a cvs tag and branch it. Once they branch for release, there are no new features added on the tag branch, unless they're very necessary for stability. All cool stuff goes on the trunk.

    So if you want to think about it, yes, while 1.0 was branched but before release, they were making the changes on the trunk that eventually would be 1.1.

    Of course, nothing is stopping the API from changing from 1.0 to 1.1 no matter when the tags were cut. Thats up to Mozilla discipline, but considering the long gestation of the 1.0 release, I'd say they had plenty of beta time to make their changes before the 1.0 freeze. But if you're concerned about API stability don't pay any attention to the chronology of releases. The tags are the important thing.

  84. Data pipelining... by RealityThreek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is awesome. I'm on a 28.8 modem connection for the summer, and I was pretty bummed about how slow webpages were loading up. After turning on the pipelining option, load times dramatically decreased.

    There's an explanation on how it works here.

    --
    :wq
  85. Argh by dghcasp · · Score: 2
    Still apparently doesn't have a fix for allowing cut/paste from xterm to URL bar...

    No, I Don't want to go wading through mostly undocumented configuration files to figure out why it doesn't work - It just should work by default - That's what's called usability and why people still see Linux (apps/os/&c) as hard to use.

    1. Re:Argh by maXter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Select the text in your xterm. Click the middle mouse button anywhere other than a link in the browser window. Voila.

      --

      Ryan Patrick Harris (maxter)
      http://maxtersbox.net University of Michigan
  86. Im not a big mozilla basher but.. by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

    There were a few things in the past that made me grouchy about mozilla, I was disappointed. 1.1 seems to want to fix some of my complaints so i've been taking it serious as a browser of choice for the first time ever. Nice to see the dev-team is listening!

    --

    -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
  87. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

    No, it's not really limiting myself, unless you also count saying using Windows is limiting yourself to not running Linux programs, which makes the whole argument pretty silly.

    Anyway, Win98 was not the best OS. I could bring it down easily, which is saying something since back then I wasn't programming. I have yet to run any software that can bring Linux down unless it has direct access to the hardware (Such as XFree). Typically, when XFree crashes, it just respawns.

  88. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
    So let me get this straight; in order to get a stable Win9x system, I have to limit my choice of software?

    To the best of my knowledge, to get a stable system running on any end-user OS in existence you have to limit your choice of software.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  89. Windows version great, OS-X, still slow... by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

    Firstly, I'd like to congratulate the team working on Mozilla - up till now I've been a bit disappointed with the slow dHTML performance, but this latest version... well... AMAZING, on Windows at least...

    Unfortunately the OS-X version is still as slow as before, though no worse than IE5.1 on the same machine. I get the impression it's OS-X itself that's the problem here...

    Yet to test the Linux version, but I'm full of hope now!!

  90. Run Lizard Run! by buford_tannen · · Score: 1

    Mozilla has gotten really fast; on my dad's old Pentium 90 system (first generation Pentium with Win98), I've had it running faster than IE since 0.9.8. (Before that, I never tried it using it on the system.) I guess those System Requirements are higher than necessary. (258% too high, that is). Good work guys!

    --
    Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
  91. Re:Why I Still Refuse To Use Mozilla Anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If AA fonts are that important to you, use Windows. In Windows, ALL programs can have AA fonts! Just click a checkbox, and voila! One less thing for you to bitch about.

    One obnoxious comment deserves another.

  92. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by edwdig · · Score: 2

    Another tidbit to increase Win9x stability - don't install AIM. I don't know for sure, but it really looks like when AIM changes ads, it doesn't free the memory from the old ones. You'll notice if you run AIM for a while, you'll start getting UI glitches around the system with UI objects not showing up. First thing to exibit the problem is the AIM ads.

    For those who don't know, Windows 9x has a 256k area of memory where *ALL* UI objects are stored. Once that memory is filled, things start disappearing. Win 3.x was worse, as it was only 64k total. Don't know about NT/2k. Hence why not freeing the ad objects is such a bad thing.

    Interestingly enough, Netscape 4.x's stability also goes up drastically if you don't run AIM.

  93. Mozilla on Windows by Jagasian · · Score: 2

    I have two computers, a Linux box and a Windows 98SE box. One for work, and the other for play. On my windows box, I have replaced IE has the default browser. Some people are going as far as to use Lite98 like utilities to rip IE completely from their Windows system, and then configure Mozilla for quicklaunch. Under such a setup, Mozilla truely is faster than IE! Not only that, but I only had an IE crash on average once a day, but with Mozilla, I have yet to crash it... even after 12 hour browsing sessions!

    The next thing Mozilla needs is to become the default AOL browser.

    After that, Sony uses Mozilla has the default browser for the net addon to their PS2.

    In addition, Apple replaces IE with Mozilla as OS X's default web browser.

    Then the nail in the coffin would be an Outlook worm that transparently replaced IE with Mozilla. Overnight, the tables would turn. Wishful thinking? Maybe. Mozilla is not just a web browser, but an application platform for developing full featured software applications using open XML based languages. Enough market share would allow commercial desktop applications to be developed for a cross-platform paltform as was the desire with Java. Mozilla truely could be the turtle to Microsoft's rabbit.

  94. Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously though, I notice bugs in IE all day long when I use it at work, are you so sure of yourself when you pronounce IE to be superior browser? Why? Has MS's PR deparment impressed you that much? I know I can't seem to find any sort of bugzilla server there, so I'd assume thats the only thing there is to go by.

    Oh I forgot, your actually a 'grassroots' poster, aka MS drone.

  95. That was the number one usage hurdle for me... by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    When I first started using Linux, that had to be the number one UI irritation I suffered. However, once I got used to it, it ended up feeling more correct than the standard way of doing things (the selection becomes the home for things to be copied, which makes sense because it defines selected text as text upon which operations are performed, not some mysterious, invisible paste buffer.)

    That having been said, a couple of mysterious invisible paste buffers with a status viewing application (which I would leave perpetually open on head 2) would rock.

    Oh yeah, that and Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark ports. Honk.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:That was the number one usage hurdle for me... by maXter · · Score: 1

      wmcliphist works nicely if you're inclined to use a windowmaker dock applet. It can be found here.

      http://linux.nawebu.cz/wmcliphist/

      And, I have not really used it, but I believe that klipper works well as a kde applet. I'm sure there is a Gnome applet somewhere as well, and I believe that the Gnome panel may accept KDE applets in 2.0. I am just recalling that from memory, however.

      --

      Ryan Patrick Harris (maxter)
      http://maxtersbox.net University of Michigan
  96. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by mixmasta · · Score: 1

    Ha! With all due respect, any idiot who is still using win9x on a modern computer gets what he deserves in my opinion. There is no reason to still be using an operating system designed in 1982 in 2002.

    True, if you jump through 15 hoops you can get it to work halfway decently.... (maybe, if you're lucky) SO WHAT!

    My computer works for me, not the other way around. I'll take XP Pro (fischer price addons turned off) or OS X puhleaze. Linux is stable too, just needs a little more work. :)

    --
    #6495ED - cornflower blue
  97. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by dasunt · · Score: 2

    Try gaming. Sometimes old DOS is the best platfrom. Several of the console emulators out there really like DOS. And I'm sorry, but console emulation on linux sucks. Argue with me all you want, but first, do this. Take a console, (lets try NES, since its been out forever), and compare the Linux emulators to the DOS emulators. System requirements and mapper support would be two easy to measure things. Now tell me what platform has the better emulator.

    Just my $.02

  98. Re:Why I Still Refuse To Use Mozilla Anymore. by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    It just amazes me that so many people can put so much work into a project, and then NOT include something as fundemental as AA support.

    So why don't you do this?

    Stop complaining and start coding. It's Open Source, not shareware ....

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  99. It's too bad... by JanusFury · · Score: 2

    It's too bad the Windows version of Mozilla sucks ass. Now, I'm not trolling here, this is honest.

    I've been using Moz since beta v0.6, if I remember correctly - and I switched to using it as my primary browser (no IE at all) at around 0.8. I just recently removed Mozilla entirely from my system, at RC3. Why? Because it SUCKED. Mozilla's windows version has steadily regressed in major areas, due to developers checking in flawed code.

    I personally have submitted or commented on a number of major bugs, only to see people trading blame and pushing back fix dates.

    A number of MAJOR bugs that appeared in recent versions, and prevented me from using the browser, STILL have not been fixed. Things like the fact that Pipelining is horribly buggy, and corrupts caches, how JPEGs are inexplicably flagged as corrupted by Moz when every other app doesn't mind them, how Moz decides to ignore mouse clicks and key presses at random, all have made me rather upset with the developers. I can list off from memory a number of bugs that a first-year computer science student could have caught, but were not caught before being checked into the source tree, and then caused major screwups.

    Moz's developers have done a great job, but the Windows version is horribly screwed up, and needs to be given a thourough once-over. It consumes excessive amounts of RAM, crashes randomly, and is very sluggish in various cases. Compare all this to IE - IE has been fast, and for the post part, stable (though not secure) since 4.0. Mozilla, as far as I know, has never really even gotten close to equaling IE in the reliability department, and only occasionally runs decently fast. I would pass my problems off as due to my machine, but I've run Moz on at least 7 different machines from different companies, with different configs, and they ALL have major issues. I've reinstalled multiple times, reformatted, etc - And yet the problems persist.

    I was pretty faithful about submitting bug reports every time I found problems - but apparently spending 2 minutes searching for my bug in the database wasn't enough. I was consistently shamed for not finding some obscure old bug with a weird name and keywords, and also consistently ignored when posting comments about bugs. I finally got tired of being screamed at on Bugzilla, and just decided to screw Moz. I'll let them catch their own bugs.

    Perhaps if I ever get a working Linux partition on my home box (I've had bad luck in the past), I can use Mozilla as the kickass browser it's meant to be. Until then, I'll stick to IE.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  100. Sync with Palm Contacts by Cosmo_Kramer · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for this! There are millions of Palm users out there but still no way to sync the contacts? I don't get it...

    For those also waiting for this feature don't forget to sign here: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112555

    For now there is still *no* Priority assigned and *no* Target Milestone specified for this task. Subscribe and show that you're waiting, too. Maybe we can speed up the process a little.

    Thanks.

    CK

    --
    Though his mind is not for rent
    Don't put him down as arrogant
  101. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by qurk · · Score: 1
    Try fce ultra. I'll agree that win98 has the edge in better emulators for more systems, but I think for me the cause of that is not tweaking with the svgalib and stuff enough (not a big priority atm :)

    But I found your example kinda funny because whereas I reboot to win98 pretty much for the sole reason to play a good genesis game or snes game, with fceu I can play nes games on linux just as well as win98 :) Actually from what I've seen if I just set up my svgalib and framebuffers better snes9x would run like a dream. Zsnes is definitely playable on my linux setup, albeit just a tad bit inferior to the win98 version. Gaming isn't that big of priority for me at the moment, so I haven't gone out of my way to fix up my linux setup yet :)

    If you'd like to try fce ultra for a good NES emu, heres the url :)

    http://fceultra.sourceforge.net/

  102. Re:Why I Still Refuse To Use Mozilla Anymore. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    Or buy a decent monitor with some resolution. Sheesh. AA fonts are worthless if you have good Adobe fonts and a decent monitor.

  103. Over 1700 Bug Fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'over 1700 bug fixes...'

    And these were part of 1.0?

    This is encouraging news. But not at all surprising. Unless these people stop thinking like MS and start reviewing and tweaking their code, this will go on... And on and on and on.

    It's a disease, and it's called featurism, and it's defined in the Jargon Files.

  104. Its good by roly · · Score: 0

    I downloaded it, its much better than 1.0 (and better than the first version of Mozilla, 0.9.2 which I used 1 year ago:P)

    --
    "With Microsoft, you get Windows. With Linux, you get the full house" - unknown
  105. Check Privoxy @ sourceforge, IJB with HTTP/1.1... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Pretty nice proggie actually, wouldn't want to be without it...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  106. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True enough, but I meant there are less programs for Linux. I've had Netscape 4.x bring down Linux before as well as several older versions of Mozilla and some other programs as well.. Win98SE crashes very rarely for me. Of course, I am using Mozilla instead of IE, so a browser crash doesn't bring down the system, in Windows at least. I never have to restart my system now that I stopped using IE.

  107. Try Chimera by TheInternet · · Score: 2

    MacIE and Netscape/Mozilla both face the same basic problem. They are ports of applications written for a system with a very limited architecture (Mac OS 9). Until the apps work in the way that is best suited to the OS X architecture (this can be done from within Carbon), they will not reach their full potential.

    Try Chimera, which is a Cocoa browser app wrapped around Gecko. It's not complete feature-wise yet, but the rendering engine is quite solid and development is moving quickly.

    - Scott

    --
    Scott Stevenson
    Tree House Ideas
  108. Not native widgets, but native themes by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    They can't use native widgets for forms because no native widget prowide all the functionality one can specify with style sheets. And given they have to use their own widget set (XUL) for forms, it makes sense to use it for the entire application. Especially since there are other browsers (Galean, K-meleon) that provides the native widget application around the Mozilla (Gecko) rendering engine.

    However, Mozilla does the next best thing. It speaks with the native theme manager to draw the XUL widgets, for systems that have a theme manager. So the widgets will look native.

    1. Re:Not native widgets, but native themes by gehrehmee · · Score: 2

      IMHO, the inability to display customized widgets properly by a certain native toolkit is a shortcoming of the toolkit, and should be corrected there. Where there is in inability to match the stylesheet exactly, I'd (personally) much rather have the toolkit simply do it's best to match it, and fail a bit. That could just be me.

      As for widgets "looking native", that's all fine and good, but I'd also really like them to feel native.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  109. Spell check for mozilla mail by kayakgreg · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know when/if a spell checker for mozilla mail is planned?

  110. Re:Slashdot - Where people can install linux, but. by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 1

    Yeah, You can make a stable and secure win9X box, but that's like saying you can make a shock-resistant Pinto.

    You're trying to get something to behave in a way that it was never designed for. By all means knock yourself out. Still, at the end of the day you would have a much easier time if you started with an OS with some semblence of a security model and a filesystem that doesn't corrupt/fragment itself at the drop of a hat.

  111. Where are the 1.1alpha RPM's? by dazdaz · · Score: 1

    ok it appears the RPM's for 1.1 alpha are non-existant, anyone be kind enough to provide them?

    Sigh, come on mozilla, be the team we want you to be.