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."
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...).
.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...
This brings up one of my older thoughts: you know how we can format sites with user-defined stylesheets, how about user-defined
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
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!"
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.
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
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?
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'.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
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.
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.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
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?
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
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
- sending multiple HTTP requests in one network packet, and
- 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.