Phoenix 0.3 Is Out

David Tansey writes "The Mozilla-based stripped down browser has now reached binary release 0.3. They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions. The point is to work against the 'monolitic' mozilla trunk and make a browser, not a suite. I've noticed that it now uses considerably less memory than Mozilla uses and loads faster. Check it out here."

Comments

moderate

[10 Speed]

if only I could moderate the guys doing this...a browser that only browses, small, lean and fast. Such a great idea...(+5 sensible)

Re:moderate

[Lumpy]

and it's something I have been wishing for cince 1998. Netscape started the damned integration and then everyone started to try and make their browser as big and slow as the other guy adding feature upon feature. I really cant wait for them to get to the stable point. as this will become the standard browser in my office. Mozilla alreadly does everything IE does while increasing the security of the windows workstations (when I get them ALL to linux this will no longer be an issue) by eliminating the ability of popups and auto install worms like Gator and the others out there. Now I'll have a browser that is twice as fast and easier to use. Great!

Re:moderate

[rseuhs]

Check this out:

-rw-r--r-- 1 user users 10850305 Sep 24 17:41 phoenix-0.1-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
-rw-r--r--&n bsp; 1 user users 10328269 Oct 3 14:16 phoenix-0.2-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
-rw-------&n bsp; 1 user users 9520231 Oct 15 18:32 phoenix-0.3-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz

Phoenix is becoming smaller (and faster) which each release!

Re:moderate

[Anonymous Coward]

I would call 7-9 meg for a browser neither small nor lean.

Re:moderate

[Rogerborg]

• a browser that only browses, small, lean and fast

Yes, I use one of those. Give it a try, it's a great way of filtering the content rich wheat from the over-interfaced chaff.

Re:moderate

[khuber]

The silly thing is that they have to work backwards. If the developers would have done a better job up front it would have been easier now.

-Kevin

Re:moderate

[Brendan Byrd]

by eliminating the ability of popups and auto install worms like Gator and the others out there

I must continue to point out that the Mozilla team still refuses to fix their anti-popup engine, because it's not a part of Netscape: shown here on bug 122927.

Re:moderate

[squidinkcalligraphy]

This is because with each release they are ripping out some bloated feature of mozilla. mail, news, irc are gone, next they'll drop the user interface, shortly afterwards, the html rendering engine will disappear. The windows release will stay above a certain size due to the installer, however.

Re:moderate

[rapidweather]

They said they would try and reduce the size, and they have. I'm using Phoenix 0.3, "20021016" for linux right now, and it's very nice. I like the popup blocking, turned on by default. Also, I cannot find any differences between the Linux and Windows versions. So used to having Windows versions of programs, browsers, etc. with many more features than with Linux. Only drawback, I can't seem to install Phoenix on a Redhat 6.1 system. Opera 6.03 for Linux will install on both 6.1 and 7.1. I note the file name of the tarball has -i686 in it, I suppose that's why it works on Redhat 7.1 and not on 6.1. Anyway, I am using Phoenix now over Opera on most of my Windows and Linux machines.
Can't wait to see what else the Phoenix folks will have next!

Re:moderate

[evilviper]

Wouldn't it be nice if it was true? So far, it uses up more memory than Mozilla does, and is slightly slower as well...

You moderate it sensible, I'll call it overrated.

Soon there will be nothing left

[StefMeister]

The Mozilla-based stripped down browser has now reached binary release 0.3. They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions.

If they continue like this, there will be nothing left by 0.5 :)

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[Sn4xx0r]

They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions.

There's a bit more to it then that. They are also recoding a lot of the browser interface, for speed enhancement, but also to bring new functionality. Configurable toolbars, for one. A pop-up blocking whitelist, opposed to blocking pop-ups from every site in Mozilla. An extensions manager, just click to install the extension you like (mousegestures, prefbar...no uninstall yet). It's a browser worth watching, IMHO.

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[RayOfLight]

I just hope that nice things such as a pop-up blocking whitelist will be backported to Mozilla ...

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[A Rabid Tibetan Yak]

(mousegestures, prefbar...no uninstall yet)

I'm posting from Phoenix 0.3 now. Check the release notes before posting -- Extension Uninstall is included in this new version. To find it, Tools->Preferences->Themes and Extensions, click on the "Extensions" tab and you can disable or uninstall your extensions quite happily.

Overall it's a great browser, it really shows off what Mozilla can do. I'm recommending it to friends, it can tempt them with all the speed of IE, the features of Mozilla, and the bloat of neither :).

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[Jugalator]

Yeah, what I really like with Phoenix is that they both use the slick Orbit skin *and* have it use the standard Windows controls, giving it both a nice and standard look. :-)

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[Anonymous Coward]

mozilla has a pop-up blocking whitelist, there's just no interface to it other than editing your prefs.js.

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[ssstraub]

However, you can't change the options for the extentions! I installed the mouse gesture add-on right away, but I had to disable it when I found that there's currently no way to change the (idiotic) default from left mouse button to right mouse button.

Re:Soon there will be nothing left

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus Torvalds could not be reached for comment.

Is it worth it?

[NightRain]

I don't know. Personally I've never had a problem with Mozilla's load or rendering speed. I mean it could be a smaller install, but I haven't bothered with Phoenix as a seperate, if admittedly smaller installer, doesn't seem worth the hassle Ray

Re:Is it worth it?

[90XDoubleSide]

"If you think Mozilla's current UI is acceptable, then you are clearly not the target audience for Phoenix." -David Hyatt

Re:Is it worth it?

[NightRain]

Yeah, fair enough, I'm not the target audience. But my point is it doesn't render any faster that I've been able to see, and only really has a noticeable difference in load times. But you load the browser once, and that's it. I don't see the issue over a couple of seconds. So what IS the selling point? I mean 90% of the people that use it will have Mozilla installed anyway, so it doesn't save download bandwidth or the like. I guess I just don't see why it's compelling enough to bother with. If I'm missing something obvious, I welcome the correction.

Ray

Re:Is it worth it?

[Exotabe]

Well, what jumps out at me is that, already, Phoenix is taking up 2/3 of the memory that Mozilla does. I just installed the 0.3 release, and it resides in 90M of RAM as opposed to ~140M for Mozilla.

While I like/use some of the extras that Mozilla incorporates, I'm going to be keeping an eye on the progress of Phoenix, because I definitely don't need all of them. The concept of a lightweight browser with the power of Mozilla and more configurability options has a lot of appeal to myself and presumably others. As far as the rendering speed, I don't suspect there would be a noticable difference for anyone, unless they were strapped for RAM. Phoenix is built on the Mozilla core, so both browsers would logically both incorporate the Gecko engine for rendering.

My only other suggestion would be to read the release notes for 0.3, they might shed some insight as to why the Phoenix people are doing what they're doing.

Re:Is it worth it?

[dytin]

Well, what jumps out at me is that, already, Phoenix is taking up 2/3 of the memory that Mozilla does. I just installed the 0.3 release, and it resides in 90M of RAM as opposed to ~140M for Mozilla.

140 M of RAM?!? What are you doing that brings your RAM usage to that high? I am currently using Moz with 5 open tabs and the mail/news reader open, and I am only using 37M of RAM...

Re:Is it worth it?

[Exotabe]

You tell me and we'll both know :)

Actually, I've wondered if something's amiss more than a few times, but I've got 512M and not enough time to spend figuring out where it's going right now. Interestingly enough, I still have time to post on /., go figure.

At any rate, the memory ratio between the two is probably right, even if the numbers themselves are horribly skewed.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are missing is that Mozilla/Netscape 6 has been 'out there' for more than year and hasn't even hit a 1% marketshare.

Therefore, back to the drawing board before Ted Turner fires all of their asses.

Re:Is it worth it?

[vidarh]

With those memory amounts, it sounds to me like you're quoting the number of virtual pages allocated for the processes... Notice that that includes things like shared libraries that are used across processes, and also a lot of stuff that never will get paged into RAM unless you actually use it. So a lot of the size difference between Mozilla and Phoenix will simply be shared libraries that aren't mapped in, but that you'd never load in Mozilla either unless you actually use one of the features that have been stripped out.

I still like Phoenix, and it does save memory, but make sure you look at the resident set, not virtual pages allocated when you want to judge actual memory usage.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Moonshadow]

I do a lot of really memory heavy stuff (running a ton of programs at the same time, .NET, Photoshop, UltraEdit, database daemons/managers, browsers, etc) and while Mozilla zips right along under light load, when the system is loaded down, that custom UI really begins to take its toll.

Phoenix is light, quick, and IMO, more usable than Mozilla due to less "features" that just get in my way, and making more use of system-default widgets rather than custom ones really lightens the load a lot. If you're not loading a metric butt-ton of external resources for the custom UI, you save a lot in the long run, obviously.

As far as the installer issue goes, there's no installer on the Windows side. Just a zip that contains the installation. Unzip, create a shortcut, and you're good to go, so if you don't like it, nuke the directory, and it's gone.

I find it fairly spiffy :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[colinramsay]

It's main selling point for me is that it's a lot more streamlined... smaller install, smaller memory footprint, faster loading and window opening. Plus they've removed everything that I never use- composer, etc. It's simple and so it's beautiful :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[Exotabe]

That would make sense.

Of course, at this point, I've lost my primary reason for touting Phoenix, but I do still like where they're going with it as far as modularity/configurability and the enhancements they've added. Image blocking from ad servers is definitely a plus.

In the meantime, I'm going to read up on virtual pages and figure out where it all went horribly, horribly wrong for me. Thanks for the clarification :)

Re:Is it worth it?

[Exotabe]

Right, so you can block images from ad servers under Mozilla too, I really need to start getting more sleep.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Lozzer]

Mozilla is multi threaded, some linux system monitoring tools don't grok multi threaded so it appears that you get number of active threads x process memory allocated. That said the ratio is probably right, althought the actual memory usage is probably a fifth or a sixth of the value quoted. Then again, maybe you have some huge plugins.

Re:Is it worth it?

[wheany]

only really has a noticeable difference in load times.

Exactly! I don't want an email program, a news reader, an HTML editor, a chat program or an IM client with my browser. I use separate programs for those. If they can be plugged in to the browser, good. But I don't want a "forced" install of programs I never use.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Negatyfus]

Forced? You can choose not to install most of those programs with the Mozilla installer. Doesn't make Mozilla much leaner, but still. On a fast computer it's not even luggish.

Re:Is it worth it?

[rseuhs]

Yeah, I was also quite happy with Mozilla. But I wanted configurable toolbars, so I tried Phoenix.

But they are both great browsers, it's just preference.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

My current instance has been running since yesterday, it's up to ca 160Mb, if I leave it running for a couple of days (using it) it will be 300Mb as I've seen many times before. Mozilla uses and leaks lots of memory.

That's version 1.1 running under Windows XP btw.

Klas

Re:Is it worth it?

[geekster]

Me and a friend installed Linux on another friend's spare computer. It's a Pentium 200 mhz with little RAM. Mozilla took a long time to load on that (ofcourse, using xfce instead of Gnome helped =).
So, for a machine like that I think Phoenix qualifies as compelling.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the featureless preference section, I'd say not yet. Although, I have not tried this last release yet.

One BIG advantage that I've found in .1 is that the home button is now on the main button bar. This cuts down on the required number of tool/button bars needed giving you more real estate.

Darren

Re:Is it worth it?

[OSSturi]

I don't want an email program, a news reader, an HTML editor, a chat program or an IM client with my browser.

MailNews, Composer, the IRC-client, Debugger and Inspector are modules which you can install after installing only the browser. They're xpis. Just download the bare installer (mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-installer.tar.gz or the equivalent, 256 KB as of today) and choose to install *only* the browser. This will simply download the xpi for the browser. If you want to browse secure sites, install the personal security manager along with it.

Phoenix is more a new version of just the browser part regarding the customizeability of the UI and a few rewritten features.

Re:Is it worth it?

[PotPieMan]

That memory footprint sounds high. I use , and it rarely uses more than 60 MB of RAM on my box, which has 512 MB total.

Re:Is it worth it?

[GooberToo]

Mozilla is a huge memory pig. When I unload it I typicaly see anywhere from 40M - 120M of my memory being returned to the system. AFAIK, Mozilla has some serious memory leaks or has the absolutely worse possible cache implementation anyone could create. If the problem isn't either of those two, Mozilla has some serious core problems.

Anything that can be done to address the memory foot print is a HUGE win for Mozilla.

Re:Is it worth it?

[90XDoubleSide]

Actually the Mac OS X version does force you to install all of the programs.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I'm at 118MB on Galeon with only 46MB shared--and I haven't even been looking at the naughty bits. With high quality images it's really not hard to max the browser out. Try using tabbed browsing on an aster image gallery and you'll see what I mean.

For speed I like to set my RAM cache to either 128MB or 256MB and my disk cache to 0.

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it's certainly sluggish.

The fact that you need to add 'on a fast computer' verifies this fact.

If you want a fast loading low-memory browser, check out Opera. Phoenix isn't there yet, and Mozilla is a pig to get started (and to the guy who thinks a couple of seconds is no big deal... it IS a big deal when you're sitting in front of the damn computer waiting for it to do what you asked. Mozilla is second only to Delphi for shitty load times)

Re:Is it worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

never had a problem with Mozilla's load (speed)

that's because you go make a coffee after clicking the icon and don't notice ;)

Re:Is it worth it?

[Negatyfus]

With 'fast computer' I wasn't even referring to the newest model with the latest dual-CPU 64-bit goodness. I'm talking middle-the-road 800Mhz-1Ghz stuff here, computers that should be very affordable now. People wanting to stick with their P2-233 machines should not keep back the development of high-tech and slightly more demanding applications. The days when we programmed in assembly are over and clean and maintainable code has won the battle from brute performance issues.

Those two seconds, by the way, only really are two seconds the first time you load Mozilla and if you want instant response, you won't get it with any browser. There are some which have significantly faster loading times, but it all comes down to what you want or need. Fast loading or a good, multi-platform browser with loads of features and a consistant UI (across platforms, not consistent with the OS, which I personally do not prefer). All flamewars are basically pointless, as everybody wants their own thing for various differing reasons in vastly contrasting environments. This is a good thing.

And sorry for the 'luggish' typo. :)

(Why am I still replying to an article that's scrolled off the main page?)

Interaction, not Merging

[e8johan]

Great work! I think that this is the direction to move - lots of small(?) apps, one for each purpose. What is needed is a smart way of letting applications interact (DCOP anyone?), instead of merging them into huge projects.

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[nemesisj]

You know what's ironic - that's the way Microsoft has been doing things with their internet tools: chat, email, and browser are all separate, lightweight apps (outlook express, msn messenger and IE) that don't need each other but work well together. Then you've got Mozilla chugging around. I used Phoenix and I love it - its really fast and seems stable. Good work guys.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[IamTheRealMike]

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

And is still continued today ... the difference? The components are no longer split along process lines and don't communicate using pipes and stdin/stdout. They use the fantastically more powerful mechanisms of XPCOM/CORBA etc.

I've seen this a lot. Out comes a new GNOME/KDE release, people moan and say "What happened to the unix philosophy of small tools?" They are alive and kicking, but those tools have now transcended the arbitrary limitations of text streams.

I've even seen this in reference to Emacs! People kick Emacs for its bloat, but at least if you get XEmacs everything is modular and packaged. You just pick the functionality you want right off. It's all componentized along lisp functions.

Why do people think modularity stops at the command line? It's alive and well, especially in Linux which has to be the most modular OS in history.

It should be noted that DCOP is hardly an advanced rpc protocol. In particular, it's tied to Qt, and is text based (iirc). Something like CORBA is better, but unfortunately is much harder to setup and understand. Hopefully some day somebody will build an object model that doesn't suck.

And as a side note, at least on Windows, Mozilla has been just as fast as IE for ages now. Using QuickStart makes startup instant, although here at work I never bothered switching it on as it starts quickly enough for me anyway. Pheonix is worth more as a test bed for experimental UI design that a "light" browser, as it'll end up becoming heavy as time goes on anyway.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[stilborne]

dcop is not tied to Qt. there is a C implementation of dcop that has nary a trace of Qt in it distributed with kdelibs.

and while you are correct that DCOP is fairly simple and less featureful than something like CORBA (which, given the context for DCOP isn't necessarily a bad thing), it can and does send/recv binary data

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Dog and Pony]

And as a side note, at least on Windows, Mozilla has been just as fast as IE for ages now. Using QuickStart makes startup instant, although here at work I never bothered switching it on as it starts quickly enough for me anyway.

On *what* Windows I ask? As I always do, as I've used Mozilla for quite some time (exclusively for mail, together with others for browsing), on several boxes, and never seen this happen.

Face it people, Mozilla can never be as fast as IE, partly because IE cheats, and partly because, well the Mozilla UI is slow-rendered. The latter could probably be "fixed", but probably not as long as the otherwise great XUL is used - the win is extremely flexible GUI instead. I tend to think that it is worth the slower UI. But don't say it is as fast as heavily optimized win32 GUI. Duh.

It also gets swapped out long time before memory is full, and boy has it got trouble getting back out of there... is this more Windows cheating? It might be. Don't know. It doesn't hang though... just goes for a very long walk before it comes back.

QuickStart helps. Not more, not less. It helps. No instant starts there, even on my AMD XP 1800 with 512 MB meory and nothing else running, IE beats it easily. IE beats it easily on every machine I've tried, ranging from 300 Mhz to around 1500 Mhz, with memory varying from 128-512 MB most oftenly.

So what is this magic machine that makes Mozilla as fast as IE? What Windows? Oh, maybe it is 3.1 on an old 386? That would probably make it hard to tell the difference...

Now, instead of running around pretending as if our favourite browser is already as fast and as good as the competition, how about we open our eyes and make that happen for real instead?

Maybe that would make "normal" people take us seriously, for starters. They don't when they clearly see the lies.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[e8johan]

I actually said "smart way of letting applications interact", i.e. not OLE, ActiveX or any other M$ way of doing it. I have been developing and debugging OCXs this summer and I hate it!

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[richie2000]

The Microsoft approach you mention is a bit misleading - all of those apps use the same basic functionality that's built into the OS kernel - one large, stinking glob of code. What you percieve as different apps is little more than different front-ends for the API/DLL-hell that's Windows. But, they still need each other - try to uninstall OE but keep IE and Messenger. Or completely replace OE with the full Outbreak from Office. The dependencies are just hidden from plain view.

That said, I think Mozilla does leave too big a footprint. I remember back in the Good Old Days you could get Netscape Navigator and Communicator as separate packages. I'd actually like a lean Mozilla browser and a separate Mozilla mail app. No webpage creation, no messenger, no chat/irc. I'll definitely keep an eye on Phoenix.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[heideggier]

Microsoft has been doing things with their internet tools: chat, email, and browser are all separate, lightweight apps (outlook express, msn messenger and IE) that don't need each other but work well together

err no, Microsoft just pile everything into the OS and load the apps up when windows boots (for example IE) they get away with this because they have a monopoly on a closed API. If you don't what to run IE then you are very hard pressed to remove it. I think even Office uses libaries which are installed as part of the OS. If you did a direct shot out between moz and IE and Microsoft product would look decidly bloated. Since this is slashdot someone will point this out.

The question is "Is this such a bad thing?" KDE seems to do much the same thing on linux, but in a open manner, modular code does seem to work very well, although the linux kernel still seems very monolythic in nature compared to somthing like mach

. However I think what people "mean" when they say "small tools doing simple things very well" in the unix philosophy is something along the lines of grep | sort | more > results &&. For example imagine if instead of one hugh program you had a menu and just loaded menu items into that menu while displaying output windows, with programs just being scripts to tie all those things up, and I think from that stand point Mozilla with XUL seems closer to that ideal.

The Problem seems to be that no one has decided on a framework, and people went mad on OOP's type paradigms causing all the softwear bloat problems we have today,

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[RandyOo]

I'd actually like a lean Mozilla browser and a separate Mozilla mail app. No webpage creation, no messenger, no chat/irc. I'll definitely keep an eye on Phoenix.

Why keep an eye on it? I'm using it as my daily browser right now on my older laptop and it's working great!

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[BitwizeGHC]

It should be noted that DCOP is hardly an advanced rpc protocol. In particular, it's tied to Qt, and is text based (iirc). Something like CORBA is better, but unfortunately is much harder to setup and understand. Hopefully some day somebody will build an object model that doesn't suck.

The problem with object models is, they all suck. :) Once you move to objects because "objects are better" you are adding complexity and rigidity to a system. The Unix command line philosophy more closely resembles functional programming: data goes in one end of a component, and comes out the other end suitably transformed. This makes the protocol for fitting components together easy to understand. Text streams are actually advantageous because they allow someone to better examine and test the data that's being moved around.

When you transition to an object model, that adds some excess baggage to the protocol. Each component now needs to have methods associated with it, and a standard format for method calls and parameter passing. These tend to vary from language to language. You also have to check for number and type of parameters, etc. This is easy to do if you are Microsoft or Apple, and can dictatorially impose one object model on all of your developers. In Unix land, where we have KDE and GNOME duking it out for supremacy, with GNUstep trying to muscle its way in, then the object problem becomes more difficult.

As for Emacs, I love it. When I'm doing some serious hacking, I keep an Emacs open all the time. When I need to make a few quick changes across a lot of files, though, I still have sed and vi in my toolkit. Horses for courses.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Dr. Spork]

I know I might be feeding a troll, but honestly, here is what I hear from various users--and some objective tests bear this out: Recent builds of Mozilla on Windows usually render pages faster, but it depends on what's on the pages. Certain content seems to suit IE better, and it renders that content faster. That's why it's relatively trivial to cook up a test that makes MSIE look faster, and vice versa. For most CSS stuff, Mozilla kills MSIE in rendering speed.

On second read-through of your comment it seems you are talking about startup speed, which is totally beside the point, and in any case, off the topic of this thread. I only start Mozilla once every few days--usually because I'm installing a new build. A four second difference in startup speed is a non-issue. Much more significant is wasting a second with each page load waiting for the page rendering to finish. This adds up over the course of the day, because you load many pages. In general, Mozilla wins on rendering speed head-to-head against MSIE. The difference is noticable even on nice machines. Opera might be better still; I haven't tested it for a while.

When you talk about speed, the question is about which application wastes less of your time. The answer, based on raw performance is probably Mozilla. However, when you consider all the other awesome time-saving features like the preferences bar, superior bookmark management, popup blocking (so you don't have to waste time hunting for windows to close), ad blocking, MOUSE GESTURES(!), right-click pie menues, wheel-click for new window (or tab), etc. (wow, that's quite an inventory!). When you take all this great stuff into account, MSIE users waste an incredible amount of time compared to Mozilla users when they browse the internet.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm on Windows XP on a fairly modern machine (1.5ghz Athlon, 512mb of RAM). After the machine has booted for the first time, it takes about 2-3 seconds to start. If I quit it again, and restart it, it takes about 0.5 secs as the files are all cached in memory. That's as fast as with QuickLaunch really, so I don't bother enabling it.

I'm using the Classic theme on XP so it's using native widgets to render the UI, maybe that's why it's faster for me.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Panoramix]

That said, I think Mozilla does leave too big a footprint. I remember back in the Good Old Days you could get Netscape Navigator and Communicator as separate packages. I'd actually like a lean Mozilla browser and a separate Mozilla mail app. No webpage creation, no messenger, no chat/irc. I'll definitely keep an eye on Phoenix.

FWIW, Debian packages mozilla in separate components. You have mozilla-browser (around 9.5M) and mozilla-mailnews (1.9M), as well as several smaller packages for other components (psm, chatzilla, xmlterm, js-debugger, dom-inspector) and the mozilla-dev package with headers and stuff. So right now, Debian's Mozilla is about the same size as Phoenix.

That being said, I'm fetching Phoenix right now. Lets see how it fares against Galeon...

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[gazbo]

all of those apps use the same basic functionality that's built into the OS kernel - one large, stinking glob of code.

Would that be the Windows NT microkernel?

Yeah, it is horribly bloated. Imagine how bloated and crap an OS with a (by definition) much larger monolithic kernel would be.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[richie2000]

Because I have a zillion e-mail messages neatly stored in Mozilla Mail right now and it's no point in switching browser if I still run a mailer with a browser attached. :-)

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah, not to sound boring or like a zealot, but that has been done properly already for ages(late 80`s). The AmigaOS has got a rexx(IBM) port called arexx. A scripting language enabling apps to communicate, exchange data etc. Very powerful, very handy and very good. So far the sad attempts of other oses to do this failed miserably.

So it`s not anything new, it`s been done and it`s something other oses just sorely miss.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[BurritoWarrior]

If you do a custom install of Mozilla instead of typical or everything, you can deselect everything except "Navigator".

Even then it is too big of a footprint/resource hog (IMO), but at least you don't have the extras you speak of.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[rapidweather]

I use Phoenix 0.3 on Windows and Linux, and it's great. Very few bugs.
Easy to uninstall prior to upgrade on Linux, just delete the directory, keep your shortcuts to it, when the new one is downloaded and gunzipped, tar -xvf'd you are ready to go, no "install.sh" to run. your preferences are still there in your user directory, so your toolbar comes up as you had it.
The popup blocking is on by default, so you get the benefit of it right away.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[orrinrule]

You may not be having any trouble just doing that now.. but that might change in the future.

Sometimeswhen I install a new Mozilla release I run into some error with my profile (2 or 3 years of changes in Mozilla means junk in the profile), and I have to rebuild it.

New Profile & Move my mail in. It's not big deal for me, but not good for the average user.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Jason O'Neil]

All I do is use phoenix for web browsing, and Evolution for checking my mail. This works wonderfully. Of course if you're using windows...

Maybe they'll release a light weight, stand alone version of everything (Seperate Mail client, IRC etc)

That would be good, because on Windows, Mozilla Mail is still my favourite mail client.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Ctrl-Z]

For mail purposes, there is the Thunderbird (formerly known as Minotaur) project. According to mozilla.org, it is expected around the time of Phoenix 0.5.

As a Mozilla Mail user (on Windows), I personally can't wait to give it a try.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Ctrl-Z]

Technically, the recommended installation instructions tell you to delete your profile when installing a new version. When I upgraded from 0.2 to 0.3 yesterday I didn't do that and everything worked out fine, but I wouldn't expect that to work all the time.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[dalutong]

the people working on phoenix are also working on a projoct to make a stand-alone mail client based on mozilla.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Anonymous Coward]

umm , litstep for windows.. may not be easy for the average joe.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Espectr0]

And also, you have msn explorer, which is the microsoft internet suite (ie, messenger et all)

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[stu42j]

I'm using the Classic theme on XP so it's using native widgets to render the UI, maybe that's why it's faster for me.

No, actually it's not. The Classic theme (as well as Pheonix) adapts the system colors and such to make it look like native widgets but it is actually still totally using XUL.

See this mozillazine comment for reference.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[bogie]

There is something wrong with your PC then. On my old duron 1100 Moz w/ quick launch enabled was just as fast as IE. Even on a cold boot without quick launch Moz is only a few seconds slower to launch. Once launched it then relaunched pretty much about the same speed IE does.

On my XP1900 there is no difference with quicklaunch, and again not a huge difference without quicklaunch anyway.

Like I said If you have quick launch enabled on a XP1800 w/ 512MB and Moz doesn't come up instantly there is something wrong with your machine period.

"Maybe that would make "normal" people take us seriously, for starters. They don't when they clearly see the lies"

As opposed to MS who of course never lies to its customers about the performance or security of its products and has much more worthy goals.

Please, you'll excuse the meager PR our community can muster for Mozilla. Even if some of the opensource community's claims can at times stretch the truth you'll just have to resign yourself to realizing that all is fair in Love and War.

Make no mistake about it, we are at War with MS.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it people, Mozilla can never be as fast as IE

I don't know about that... As far as rendering pages is concerned, the difference is usually negligable now, and the places where Mozilla is excruciatingly slow can, no doubt, be improved. ('sides, if you're worried about rendering speed you'd use Opera, it does CSS better than IE as a side benefit)

The UI speed does suffer a bit, but in my experience, you interact more with the page than with the browser UI while surfing. With things like the radial context menus, Mozilla can even optimize the traditionally slowest part of the system, you. Unfortunately, that highlights the slow UI, but still.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[mbbac]

Mozilla launches one minute faster than Internet Explorer on my computer at work. There's something seriously wrong with all of my MS apps. They all take about a minute to load and display whatever file I double-clicked on. I'm going to have to do my yearly rebuild of Windows early this year.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

And is still continued today ... the difference? The components are no longer split along process lines and don't communicate using pipes and stdin/stdout. They use the fantastically more powerful mechanisms of XPCOM/CORBA etc.

Those are more powerful for development, but I as a user don't gain any customization benefits from everything being written in your wonderful distributed object model, as I do with separate processes and pipes.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[jfeasel]

I've seen Mozilla be faster than IE in Win2k Pro since version 0.9.7. I never use IE anymore. How can I say it's faster? Easy - put the two quicklaunch buttons next to each other on your tool bar. Quickly click both (clearly a fraction of a second is something you'll have to forgive here). I had them both set to the same homepage, and Mozilla *always* beat IE. Of course, I am using -turbo for my quick start, but as you say, IE does this too, so it's fair. I don't know what's different about your experience, but everywhere I've used Mozilla on Win it's faster than IE.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[SEE]

Same here.

Re:Interaction, not Merging

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, DCOP is a crappy text based thing that doesn't even come close to a real component system. If you want a simple scripting interface, then DCOP is probably ok, if you require more power then forget it. Try GNOME's bonobo...

But I *like* those functions...

[TheSHAD0W]

I can see why many people would prefer to get Mozilla's browser apart from all the other junk. But the fact is, I *like* the email client, and web page composer. So I'll keep using the full Mozilla release.

On the other hand, the IRC client could disappear for all I care, and if dumping it would lose some of the bloat, I'd be all for it. Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[e8johan]

Why not having all those functions in separate applications that can be automatically embedded into Mozilla if wanted/needed and otherwise leave them out.

I'd say that all this integration makes we want to go back to text mode only. Apps should have one purpose (for example browsing) otherwise they end up being bloated gigants.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Longinus]

Minotaur is being developed as a Phoenix-style replacement for Mozilla Mail and News, except with the same UI as Mozilla. Eventually, Thunderbird will be developed from Minotaur, only with a Phoenix based UI.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[90XDoubleSide]

But why would it not be better if every component of Mozilla was a completely seperate application? Then you could have Phoenix or Konqueror or Lynx as your default browser and still use any other mozilla.org applications that you like. You would also be free of the bloated UI inherent in suites that are so tightly integrated and which have so many components as Mozilla, not to mention making it massively easier to control the codebase, isolate problems, and dedicate manpower where it is needed most (hint: making a major alternative web browser is currently more relevant to the internet community than building the 47th open source IRC client, or a pitiful web design app).

Netscape jumped on the suite bandwagon; now that that fad is over, why can't they get off?

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[ProfessorPuke]

Have you tried Phoenix? It seems that you're not quite sure what it is. I use Debian, and it's mozilla packages are broken up into separate mozilla-browser and mozilla-mailnews components that can be installed independently.

Yet, I'm running Phoenix right now (after it was introduced to /. last week). Its much more (less?) than the mozilla browser by itself. I'm not clear on the technical details (it runs too well for me to need to dig into it), but they've apparently sacrified flexibility and over-abundant options for speed/compactness. There's no preference option to install new GUI themes, for instance, so possibly lots of XUL stuff has been simplified/eliminated. Also things like download manager & password manager have been removed, at least for now.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Wonko42]

Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.

Looks like you've missed the fact that this is exactly the point behind Phoenix.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Graymalkin]

You'd have more of a point if Mozilla wasn't already a huge framework of code. The parts of the Mozilla that make it a browser, mail client, or IRC client are very small compared to the rest of the Mozilla system. If you want just a browser load up Opera or Athena. Complaining about Mozilla being bloated is silly. It is an entire application framework, not merely a web browser app with a mail client.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape jumped on the suite bandwagon; now that that fad is over, why can't they get off?

Netscape INVENTED the suite bandwagon, which is why they couldn't get themselves off it for Mozilla.

Microsoft never had the audacity to think that Outlook Express had to run in the same process space as IE anyway, and neither did anyone else. But for some bogo-strategic reason, Netscape just had to cram it all into one big process and ignore your system-wide URL handler prefs. Having 1 borked page take down all 9 other browser windows AND your mail wasn't too bright, and lots of folks said so early on (here and elsewhere).

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla sucks because they are trying to sell "an entire application framework" to people who just want to browse the web.

If anyone wants an application framework there's about a 100 better supported and documented ones other than the one from AOL.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[e8johan]

I'm not complaining, I'm trying to encourage the development direction in the mentioned project. The original posting complains about not having all features in the downscaled version. He can use Mozilla then, everyone is free to make their choice!

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[RAMMS EIN]

This is why they are working on a fully modular implementation for 0.5, so that you can get the browser, only the browser, but also get mail and news if you want it, and maybe those who like Chatzilla can get that, too.

In a way I think that Phoenix is a great idea - I've always wondered why Mozilla needed to be so huge and slow compared to my old favorite Opera. However, I can't help but think it's really Skipstone done rong. If they're trashing Mozilla compatibility for speed, why keep XUL? I love GTK+ and I think Skipstone makes for a great browser, although it does need some bugs fixed, and it's still too big. I think Dillo is for me, but not functional enough to be usable.

BTW I ran into a really annoying bug with Mozilla's mail client (1.1) the other day. Some of my accounts can't send mail because Mozilla ``can't find SMTP server %S''. Changing things in the accout setting didn't help, so I edited my prefs.js by hand (I had only one SMTP server configured, so I just did a s/smtp[0-9]/smtp1/g. This fixed the problem for a while, then it reappeared. I edited my prefs.js again, and now the mail client allocates outrageous amounts of memory on startup (hundreds of megabytes). I can't really file a bug report because I don't know what triggers either bug, can anybody help me?

---
One day, authors will be judged by the content of their sites, and not the color of their characters.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Hardly]

On the other hand, the IRC client could disappear for all I care, and if dumping it would lose some of the bloat, I'd be all for it. Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.

You can choose which components to install. On the win32 version this is as easy as unticking boxes at the installation stage. I don't get it. Can someone please explain the problem?

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, it may be just me, but that sounds.. silly. using the same components, you might as well just use.. Mozilla.
"Now I've got 3 seperate apps that I want to use that take up 133% of what Moz takes up, and more resources due to the redundancy of the same interface..."
That doesn't sound.. right.
What they need to do is simply modularize MOZILLA itself, from the start. Mail, WebBrowsing, IRC should be plugins to the primary function: Browsing the web.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[spongman]

funnily enough OE was originally written as a shell extension designed to be embedded into the explorer namespace (under My Computer somewhere), but I don't think that idea ever made it beyond the developers' machines.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[w4z4bee]

actually i ran into this a couple of weeks ago.

I think it came about after i installed 1.2a so my best guess would be to blame 1.2a...
had to play with my prefs.js and remove many smtp servers with nonexistant server names. I think it has to do with their Advanced option in SMTP preferences. it allows you to have many smtp servers and one by default. any modification done on this dialog box had no effect on the final outcome of bugged mail sending. was this option there before? i had never seen it...

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like all the functions of mozilla too. However, at work I have about 40 or so on mozilla. But quite a few say "What the hell is Mozilla" "I don't like a lizzard, dragon, godzilla splash screen" yadda yadda yadda. So I'm forced to install Nestcape 7.0 with all the AOL junk, activation, etc. I just found this cool build of Nestscape 7.0 Compact . Search google for 'nestcape compact' and it's the second hit.
here's my mirror 16MB. btw before you download look at the table of what it DOES NOT have and what it DOES HAVE. Yes it has pop-up blocking, imageblocking, etc. All the cool features of Mozilla minus the bloated junk crap AOL/TimeWarner wants to shove down our throats.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

The console isnt that much better. Take a look at emacs or bitchx sometime, its equaly bloated.
even scarier:source code for either.
(posted anonymously so i can still rack up karma today)

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[DrXym]

This is what happens anyway. The Chatzilla, Mail/News, JS Debugger etc are all bundled in seperate xpi packages. Use the net installer if you don't want to download and install everything, and it will only pull those xpi files that you have chosen.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[iapetus]

Or just install the browser functionality of Mozilla. There's no requirement to install (or even download) the IRC client or the mail client if you don't want them, you know...

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction. Minotaur was renamed as Thunderbird. In other words, they are the same thing.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[uigrad_2000]

But the fact is, I *like* the email client, and web page composer.

Ewww grosss. Get away from me.

How could you possible admit to preferring either of those over vi?

Once the mozilla email client lets me choose what editor to use (like mutt has for years), I'll consider using it.

The same thing applies to their html editor. I will never subject myself to preforming menial tasks (like changing height and width values on 926 images by hand) again.

One of the strong points of Open Source software is the value of choice. Mozilla needs to allow different choices of editors before it becomes my browser of choice. Vote for this bug!!

Bringing it back on topic: Phoenix will be popular to many geeks who use vi, simply because all the "broken" editor parts of Mozilla are removed. But, chopping off functionality just treats the symptoms. Fixing bug 8589 is the solution.

The headline should be corrected to read:
In lieu of fixing Mozilla bug 8589, Phoenix 0.3 is released.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Abcd1234]

Actually, the bit about XUL is not true at all. Phoenix is a full XUL application, just like Mozilla. Just more optimized. Heck, that's the whole point of Phoenix... a cross-platform browser based on Mozilla technologies that's *fast* as well. Anyway, AFAIK, they're planning on supporting theming of the interface in the future. It's just not implemented yet, as they have more important things to work on.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[William Tanksley]

Read the Phoenix documentation -- the whole goal is to produce a modular Mozilla with a rationally designed user interface.

The thing's built around the concept of plugins.

-Billy

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[TheSHAD0W]

> But why would it not be better if every component
> of Mozilla was a completely seperate application?

That's NOT what I was asking for. Obviously the email and composer components use a lot of the same functions as Mozilla's browser, so having to load them all over again isn't efficient. I just wanted the libraries segregated, modularized, so if necessary one could cut dead weight.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that actually shipped, only it was called "MS Internet Mail & News 2.0" and it was f*ing terrible.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[thornist]

Although the idea made it into reality in the Turnpike email client, which is probably the best email client for Windows that you haven't used, but which is so terribly marketed by Demon Internet that you might as well forget I said this right now.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

no screenshots section - i don't have time to waste on this supposedly great email client without screenshots.

Re:But I *like* those functions...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, just complaining is silly. Doing something about it is not.

good idea and

[i_luv_linux]

Getting rid of unrelated stuff may help, but I believe they should also get rid of that skinnable interface thing. It just makes everything slower. I don't think that people give any importance to skins on their browsers. It is certainly not a plus at all, but it is a negative because it makes the browser a little bit more unresponsive because it redraws every detail there.

Re:good idea and

[Toraz Chryx]

IMO, applications should look like the host OS or they should go the hell away.

per-application skinning is the scurge of our time! (I think a lot of blame can be leveled directly at WinAMP for this)

Re:good idea and

[Sn4xx0r]

Hrmpff.. you've obviously never tried Phoenix. With the skinnable thingy. Fast as hell, period.
Shit, I've been trolled, HTH HAND...

Re:good idea and

[TheAJofOZ]

Agreed, wholeheartedly. I got into a discussion/argument with a Mozilla developer over the benefits of native widgits, versus rolling your own when OpenOffice first came out (it started as a discussion on whether OpenOffice should use native widgets or not).

My prediction then was that Mozilla would have no chance on Mac OS if it didn't use native widgets nor would it be looked upon too kindly by Windows users. I was right. Chimera (Mozilla using native widgets) is about as popular as Mozilla on OS X and it's only at 0.5.

Developers, pay heed! You must use native widgets or you are doomed to look bad everywhere! You can't just create a skin and expect it to look and feel right.

Oh and yes, I agree WinAMP should be shot for starting that craze (though otherwise it's not a bad MP3 player).

Re:good idea and

[XorNand]

I agree, to a point, on the skinning trend. But really, what harm is there in having that option? I use Winamp with it's default interface. But hey, I've goofed around with a couple of the skins. If a person is willing to put up with a more sluggish response so they can have have more eye candy, more power to them.

I'm willing to bet money that a lot of the next generation interface break-throughs will be spun from a really cool skin created by a designer who otherwise never would have been involved with software development.

Re:good idea and

[powerlinekid]

No seriously... the lag in mozilla/phoenix is probably because of the non-native interface stuff. You can rip out as much as you want but on high-end systems it doesn't seem to make a difference. The interface is the bottle-neck.

Re:good idea and

[i_luv_linux]

WinAmp thing is a totally different issue. WinAmp is about entertaining people. You look at it and while the music is playing the skin looks cool. But on the internet, you don't really care about your browser's skin. Why do we have full screen mode in the browsers if the skin issue was that important. Full screen idea undermines the claim that skin is important. Obviously people don't want to see the skin of the browser. While I am reading slashdot I don't remember really how my browser looks like, and I don't care about it.

Re:good idea and

[Sn4xx0r]

I've seen every release of Phoenix, and it flies. No lagging, just a bit of a wait before it's loaded. And I'm even using it on NT4.0 for heavens sake :)

Re:good idea and

[dytin]

Sure, maybe you don't like skins, but I do. I LIKE WinAMP's ability to change its skin. That way it is different than every other app that I run, and it allows me to be at least a little bit unique, and allows me to make my computer feel like my own. Perhaps the compromise for Moz would be to have a theme that would use native widgets. That way, if you wanted to change the theme you could, but you also could use the native look as well.

Re:good idea and

[King of the World]

Yay! Another "Mozilla/Phoenix skins make it slow" post without evidence or statistics or anything. I think the moon makes my cheese swell, and other people have posted it too, so it's as good as fact.

No one complains that Microsoft Office uses non-native toolkits. People see an interface, and they see that it looks different, so they superficially blame what the the pretty designs and skins they see.

Look, you have no evidence that it's the skinning makes Mozilla/Phoenix slow, or that in principle using space for another toolkit as done by so many applications is somehow uniquely wrong for M/P.

You don't deserve that rating because you're not informative. Your post lacks anything tangible, and just repeats the party-line.

Re:good idea and

[bgarland]

Yeah, but if there was no skinning I wouldn't be able to get away with using Mozilla at work. We have a strict policy of not installing extra software on the PCs here. But I installed Mozilla with the IE skin and IE icon pack and the boss can't tell the difference when he walks by!

I also like that I can install Mozilla without having to be the admin too. :)

Ben

Re:good idea and

[vidarh]

So, why don't you post a summary of the extensive profiling you apparently have done to be able to tell that the non-native interface is the issue?

There is no logical reason why a "non-native" interface would have to be slower than a native one. If you look closely, you'll notice that even on Windows lots of applications use "non-native" interfaces, it's just that most of them are made to look as close as possible to what you'd call the "native" interface.

True, the implementation might suck, but if you think it does, then post profiling data. Otherwise, leave the whining to people who do bother to profile it and find the real trouble spots.

Re:good idea and

[prockcore]

"Chimera (Mozilla using native widgets) is about as popular as Mozilla on OS X and it's only at 0.5."

And where do you get that? Everyone I've talked to says Chimera is very obviously beta software... no polish. You haven't any stats that show Chimera is even half as popular as Mozilla on OSX?

"Developers, pay heed! You must use native widgets or you are doomed to look bad everywhere! You can't just create a skin and expect it to look and feel right."

And yet Apple does just that. Quicktime, iCal, iChat, iTunes.. all Brushed Steel, not Aqua. IE 5.5 on the Mac sure as hell doesn't use native widgets either.

Microsoft does it too.. MS Office and WMP don't use the standard Win32 widgets.

There are millions of Office users out there that say Office looks good and definately "feels right".

Re:good idea and

[Aqua OS X]

I think Mozilla would stand a chance on OS X if things such as OS X's core graphics and Aqua UI where around when the Mozilla organization first starting fooling around with XUL and cross platform UIs.

However Mac OS X is just too damn different (GUI wise) from Windows and the various *nix desktops. Mozilla's UI is slow as hell on OS X, and it just doesn't seem to "fit" in with the rest of the system. Mozilla meshes a lot better with OS 9, Windows, Linux, etc.

Re:good idea and

[MikeFM]

Mozilla provides a framework for developing cross-platform apps that look the same everwhere and are extendable. Anyone can create or change these apps without needing to recompile everything. If you've ported code you know what a pain it can be and porting apps across GUI's is even worse as it's not just getting things technically right.. you have to adjust everything for how it looks in each GUI. A major pain overall. For really good cross-platform apps you need a portable UI and the skins are just the easiest and most extensible method of doing that.

Try loading the navigator chrome inside a browser tab to get an idea how it works. (chrome://navigator/content/navigator.xul) Mozilla isn't an app with a skin. It is the skin.

Skin shouldn't make an app any slower. Either way the computer has to redraw the window. It doesn't matter if the OS/GUI tells it how to do that or if the app does.

Re:good idea and

[TheAJofOZ]

And yet Apple does just that. Quicktime, iCal, iChat, iTunes.. all Brushed Steel, not Aqua. IE 5.5 on the Mac sure as hell doesn't use native widgets either.

Erm, actually, they all use native widgets. You can make your app look like that too just by checking a box in interface builder.

Microsoft does it too.. MS Office and WMP don't use the standard Win32 widgets.

There are millions of Office users out there that say Office looks good and definately "feels right".

Two flaws with this - 1. MS make the OS, so any widget they care to make is effectively native, even if it's not available to other applications. 2. Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.

And where do you get that? Everyone I've talked to says Chimera is very obviously beta software... no polish. You haven't any stats that show Chimera is even half as popular as Mozilla on OSX?

Everyone I've talked to says that Chimera is very good, though still not feature complete. You may wish to check the front page of www.macosxhints.com today for just one such comment.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, how about applications that have built in skinning have a fallback with NO skinning so they look however the OS (or Windowblinds or whatever) tells them to look...

Being able to customise the look of the OS and apps is great and all, but not if it means that those that DON'T want it to be customised have to suffer the bloat it adds.

Re:good idea and

[King of the World]

Suffer the bloat?

Prove it's bloat. Go on, prove it. Prove the non-native toolkits affect speed. Prove that native toolkits aren't poorly written for speed.

Prove your argument.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Two flaws with this - 1. MS make the OS, so any widget they care to make is effectively native, even if it's not available to other applications.

You can't seriously be saying that WMP7 uses what you would consider a native toolkit.

2. Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.

Incorrect. It uses it's own gui libraries for everything.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloat isn't always "speed", it can also be memory footprint, you're trying to tell me that custom widgets for everything is as memory effective as reusing the OS widgets that are already in memory for every other application you have running?

Re:good idea and

[spongman]

I'll bite. With non-native widgets, you're executing code that no other app is executing, and loading data that no other app is loading, thus increasing the load on your processor's cache, filesystem cache and physical memory. Sharing, reuse, modularity are all good.

Re:good idea and

[King of the World]

Every other application doesn't use the same toolkits (MS Office, Windows Media Player, Open Office). I agree in theory about memory usage, but in practice widgets make up a small part of any application's memory usage. How about this proposal then: for a cross-platform application using native toolkits takes time away from application programming that can also affect performance. The only (as I know it) GUI library that compiles to native toolkits is WxWindows, but that's still an abstraction.

Besides, this argument is pointless. It's not like Mozilla could use a native toolkit. The page renderer couldn't be native a native toolkits on any platform still can't provide what's required of them by w3c standards (CSS, XForms, etc.) So with this requirement demanding a non-native page renderer be in memory we may as well use it for the application interface too. Although the native toolkit is most likely in memory already, it could be in RAM or a ram disk. Using the non-native page renderer would mean that the native toolkit could be paged-out to a RAM disk, so address your comment on memory footprint there's potential gain in not using two toolkits at once (as, again, that a non-native page renderrer was required for Mozilla).

I'm not saying there is or isn't bloat by this but it's not a question of non-native == bloat, or that non-native means less bloat. But it's clearly a gray area.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to understand what was required of Mozilla. When there's nothing to share and when the modularity of a supposed native toolkit aren't doing what you want there is no other choice.

Re:good idea and

[Dr. Spork]

What? What kind of chip 'you got? I don't notice any slowdown in rendering the chrome, and my computer is pushing four years. Besides, Mozilla is from the start a cross-platform app, and the developers are right to maximize the size of the common trunk.

In the 1.2 Windows builds we are starting to see native widgets like buttons, and the classic theme has had native scrollbars for a while. This does not speed anything up, but it looks cool! The menus are not native--but do they feel slow to you?

And I for one love the skinnability. I just wish there were more available skins! I see no evidence that the skins slow anything down. I bet you that Phoenix will be skinnable pretty soon, and that it will not slow down one bit.

Re:good idea and

[infiniti99]

Developers, pay heed! You must use native widgets or you are doomed to look bad everywhere!

Native widgets are a fantasy. Consider MFC apps, Borland apps, Qt apps, Microsoft's latest apps, or even raw win32 apps. The rule here is that they all have a similar enough "look and feel" that the user is happy, even though they are all different GUI libs. Of course, there are GUI libs that totally break the rule, such as Java's Swing and gtk-win32. And apparently even Mozilla's XUL, according to you.

The solution here is for Mozilla to take better care with "fitting in".

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we have full screen mode in the browsers if the skin issue was that important. Full screen idea undermines the claim that skin is important. Obviously people don't want to see the skin of the browser.

The same would apply to native toolkits. You provide no distinction here, nor do you distinguish why WinAMP is acceptable because it entertains people and why a browser isn't about entertainment.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell is this modded up? The first bit is doesn't show that the widgets used in those Apple applications aren't native and the second says that a native toolkit means software along company lines. It's insane.

Re:good idea and

[Ionizor]

It doesn't sound like you've used Phoenix. XUL doesn't slow it down one bit.

Re:good idea and

[mr3038]

You must use native widgets [...]

Well, it depends... You really cannot use native widgets for any part of the viewport (the area of a visual browser that displays the page content) if you ever hope supporting full CSS. That's because CSS provides ways to style everything inside viewport. If you think that scrollbars should be themeable by web site like in IE/Win32 then those too cannot be native. So what remains? Menu, address bar, status bar and a couple of buttons (like back, reload etc). Mozilla has XUL to describe those basic interface items in a platform independant way. Isn't that what all the developers are asking for?

XUL doesn't prevent native implementations of those widgets just like GTK doesn't prevent that either. The issue is that doing the actual implementation for a single desktop environment for a single OS is huge work and probably only win32 and MacOS 9 have currently enough users to make that worthwhile. As for the others, we just have to stick with the skins. And remember that skinned UI can be just as fast as native UI as long as both user interfaces look the same (e.g. blitting texture is slower than drawing solid single color rectangles on most hardware) simply because all the stuff the OS's native UI or kernel is doing can be done in the application code too. At least if the OS has required APIs--for example, if you need alpha channel for image composition you have to emulate it under plain X. If the same feature was implemented in the X (making it "native") it could be faster. Current win32 API allows alpha blending and lots of other stuff so you can do all the effects the native widget set does from application code. I'm not saying that win32 is a good API (it's not) but that it exposes much more features than, for example, X/Xlib.

The remaining issue is Feel and if your OS/UI isn't fully supported by some skin that defines Feel or there's native port for you UI then you're out of luck. I haven't seen an operating system that had consistent UI. MacOS is the best in this regard but it's far from perfect.

Re:good idea and

[TheAJofOZ]

Native widgets are a fantasy. Consider MFC apps, Borland apps, Qt apps, Microsoft's latest apps, or even raw win32 apps. The rule here is that they all have a similar enough "look and feel" that the user is happy, even though they are all different GUI libs. Of course, there are GUI libs that totally break the rule, such as Java's Swing and gtk-win32. And apparently even Mozilla's XUL, according to you.

Go buy a Mac. Linux doesn't have any real concept of native widets. Windows has some concept of it but not a particularly good one. Mac OS has a fantastic idea of native widgets. You can pick a non-native app a mile away.

You should also note that Swing on OS X uses native Widgets whenever possible which is why it looks so good. I don't know the details of gtk-win32 so I can't comment on that. Mozilla's XUL is most definitely not native widgets though because it was designed from scratch to be platform independant and has stayed that way. Compare how Chimera looks and feels to Mozilla on OS X even using the OS X theme, there is a world of difference.

No one has been able to point out a non-native widget Mac app that didn't stand out as using non-native widgets.

Also, "similar enough look and feel" is a cop out. There is no such thing. Either you have the same look and feel or you have very annoying differences. Any UI designer worth their salt knows that.

The solution here is for Mozilla to take better care with "fitting in".

So, instead of using what's already there, you plan to reinvent the wheel. Good choice! You're effectively arguing that you should take cross-platform code and work really hard on it so that it works exactly like the native code on each platform it runs on (thus making it platform specific code). Never mind the fact that it would have been easier just to separate out the UI code and rewrite it for each platform in the first place, plus you wouldn't have to keep trying to play catch up with changes made in the OS look and feel.

Re:good idea and

[peterb]

There is no logical reason why a "non-native" interface would have to be slower than a native one.

I think you're completely wrong.

Would you guys listen to yourselves? You're harping about the difference in rendering between Mozilla and IE -- which can't be more than a few milliseconds at most -- and blowing off skins as "not significant".

Pretty much all UI studies show that the UI has an immediate impact on the user's ability to react quickly and efficiently. In other words, the slowest part of any given browser (or any given program, really) is in the interface between the chair and the mouse. Guess what: gprof doesn't measure that.

That's why a non-native interface has to be slower than a native one.

Re:good idea and

[Corporate Troll]

I use Chimera and Mozilla both on my iBook. Internet Explorer gets started only when a page really does not want to display correctly.
Chimera is registred as default browser because it loads way faster than Mozilla. Chimera definately is good, it surely doesn't crash as much as in the 0.3 days (or was that 0.2? I don't recall).
On heavy load Mozilla surely feels sluggish, and something that I don't like is that Mozilla will not pop up the window if I minimized it and click on the "M" in the dock. All Mac applications do this, except Mozilla. Why?

Re:good idea and

[joel_mac]

TheAJofOZ took care of most everything, but I wanted to throw my vote in with Chimera. It is my primary browser, has been ever since 0.5.

A wishlist for the future: Password organization, a better download manager, and Mozilla's 1.1 improvements (they are using the Mozilla 1.0 tree until Chimera 1.0 is out, so this could take awhile).

joel

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point: original poster was talking about Windows, why are you talking about Linux?

Windows apps use different widgets. MSIE has custom widgets. Office has them too. MS home apps have them. Also Visual Studio. Note that these are still Microsoft's apps, when we are going 3rd-party, we got Adobe's custom widgets, Corel's custom widgets, bazillion applications using Borland's BWCC (that means: Borland Windows Custom Controls), Qt apps, don't even talk about 3D studio or Ligthwave and pass silently over Kai's anything.

Also, when talking about Mac apps: Run any classic apps in OSX, and you will see much more difference than you see when mixing gtk and qt apps.

The only difference between Mac, Windows and Linux is, that everyone and his sister knows, that Linux has multiple toolkits with multiple widget implementations, and that most of these folks "tend to forget" that Mac and Windows does the same.

Final note about Mozilla: if they didn't do custom widgets, there would be only one version: win32. No Linux, no Mac. That means no galeon, no chimera. What would you prefer?

Re:good idea and

[DrXym]

This isn't true at all. Like most apps, Mozilla only redraws something when it has been invalidated (e.g. by another window passing over the top). In terms of rendering performance, some skins will obviously be more baroque than others and take longer to draw but the default classic and modern themes are plenty fast.

In fact if you're using Mozilla on XP or OS X, the classic skin maps rendering of scrollbars and other UI widgets straight onto the the platform's native rendering engine. Most of the performance issues with Mozilla in the past (and which are most resolved now) have been more to do with the message pump and inefficiences in the the CSS & DOM implementations.

Nowadays there really is no issue at all with firing up Mozilla. Phoenix is even faster partly because it throws away a lot of the overlays and other gubbins that Mozilla has to resolve when it starts.

Re:good idea and

[DrXym]

Actually you were half right. Mozilla is extremely capable of rendering traditional UI widgets such as buttons and toolbars - it does a great job on OS X and since they're rendered by the Aqua engine they look fine. I have no problems using Mozilla on the Mac and I'm doing so right now. Where it does less well is with all the weird OS X specific UI features such as panels that slide out and so forth.

Therefore in order to utilise these features, the Chimera people have written a native UI. It is not that Mozilla couldn't render them, given time, just that the effort would be wasted trying to make it do so since they're platform specific. It's just a case of pragmatism at work here, but the price is they have to write and maintain their own UI - no lifting any of the cross-platform chrome from Mozilla for example.

As for XP the concept of 'native widgets' is pretty much a joke. *Every* app of any size hacks their behaviour in some way. Even so, Mozilla is extremely faithful to the look and feel of native widgets and on XP even renders them using the native theme engine. If anything, Mozilla looks more like a native app than even Internet Explorer or MS Office. Microsoft is notorious for foisting some brand new, non-standard widgets onto the desktop with every release.

I wouldn't say the situation is *that* much better on OS X. Both Apple and Microsoft willfully ignore the standard widgets and produce some bullshit contrivance such as a 'brushed metal' finish, or iMac coloured buttons or some other silly effect. Mozilla fits in a lot better than MacIE for example.

Re:good idea and

[hattig]

Try loading the navigator chrome inside a browser tab to get an idea how it works. (chrome://navigator/content/navigator.xul) Mozilla isn't an app with a skin. It is the skin.

AAEIEIIE!!!!!

Hmmm, I could nest multiple browsers in tabs, each with their own tabs...

except I can't get the embedded browser to open its own tabs. dammit!

Re:good idea and

[Planesdragon]

Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.

No?

* Open / Save dialogue
* Find dialogue (part of "open.)
* Toolbars
* Menu bars

How again does it use native widgets?

Re:good idea and

[Dephex Twin]

It's not just that the widgets on non-native. As a Mac user, I must say that Mozilla's widgets are non-native, and also UGLY AS SIN. Blocky and gray. They look like an extra ugly version of Windows widgets. It's like when MS Office 6.0 (I think it was) came out. The most Windowsy version ever. Mac users revolted. Then Office 98 came out with a totally overhauled, Mac-ified interface and the hate stopped.

And I would have to agree with the general notion that people in the Mac community are as excited about Chimera 0.5 as Mozilla 1.1.

Re:good idea and

[vidarh]

The user is irellevant in measuring time spent by the browser and the X server in rendering the interface, or acting on user actions, and there is no logical reason why a non-native interface would have to be slower than a native one there, and that is the claim I responded to.

Whether the user interacts with it slower is a different issue, but an issue that refers to whether you've implemented a good look and feel, not whether or not the interface is native or not.

There is nothing stopping someone from implementing something that looks and feels like the native Windows interface from scratch - several people have done so: QT is one such implementation. There's also nothing stopping anyone from designing an interface that would be more intuitive to the average user than a "native" interface.

And for X there is no native interface, so the point is moot anyway. You may believe that the XUL based interface is a bad design, or is implemented badly, but that it's a "non-native" interface is completly irellevant.

But it all boils down to this: Some people automatically blame XUL for anything that's wrong with Mozilla's performance. It's perfectly possibly XUL has part of the blame, but making the claim just because it's a "non-native" interface without having bothered checking whether XUL is a factor is both meaningless and annoying.

Re:good idea and

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, okay, you're a Christian, we get it already.

Re:good idea and

[falzer]

Mozilla and MS Office 6.0 for mac? If you think those are ugly enough to revolt over, you should see the "standard" X toolkit. You'd go blind!

Re:good idea and

[be-fan]

Actually, I'm using a 100% kde desktop, and everything uses native widgets, even my drafting app!

Re:good idea and

[rabidcow]

1. MS make the OS, so any widget they care to make is effectively native, even if it's not available to other applications.

This is debatable. To me, native widget = provided by the OS. The stuff in Office/MP are clearly not provided by the OS. Stuff they add for IE, OTOH...

2. Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.

Yeah, I think they use the native window frame.

Seriously, haven't you seen that screen shot of Office 97 or whatever running on NT 3.5(4?)? The window frame looks like Win3.1, the rest like Win95. They may use things that *look* like native widgets, but they're all custom drawn.

Re:good idea and

[MikeFM]

I use subtabs all the time so it should work for you. You can also run Chatzilla and other parts of Mozilla in tabs. It's possible to run just about everything in Mozilla as a tab - you don't need multiple windows at all. :)

I'm working on a popup floating navigation bar so I can remove it from navigators toolbars and thus make the subtabs look nicer.

Re:good idea and

[infiniti99]

Yup, it seems with the advent of KDE (and GNOME), the world of X11 actually has a concept of native widgets, moreso than Win32.

This is actually a side-effect of X11 never having a native "look and feel". So instead of each GUI lib trying to match a native L&F, they have their own unique look.

This makes the KDE desktop similar to MacOS X in that regard. Any non-native app sticks out like a sore thumb.

Re:good idea and

[hattig]

Mozilla - new new Emacs of applications! All it needs is a good text editor written in XUL...

Finally!

[Erazmus]

Finally something that I can run on my Tuxscreen telephone. Great job guys!

Re:Finally!

[BuddhaMonkey]

I hope so. I tried galeon yesterday on my Tuxphone, and it spawned 3 processes, each taking 9Megs of memory. The poor thing spent most of it's time swapping out to my pcmcia hardrive. Any luck with dillo? It crashes when trying to render images for me.

Low verse High systems...

[powerlinekid]

I haven't tried phoenix on anything less than a dual pIII (1 gig) with a gig of memory so how much more responsive is it? On my systems (the one above and a 2 gig p4 with a gig of memory) mozilla started and runs just as fast as phoenix.

Re:Low verse High systems...

[Toraz Chryx]

turn off Mozillas Quicklaunch memory resident stuff, then start them both (sequentially).

Phoenix starts as fast as IE does, click *beat* open browser window (and IE is (mostly?) memory resident)

on this AthlonXP @ 1.6Ghz with a gig of ram and a WD1200JB (WinXP SP1), Mozilla OTOH takes like 8 seconds from click to browsable window unless quicklaunch is running.

Re:Low verse High systems...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried it on a p1 100mhz w/ 32mb ram, is that low end enough for you? i had to switch back to IE on that machine and live with the pop ups, more than one winodw of phoenix .2 just crashed the entire machine

Re:Low verse High systems...

[cadzow]

I run Windoze NT4 on a Cyrix M2-333 machine with 128MB RAM. I don't run Mozilla - even with the quick load option - because it's so slow to load.

The fastest load up is with K-Meloen 0.65 and its fast load option (almost instantaneous) but I have problems with downloading stuff, even with Star Downloader. So... I've been using Phoenix since version 0.1. Version 0.3 is the best so far - fast load, handles proxy servers properly (0.1 didn't) and the bookmarks scroll properly on an 800x600 screen (which 0.2 didn't), and the screen scrolling is nice and smooth, which 0.2 wasn't.

I reckon I've found a decent browser at last!

Re:Low verse High systems...

[CTho9305]

Slashdot pages render MUCH MUCH faster in Phoenix .3 than Moz 1.0.1 (on my Athlon 750,320mb ram). There are annoying pauses as mozilla renders each page - not so in phoenix :-)

wow

[g4dget]

And it's "only" a 10Mbyte download. However, I have to say, it does seem more responsive than Mozilla.

Re:wow

[bogie]

Actually its 7.0MB on windows and 9.1MB on Linux.

The size will also be getting smaller as time goes on and they rip out more of the uneeded stuff.

Re:wow

[Plug]

For more information on how they're going about ripping Mozilla apart to build Phoenix, check

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1710 82

(Usual Slashdot cannot link to Bugzilla rules apply, copy and paste into your browser)

Mozilla-based stripped down browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they didn't trim the Mozilla lizard's balls. I wouldn't want to use a browser with a neutered mascot, however lean the actual browser might be.

Phoenix is cool and all...

[Longinus]

...but I hardly think we need to a new story notifying us of every new release (especially in these early alpha stages of binary only stuff). This is the forth Phoenix story (1, 2, 3, including a repeat) since its release, so how about we give it a break until a big milestone is hit?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[areguan]

but what about all those sysadmins out thier who rely on /. for bug fix notices?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[abiogenesis]

From the Phoenix FAQ:

1. What can I do to help?

We need all the distribution we can get. Tell your family. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. If you're a student, get it distributed at your college. Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Make some noise on your blog. Spread the word!

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[Jugalator]

- Phoenix is neither in alpha, nor beta stages AFAIK. Note it just says "Phoenix 0.3". I could be wrong here though if I missed anything saying it was alpha/beta.

- Phoenix doesn't follow the Microsoft/AOL-style version inflation. If it would, we would have version 3.0 final by now. Bug fixing and polish will start in the next version. See also the roadmap.

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[Fruit]

From the release page:

PLEASE NOTE: You MUST delete old Phoenix profiles and create a new one for 0.3. This can be done by running phoenix.exe -ProfileManager. You also must delete your old Phoenix directory instead of just overwriting the files there. We feel justified in requiring this given that this is not a final release, but simply a testing milestone.

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[Jugalator]

I never said it was final. I don't see a reason to treat this like an unstable version of a software made from scratch since it isn't. It's built from a now rather stable code base so I find that being a very different situtation than you have with the Mozilla milestones.

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Phoenix doesn't follow the Microsoft/AOL-style version inflation. If it would, we would have version 3.0 final by now.

Still, the parent poster had a valid point. This isn't Freshmeat. The initial posting about Phoenix was fine, but follow-up posts less than a month later about version 0.2 and version 0.3? Why not post a front page story about Openwall 1.0 being released or or fauxident.py reaching the coveted 1.0.1 stage?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[stud9920]

Bug fixing and polish will start in the next version

Come onne ! Zize pollaques coudde waite ! Ouenne ouille oui get ze French vershun !

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[hacker]

Would you even know the project existed, without an announcement?

Would it get as many users testing it, finding bugs and helping out, if it weren't for the stories on it in the early stages?

Don't shun the "Release Early, Release Often" mantra just because it disagrees with your own moral semantics of development. This is the way things improve early on.

Would you rather have it developed when nobody was testing it, and nobody knew about it, and then Phoenix 1.0 is released, full of bugs buried in the code that'll take weeks to rewrite and debug, when the code is 200,000 lines? Or now, when it's early, at 10,000 lines?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[rodolfo.borges]

Funny, I just unpacked (there's no installation program) the distribution over my existing Phoenix directory and it's working perfectly with all my previous configuration/bookmarks/etc.

Re:Phoenix is cool and all...

[Swaffs]

Just look at all the posts in each article, obviously this is a hot topic to Slashdotters. If you're not interested, don't read it.

Heathens!

[Anthony Boyd]

The point is to work against the 'monolitic' mozilla trunk and make a browser, not a suite.

My God. You mean they want to make an app that does one job only, and does it well? But that's so... so... Unix! I thought we were supposed to be making everything the same as Windows. I mean, IE has chat and email and... oh, wait. Nevermind.

Re:Heathens!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthony, stop reading Slashdot and hire someone for that PHP position already. ;)

Re:Heathens!

[AKnightCowboy]

My God. You mean they want to make an app that does one job only, and does it well? But that's so... so... Unix!

Don't worry. If you look at Phoenix's roadmap, 0.6 begins integration of the KOffice suite with a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation tool. 0.7 will include integration with the xpdf codebase. 0.8 embeds ghostscript directly into the source tree. 0.9 merges with XFree86 4.3, and 1.0 is the coveted GNU/Phoenix OS release which is the highly anticipated competitor to Microsoft Windows XP.

K-Meleon

[Anonymous Coward]

The K-Meleon browser for Windows is a Gecko-based browser that uses native Windows widgets and GUI elements.

It has not seen an official update in almost a year, however there has been a quietly released (as in, not even mentioned on the front page) beta build, which you can grab here.

It adds new things, including support for 'layers, which is basically the name they've given to tabs.

If you're interested with trying new browser and use Windows, you may want to give it a look.

-- Anonymous Hero

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

It was due out Oct 8, but they delayed it so mozilla 1.2beta will "not suck" Does anyone know whether there are plans to keep the core code of mozilla and phoenix about the same? or will the part roads?

This bug says it all...

[Christopher_G_Lewis]

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171082

BugZilla won't allow direct links from Slashdot. Wonder why :-)

Monolith

[yellowcord]

Whats up with the monolithic Mozilla anyway? My understanding is that the UNIX philosophy is/was supposed to be to design programs to do one thing well. Admittedly Mozilla (Netscape) is aimed primarily at windows users but why is it that Mozilla has all that crap? Mail (and Address book) I can understand, but Composer and IRC Chat? Come on now. Why don't the core group work on a stand alone browser instead of having to wait for Galeon and Phoenix to catch up?

Re:Monolith

[BZ]

The core group is not working on IRC Chat or Composer (except insofar as textareas need to work). IRC Chat was initially done by one person and is now maintained by three people or so.

That's how open source software works. Someone wanted an IRC client? They wrote one. If that's what they want to spend their time on, who's to stop them?

Re:Monolith

[yellowcord]

Fair enough, but why not have "just" a browser and then have Mozilla Platinum or something? Or as an alternative a module based system as suggested by WizardofWestmarch (or whoever thought of it first). Either would be a damn good idea.

Re:Monolith

[IamTheRealMike]

Will people please stop bitching about this? If you don't want mail/irc/composer installed then use the net installer and uncheck the boxes. Moz is very componentized, and it will not install them. Don't expect huge reductions in download time or massive increases in speed however - all that stuff is load on demand anyway, so it only slows down your machine when you actually use them.

Re:Monolith

[heideggier]

isn't that what phoenix is?

Re:Monolith

[yellowcord]

Yes, it is. However, how long has Mozilla been out? We'll go with June 5. Why is it that we have had to wait for 4 months for a beta product? One complaint of mine was going to be that Phoenix will be outdated as soon it's released but apparently it is built on the current Mozilla source. Way to go!
Anyways, I really hate Mozilla simply because it's a beast. I use IE on my Windows box pretty much exclusively because of its weight. I use Galeon on my FreeBSD box for the same reason. Phoenix is great. The Phoenix guys deserve mucho kudos. I just don't see why it has to be a side project.

Re:Monolith

[heideggier]

Yeah I agree, when people look back on all this is histroy they will say that the great mistake of the Mozilla project was instead of giving people what they whated, a small fast standard compliant browser, they instead went of some adventure in trying to recreate Emacs for a new generation.

However, I think this was more a problem with Netscape and Mozilla where left picking up the pieces, and to tell you the truth I'm kinda over it, such things could have been done better but we still have pheoix today + a million gecko based browsers.

Re:Monolith

[yellowcord]

OK I'm over it. For some reason I never noticed that you can just install the browser... Almost, whats up with it installing Composer as well in the minimal install?

Re:Monolith

[jejones]

OK. If one does that, what happens when one clicks on a mailto: link? Can it be configured to start one's favorite mailer?

Re:Monolith

[aengblom]

Because the core group probably WORKS for Netscape. (They control what they do)

Mozilla isn't a UNIX app.

Re:Monolith

[Megane]

If you don't want mail/irc/composer installed then use the net installer and uncheck the boxes.

1) There is no box to uncheck for Composer. I hate it when I trigger Composer by accident and it takes ten whole seconds to get it out of my face.

2) I don't think there is such an option for the OS X version of Mozilla. It's all or nothing. As it so happens, Phoenix also lacks an OS X version, so I don't even have that as an option.

Opera or Phoenix?

[Alex711]

I run a moderate system (Athlon 850 w/ 256 megs of RAM) and I notice a HUGE discrepency in browser load times (esp. mozilla and IE vs Phoeniz and Opera). I initially switched from IE to Mozilla, then to Phoenix, and then tried Opera which has been lightning fast. It appears this version of phoenix may be as fast as Opera (which was infinitely faster than the very nimble phoenix 0.2), though Im not sure.

I think I am going to try this version of phoenix out a bit more and weigh it against Opera to see which is better.

Any comments on which you like better, is faster?

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

['The '.$L3mm1ng]

From a webdesigner point of view: *please* use Phoenix or any other Gecko based browser. Opera is a nightmare for webdesigners. Especially when using *gasp* DHTML, which can actually be useful.

The next big Opera release may change this, since it will be a complete rewrite with better DOM support in mind. But as of now, Opera sux in this regard.

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, Opera has always been faster (I even bought it back when I was running KDE 2), but I soon switched to Mozilla (and later phoenix). I do a lot of work with video, but want to run a linux desktop, and AFAIK, the only way to play sorenson 3 quicktimes is with crossover [http://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover/] (which uses a windows quicktime player plugin running under wine). The big difference is, phoenix / mozilla loads the player on demand (and then keeps it loaded) instead of loading all the plugins on startup, like Opera. Phoenix now runs damn fast ...

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I've been using Phoenix for about a week now (switched from Opera.) The one feature that Phoenix doesn't support, as near as I can tell, is the "identify as" function that allows my browser to tell a server that it's Mozilla or IE 5.0 or whatever. Without it, my credit card website won't let me in (anyone know a way around this?) But other than that site, I'm sticking with Phoenix for now because I like the stripped down interface. It seems as fast or faster than the version of Opera that I had.

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is a nightmare for hobbyist webdesigners maybe. If you know what you are doing there's no problem.

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on what you're trying to do. Opera doesn't support DOM, which makes DHTML nearly impossible.

Re:Opera or Phoenix?

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone designing webpages:

Kindly give up on any technology involving Javascript.

None of you can write javascript for shit, and none of the browsers can interpret it properly either. Not only that, but none of you seem to bother testing with anything but your own browser. For an example, check out support.microsoft.com with IE4 - the very first thing you'll see is a javascript error.

Javascript is a lost cause, and is causing more harm than good, as users get to play "find which browser works with THIS fucking web page" instead of "browse what I want with the browser I want".

Definitely worth it!

[ites]

On my webgear tablet, Mozilla takes ~30 seconds to load and start.
The current alternative - Netscape 4.7 - is to ugly to work with.
I'm very eager to try Phoenix.
Perhaps I'll try to build an OpenOffice/Lite.
Just for text documents.

Re:Definitely worth it!

[ites]

Yes, this is a valid point. I'm very grateful that you took the time to consider my posting, and to correct the essential mistake I made.
Furthermore, I've removed my little finger as a sign of humble contrition.
Jeez... what is it with some people. You never make a typo when slashdotting before you got your coffee fix?

Re:Definitely worth it!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read any more of this, it's going to make me loose* my temper!

*this is the American spelling of "lose"

Re:Definitely worth it!

[askii64]

Perhaps I'll try to build an OpenOffice/Lite.

Have you tried AbiWord? It's quite a bit lighter than OpenOffice and might work better for something like that, if it's possible of course. :)

Will it be reliable?

[Anonymous Coward]

My main demand is that the goddamn thing works. I've been using various Crapzilla releases for the last six months on Windows and it actually makes IE and Mickysoft products look like the safe reliable option. Maybe BillG has built in some [if Mozilla then Hang] code into the service packs or something.

Can anyone explain how Mozilla running on NT 2000 or XP Pro OSs can totally hang the OS just surfing the Web? Hang so totally that even the software power off buttons no longer respond. I mean these are supposed to be rock hard server OSs! I know this is as much a problem with 2000/XP but still it is the only piece of software we run that is capable of doing this.

Nowadays there are just too many sites that don't work with Mozilla, in fact there are too many sites that don't seem to work with any browser - largely run by big megabuck corps.

Sorry about the rant, I will persist with Mozilla but will not be rolling it out to the desktops I run yet.

David

Re:Kick ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, freebsd can run linux binaries, so you shouldn't have any trouble with it now..

Agreed

[popeyethesailor]

This beta build kicks ass. It is faster than every other browser I have used(possible exception of Opera for a few pages). The quick launch option rocks.

The layers part needs a bit of work though, I would prefer if they implement regular tabs, with keyboard shortcuts for everything.

And the size of the browser kit is just 4.5 MB ! Phoenix is great, but Kmeleon would be the way to go for Windows users.

block images from this server

[roalt]

By right-clicking on an image, you can select "block images from this server" and further images will not be loaded from this site, saving you annoying advertisements and download-times.

I managed to replace the slashdot advertisements inside a story with blank space, but removing the top-banner page will also remove all your other slashdot graphics. Maybe phoenix can include a feature that blocks images from a URL containing the text "adlog.pl" ?

Re:block images from this server

[horza]

By right-clicking on an image, you can select "block images from this server" and further images will not be loaded from this site, saving you annoying advertisements and download-times.

I would love to be able to try out this feature, unfortunately using Privoxy I've not been able to see any banner ads to block. Also blocks the banner ad at the top of /. without removing all the other graphics. Deals with tracking cookies for you too. Highly recommended.

Phillip.

Re:block images from this server

[Lars Arvestad]

By right-clicking on an image, you can select "block images from this server" and further images will not be loaded from this site, saving you annoying advertisements and download-times.

This feature is already in Mozilla. I believe I have used it at least from 1.0.

Re:block images from this server

[Dr. Spork]

This is a Mozilla feature too, and a very nice one. It's also reversible--you can also UNblock images from this server by clicking on the blank space where an image should be. More clever sites like this one and NYT run all their ads from their general graphics server, but most websites still don't. This is an awesome feature. If you use this in conjunction with the plugin that blocks images of specific "banner ad" sizes, you get some pretty clean propaganda protection. I like this much better than setting an ad-filtering proxy becuse the people who run the proxy know exactly who you request packets from. Who knows where this info will end up?

Re:block images from this server

[acoustiq]

Maybe phoenix can include a feature that blocks images from a URL containing the text "adlog.pl" ?

When will you guys learn? The BeOS has done this for years! NetPositive filters ads by text matching, not by domain.

And BeOS is not dead!!

Re:block images from this server

[Fweeky]

I managed to replace the slashdot advertisements inside a story with blank space, but removing the top-banner page will also remove all your other slashdot graphics. Maybe phoenix can include a feature that blocks images from a URL containing the text "adlog.pl" ?

In your user CSS file:

a img[width="468"][height="60"] {
display: none;
}

Repeat for all common advert sizes you see.

Alternatively, use mine. Goes for Opera users too, although it will still load the banners; it just won't display them.

Re:block images from this server

[DrXym]

While this feature is useful, it will only block a very limited number of banner ads. Most banner adverts images are done using REDIRECTION.

So for example, the page might have an IMG tag or an IFRAME pointing to www.adbastards.com but the actual http response redirects you to some other URL to grab the image.

Blocking the redirected url will do you no good since www.adbastards.com will send you somewhere else the next time. In other words, this feature should offer to block the url specified by the element as well as the one associated with the actual image content.

Re:block images from this server

[slothdog]

Worth noting is that it still *loads* the image, it just doesn't *display* it. Not quite as helpful yet as it could be for those on slower connections or the paranoid trying to keep their IP out of advertisers' server logs....

Re:block images from this server

[Icculus]

If you run /. in light mode, you don't even notice the pics are gone. Plus you're saving Taco & Co. some bandwidth to assuage your guilt about denying them ad revenue :)

Re:block images from this server

[asparagus]

Phoenix is built on top of the nightly mozilla trunk.

In other words, features that make it into mozilla will, by extension, make it into Phoenix.

So, go vote for this little gem:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id= 78104

Thanks.
-Brett

Re:block images from this server

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Why does it still download the images? Doesn't that almost defeat the purpose?

Using it right now

[Selanit]

. . . and I love it. It's great. I've tried similar projects before -- K-Meleon under Windows, Galeon under Linux -- and neither of them worked as well for me as Phoenix. Besides, K-Meleon's development seems to have stalled, and Galeon requires about a zillion different gnome things before it'll compile, not to mention the whole Mozilla codebase as well.

The ability to customize the interface *easily* is killer. I like having my Home button on the main toolbar, thank you, and getting it there in Mozilla is a serious pain, and requires 1) substituting a whole new theme, or 2) doing some XUL hacking. With Phoenix, you right click, select "Customize," and then you can drag and drop toolbar elements from the available selection. Absolutely terrific.

Oh! And the plugin installation stuff WORKS now. I never could get Java to work in Mozilla without manually copying files around (under windows) or making symlinks (under linux). With Phoenix, it just downloaded, installed itself, and started working. No user intervention required.

That said, it's not perfect. First off, there are a lot of features enabled by default that you can't disable because the preferences menu has been gutted. For example, I prefer to turn off the Password Manager . . . but I can't, unless I feel like opening up the preferences.js file and altering the preferences settings manually. Hopefully this will be remedied in later versions; on general principles, you should retain preferences settings for each feature.

I'm having a hard time coming up with other objections to it. But I'm sure I'll find some. And then I'll submit bugs to Bugzilla. Go you all and do likewise!

Re:Using it right now

[hacker]

How could you possibly be using it right now, when it doesn't even support the login cookies and password management required to actually log into slashdot? It's reproducable on every single site that requires a login: slashdot, advogato, freshmeat, newsforge, banks, etc. You put in your username and password, click Login, boom... browser crashes.

Re:Using it right now

[Selanit]

Easy. I saved my cookie from 0.2. :-

Re:Using it right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you didn't actually try it though, because it crashes immediately when you try to actually send that cookie data, whether it be a cookie created from 0.2 or from 0.3, it crashes. It's a bug, and not something you can magically bypass in your version.

Re:Using it right now

[Selanit]

Listen. All I know is it works. I deleted my 0.2 directory, put the new 0.3 dir in its place, fired it up, and it worked. I've been using it all day -- including posting on Slashdot, logging into a forum, and logging into Salon Premium -- and have seen no evidence of this putative bug. That's all.

Capiche?

why not opera6.1

[Anonymous Coward]

qt static opera =4.6M
phoenix 0.3 =9M !=not completely horseshit
opera is faster than phoenix
so why not opera ??
opera is the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeest brower on earth!!!
qt3 is much more better than gtk2

Phoenix / Thunderbird (Minotaur)

[denisb]

Just to clarify the confusion with the projects:

Thunderbird is the new name of the Minotaur project. Unlike what some said, they are thus one, and will fill the same function as Phoenix for the mail part.

Eventually we will have two very capable clients, Phoenix for browsing, and Thunderbird for Mail. This will make advocacy easier too, some people complain they cannot run Mozilla on their older Windoze boxen. Well they can run Phoenix and Thunderbird ! I measured Phoenix memory usage compared to Mozilla and Opera (all with about 6-7 tabs open, the same URLs in all three), and Phoenix was really close to Opera, about 10M less than Mozilla.. YMMV of course with different pages etc, but it is slimmer indeed.

Re:Phoenix / Thunderbird (Minotaur)

[Jugalator]

Thunderbird is the new name of the Minotaur project. Unlike what some said, they are thus one, and will fill the same function as Phoenix for the mail part.

Hmm... I wonder what IE would be if following this naming convention... Mammon? :-)

simple distributed objects have been here a while

[pHDNgell]

NeXTSTEP has awesome distributed object support that lives on in OS X. Distributed objects in objective C using the foundation framework (which I believe is implemented in gnustep as well) is incredibly simple, yet still plenty flexible. Whether you're talking across threads, processes, or the Internet, sending messages (i.e. making method calls) on distributed objects is almost indistinguishable from sending messages to other objects. In fact, a method was added to NSObject to tell you whether or not the object you're working with is being accessed as a distributed object.

Java RMI isn't too bad, but anyone who implements (or even works on) any type of distributed object system without doing distributed object work in the NeXT foundation kit is at a disadvantage, in my opinion.

And in related news.

[coryboehne]

I have just released my new operating system based up the very same mindset, I beleve that I have created the fastest loading, lowest bloat OS ever released, it's completely open source. As a matter of a fact, you already have it on your computer and you just don't know it,

{just log in as root, then go to your / directory and simply type in the command rm -rf * }

This will activate my new operating system, also as required here is a full source code dump {""} that's it, nothing more is necessary, be the first to join the future of computing. :)

Testing it out now

[phunhippy]

Well this is my first time using it.. I just downloaded the win32 binary and it seems ok.. they weren't kidding when they said its just a browser.. seems spiffy enuff to... just wish microsoft would let others use the API to display files and folders.. oh wait.. a different file browser would nearly defeat them in their eyes :)

Re:Testing it out now

[oojah]

Although not on topic, you should check out Directory Opus from GPSoftware - http://www.gpsoft.com.au It's an Explorer replacement and is truely good. There is more configurability than you can wave a stick at. Trust me, it's great :)

Cheers,

Roger

Now there's a new idea....

[Dog and Pony]

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

You mean like Windows from Microsoft? ;-)

Lots and lots of pretty lightweight applications that integrate easily, you can send email from your texteditor via outlook express, or go to a link in your email via IE...

Well, no, I'm no great fan either. But it had to be pointed out.

This system also allows for more security holes and bigger impacts when security is compromised. That has to be taken into consideration.

here's what browser needs to me to use it

[mrpuffypants]

hey, I love phoenix...small compact, browser that works good, but there is one feature that I STILL don't understand why it isn't implemented:

correcting a URL when I accidentally type in www,cnn,com instead of www.cnn.com

how hard it it to see the damn commas and change them to periods?

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[davmoo]

Its nice to see I'm not the only one who wants a feature like that!

I noticed in another person's post that they want an option to turn off the password manager. I want yet another option for password manager...a check box for "remember ALL passwords and don't make me check a friggin box or click a freakin button every damned time!"

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[ader]

...And you wonder where code bloat comes from.

Ade_
/

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[mrpuffypants]

no, i know what code bloat comes from

I, however, don't see 'code bloat' as being a plausible excuse to not implement a useful feature

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Or when I type too fast and the M gets dropped from COM why doesn't the computer just FIX it instead of poppin up a 404

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[skryche]

no, i know what code bloat comes from

I, however, don't see 'code bloat' as being a plausible excuse to not implement a useful feature

Wow. You really do like your commas, don't you? No wonder you want that feature. ;)

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[WWWWolf]

correcting a URL when I accidentally type in www,cnn,com instead of www.cnn.com

This probably isn't there because it'd probably not work properly at times.

The "auto-correction" in Mozilla already does work a bit "too well". When I say "localhost", and for some reason the OS screws up the connection to my local Apache, I bloody well don't want it to open www.localhost.com, as it sometimes seems to do!

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[skryche]

I know! I'm such a bitch!

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[mrpuffypants]

that's the problem that has to be avoided, unfortunately...

it seems to me (casual programmer in perl and C) that it wouldnt be difficult to just correct the punctuation up to the end of the TLD, and not try to re-write the url any more than necessary

many of the servers that i've been a part of building don't have a 'www' alias because they were MEANT to be under the radar of casual surfers

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take you, what, five minutes?, to edit your keyboard map file to substitute periods for commas but do you? Ooooh nooooooooooooooooh, that's too hard, got to make programmers fix your mistake instead...

Personally, I don't think anyone who can't vi their /etc/X11/XKBMap file, find the keycode associated with the /, key, and modify it accordingly, should be licensed to use the Internet.

Re:here's what browser needs to me to use it

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a computer with one big button that says "do my job for me", and you can just press it over and over again like a fucking monkey? Would that make you happy?

Not really that much memory gain

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice and fast OK, but tried to open a few pages (one at a time) under NT4.0 and look at memory in task manager - it was the same for both Mozilla and Phoenix: 32-34MB. Still not good for our old p-100 w95 machines with 16mb ram.

Re:Not really that much memory gain

[cadzow]

I'm running this page on Phoenix 0.3 on NT4 (Cyrix M2-333 + 128MBRAM) and it's 7840 KB RAM. K-Meleon with its fast loader is 2788KB.

Re:Not really that much memory gain

[Spy Hunter]

Try this: Open a few pages, look at memory in task manager, then *minimize all open windows*. On my XP machine, this causes Mozilla and Phoenix's reported memory usage to drop to less than a meg instantly. Bringing up the windows again restores the reported memory usage to the 10-20 meg range, and waving the mouse over the restored windows causes it to go up a few megs more. I would say that the task manager is misleading to say the least.

Re:Not really that much memory gain

[Anonymous Coward]

you need a little more memory i use phoenix 0.1 on a 486 100/120 with 49 megs it works.

Re:Not really that much memory gain

[Anonymous Coward]

When you minimise an app, as much memory as possible that was used by the app is swapped out - hence the big decrease.
When you switch back to said app, only the stuff immediately needed is reloaded, which is why the memory usage seems lower. With continued use, more of the things that initially loaded will be required and you'll find the reported memory usage increases back towards the initial value. If it never reaches that initial value, it's because the app, when started, either loaded crap that it never uses, or stuff that simply doesn't apply to the way you use the app.

Re:Not really that much memory gain

[Spy Hunter]

If 20 megs of memory was swapped out to the hard disk in less than half a second, and then back again later, why didn't I hear the hard disk churn and see the light blink? That's not what caused this anomaly. I know how virtual memory works, and my computer was not swapping when I saw this behavior. Besides, shouldn't the total memory usage column of task manager reflect the total amount of virtual memory used by the program, whether or not those actual pages are sitting on the hard disk at the moment?

x10

[mrpuffypants]

here's something to try:

go to the x10 website in phoenix and select to block the images on the frontpage...continue on to the main page.....

aaah, text only browsing :)

Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Im running IE & Phoenix in my old K6/333 w/256MB, and it works pretty good. If you cant run it in your Athlon 850, something happens...

Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[RPoet]

I'm was pulling down a whoppering 1.0kb/sec from ftp.mozilla.org, thanks to slashdot linking directly to the master server. PLEASE use a mirror, there's a full list of them here. Not all mirrors carry phoenix, and some that do don't have 0.3, but at least this one does (and probably others too).

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[reflector]

i'm currently sharing the win32 version on gnutella. here's the magnet link for it:
magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:JUC4BKYHUSKRJY2K2JR6QZ7UC DQYHW MR&dn=phoenix-win32.zip

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[reflector]

for some reason slashdot inserted a space into the urn. just take out the space 2/3 of the way through and it should work fine.

magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:JUC4BKYHUSKRJY2K2JR6QZ7UCDQY HW MR&dn=phoenix-win32.zip

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[pointwood]

You want everyone else to use the mirrors and at the same time, you're downloading from ftp.mozilla.org? Nice ;)

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[RPoet]

You want everyone else to use the mirrors and at the same time, you're downloading from ftp.mozilla.org? Nice ;)

I said I was using it, that is until I discovered how slow it was and that slashdot had linked to it :) So of course I cancelled and used the mirror instead.

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you said "I'm was" which is a confusing conflict of tenses. Do you mean you are or you were? Well, now it's obvious it's the latter. Perhaps you meant "I am, but I won't be by the time you read this"? Who knows?

Re:Mirrors, mirrors, mirrors

[RPoet]

I'm was wroting a little ungood since I'm wasn't had been having enough coffee enough at the time, why not.

My thoughts on Phoenix 0.3

[Compact Dick]

I have been running this browser since I first heard of it, when Slashdot announced 0.1's release. Since then, I have been avidly using it alongside Moz nightlies and Opera 6.05. Put succinctly, Phoenix rocks. It's Mozilla minus a lot of the lard.

Reasons why I like it:

• Speed: Phoenix loads in around 2-5 secs on my PII 366M w/128 MB RAM. Mozilla takes a leisurely 20-30 seconds. Hmmm...
• Standards compliance: Since Phoenix has the same Gecko rendering engine from Moz, I am assured that it renders properly-coded sites very well [extensive support for CSS2 and DOM helps here]. This vastly improves rendering times [more on that later]. Lesser sites still come out quite proper with its Quirks rendering mode.
• Rendering speed: It may not be evident to Moz users on slower machines, but Gecko can be blazingly fast given the right environment. Phoenix is fscking fast. Just as fast as IE, if not faster. Only Opera can claim to do one better, especially loading pages from cache. Opera is truly King in this arena.
• Excellent XUL implementation: Phoenix has shown that XUL can be a viable alternative to using native widgets. Try it for yourself - it's much more responsive and fluid. And the customisable toolbar is a real treat. Worth downloading it for that feature alone. Hopefully Mozilla will pick up a few pointers here and merge them into its own codebase.
• Satchel: a replacement for Moz's form manager, it works in a manner similar to IE, which IMO is more usable. Plus, Satchel is intended as a full replacement for the older, "bloated" form manager and eventually will cut down installer size and boost speed. One more boon for Mozilla.
• Peace of mind: I refuse to use IE online for reasons of privacy. I do not know what it does with the info it gathers while one uses it. I have no idea if there are backdoors in it. Ad-aware detects at least one spyware component [Alexa] in default installs of IE 5.x and 6.0. The recent Sendmail and OpenSS? exploits notwithstanding, I feel much more comfortable using an open-source program when connected to the net.

Also try some of Phoenix's extensions. Highly recommended for tab lovers are the tabbed browsing extensions - so handy and sensible it should be part of the default install.

Now go to the website, get it and have fun - I know you will :-)

another approach?

[tanveer1979]

Wouldnt it be better if instead of stripping these things, they would make them availale as modules. While installation, the user can disable the modules he dosent want. So you have speed and ppl who want mail and news have that too.

Re:another approach?

[oxygene2k2]

that's exactly what you get when _not_ using the -sea installer (self extracting archive).

just strip off -sea from the installer filename where present or look around at their ftp-server

Re:Will it be reliable? oh yes, surely

[thegoldenear]

"Can anyone explain how Mozilla running on NT 2000 or XP Pro OSs can totally hang the OS just surfing the Web?"

I haven't had a stable Mozilla release crash or hang on my personal computer for many many months, on Windows 2000. I have Mozilla 1.1 running at a few sites using Windows 98 and 2000 and they've never reported problems either (unless when running out of temp space).
perhaps you have something up with your OS's networking feature. I have a similar problem with my email app hanging Windows 2000 occasionally and the author of that app reckons its an OS specific issue in my case

Phoenix: FAQ, tips&tricks and keyboard shortcu

[Sn4xx0r]

Here's a help site dedicated to Phoenix, created by David Tenser. Announced in this thread on MozillaZine, and see also the Phoenix forums.

Mosaic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this supposed to be a new Mosaic? Are they going to rip out everything somebody finds useless (javascript, css, tables...)

mozilla and evolution

[roalt]

I would really like to have mozilla work with evolution somewhat better. Any tips out there for it?

Usability Problems

[Anenga]

Phoenix is nice, but the reason I don't use Mozilla/Phoenix is because of cosmetic and usability problems.

I like my browser to mesh with my operating system. Not so far to where the OS doesn't let you uninstall it, but to where it blends in with the look of my OS. I use Windows XP, and Mozilla does not look like XP. Sure the GUI is nice, but it looks odd with my Luna style. In addition, IE meshes with Explorer. So I can easily switch between Explorer and Internet explorer. Try typing "C:\Program Files" in Mozilla/Phoenix. Very different.

In addition, there are many usability issues. Click on the address bar, while it's highlighted, click, hold and drag towards the left or right. It attempts to drag the entire address, maybe to drag and drop in the bookmarks menu. Now try it in IE, it's different. It will highlight the portion and allow you to edit it etc. That is very annoying in Phoenix/Mozilla.

Another usability problem is the placement of the Address bar. Why is it at the same layer as the toolbar? (Back, Forward buttons). I believe there is a Bug reported in BugZilla about this in Mozilla, but of course... nobody cares about Usability issues.

Why can't I have "Selective Text on Right". And that "Toolbar Customizer" with the drag and drop has bad usability problems. It's very confusing to use. And having to "Name" your toolbars?? Err..

Also, the Bookmark Management is very sloppy. They need sidebar management for bookmarks.

Re:Usability Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with some of your criticisms but it seems like you are too familiar with IE and perhaps not willing to accept any different behaviour.

All in all though, Mozilla's custom user interface is total crap. Run it on Windows and it doesn't feel like Windows. Run it on MacOS and it doesn't feel like MacOS. Run it on Linux and... well, there's nothing to feel there anyway. But it's pretty bad.

Re:Usability Problems

[skryche]

In addition, IE meshes with Explorer. So I can easily switch between Explorer and Internet explorer.

While I admit that is often useful, it's not really the purpose of a web browser to also be a file manager. The reason IE does this is so MS can claim its part of the OS. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Now try it in IE, it's different.

You do realize that many people who don't use IE view this (oft-used) argument as a troll. Mozilla simply can't (and shouldn't) follow in IE's footsteps all of the time. I mean-- for one thing, that would make Mozilla IE's bitch!

Another usability problem is the placement of the Address bar. Why is it at the same layer as the toolbar?

You're right, a bug has been posted about this(172818), and (AFAIK) it is planned for a future release. We all want more screen space.

but of course... nobody cares about Usability issues.

Hey... hey... now, you know that's just not true. Come on, pumpkin, buck up. I care, don't I?
(I'm sorry, but that was such a troll)

And that "Toolbar Customizer" with the drag and drop has bad usability problems.

Really? I found it pleasing and easy to use. Why don't you stop by the Phoenix Forums and share your thoughts on how it can be improved?

Also, the Bookmark Management is very sloppy. They need sidebar management for bookmarks.

Agreed.

--
Posted with Phoenix!

Re:Usability Problems

[theBrownfury]

I'm just going to walk through this post point by point because I think you've either completely misunderstood Moz/Phoenix or you just haven't given it a solid try.

I like my browser to mesh with my operating system. Not so far to where the OS doesn't let you uninstall it, but to where it blends in with the look of my OS. I use Windows XP, and Mozilla does not look like XP. Sure the GUI is nice, but it looks odd with my Luna style. In addition, IE meshes with Explorer. So I can easily switch between Explorer and Internet explorer. Try typing "C:\Program Files" in Mozilla/Phoenix. Very different.
Can't speak for Phoenix but in Mozilla if you choose your skin to be Classic all the GUI widgets will be drawn natively in your OS style and colours. Also Typing in 'C:\Program Files' works just fine, not sure what you did to make it not work but it works.

In addition, there are many usability issues. Click on the address bar, while it's highlighted, click, hold and drag towards the left or right. It attempts to drag the entire address, maybe to drag and drop in the bookmarks menu. Now try it in IE, it's different. It will highlight the portion and allow you to edit it etc. That is very annoying in Phoenix/Mozilla.
Don't call something a usability issue when it doesn't work the way you expect it to. As much as its convenient to say that Mozilla is made by a bunch of engineers and geeks so usability is ignored, surprisingly its not. Have a look at this bug to see how much the Mozilla community argued before settling on a solution. Also I tried doing exactly what you said and it works for me. Click once on address bar and full URL is highlighted, click again to edit via keyboard and or highlight.

Another usability problem is the placement of the Address bar. Why is it at the same layer as the toolbar? (Back, Forward buttons). I believe there is a Bug reported in BugZilla about this in Mozilla, but of course... nobody cares about Usability issues.
Once again don't be so quick to judge. Have you even tried to file a bug or put your comments into a bug or reopen a bug? As I said even though the Mozilla community is primarily geeks and engineers its not a community that "doesn't care" about usability. Don't mock it till you've actually tried to make a change happen.

Why can't I have "Selective Text on Right". And that "Toolbar Customizer" with the drag and drop has bad usability problems. It's very confusing to use. And having to "Name" your toolbars?? Err..
I needn't repeat this enough, Phoenix is at iteration 0.3. The developers are very one-to-one with comments and feedback. Did you even attempt to try to talk to them via email or to the Phoenix/Mozilla community newgroups?

Also, the Bookmark Management is very sloppy. They need sidebar management for bookmarks.
Yet again you're just spewing opinion that has no basis in reality. Mozilla has had Sidebar based bookmark management for more builds that I can even remember now. Also don't say something as if its fact. In my opinion IE's bookmark system...well its not really much of a system because it uses the windows file system to just throw a bunch of files and folders in a another folder...is pretty damn sloppy. Furthermore Mozilla's "sloppy" bookmark system has features that let you keyword certain bookmarks so for example i can go to my Address bar and type in 'g something i am searching for' and have that taken straight to Google.

You've based Mozilla wholeheartedly while giving it at best a half assed chance. Also while you were so quick to bash this "non-usability caring" community did you once stop to think that when you have a problem with IE you've got no where to go other than the crash reporting now featured in XP? Atleast with Mozilla you can directly look into the guts of the program and see exactly why things work the way the work.
Don't give up too quickly my friend, Mozilla is a good friend. Like a pet 60' foot monster on your own leash eating HTML faster than any blue 'e' even could!

Re:Usability Problems

[thesolo]

This seems like a troll, but I'll bite.

I like my browser to mesh with my operating system. Not so far to where the OS doesn't let you uninstall it, but to where it blends in with the look of my OS. I use Windows XP, and Mozilla does not look like XP. Sure the GUI is nice, but it looks odd with my Luna style. In addition, IE meshes with Explorer. So I can easily switch between Explorer and Internet explorer. Try typing "C:\Program Files" in Mozilla/Phoenix. Very different.

Phoenix DOES mesh with the OS; Go ahead, change your colors in Windows, Phoenix picks them up. If you are complaining that the iconset for Phoenix doesn't look like the default icons for Windows, well, neither do the icons in IE6! As for meshing with Explorer, oh well; I personally DON'T want a browser integrating with my shell, I want JUST a browser. How many IE security holes resulted from that shell integration??

In addition, there are many usability issues. Click on the address bar, while it's highlighted, click, hold and drag towards the left or right. It attempts to drag the entire address, maybe to drag and drop in the bookmarks menu. Now try it in IE, it's different. It will highlight the portion and allow you to edit it etc. That is very annoying in Phoenix/Mozilla.

This is NOT a usability issue. If you highlight a section of text in IE, then try to click, hold, and drag, you CAN'T DO IT. I just tried even to verify this; as soon as you click on the highlighted text, it removes the highlight and starts editing text. Personally, I don't like this behavior, as it prevents me from dragging URLs. If you just want to edit text, then don't try clicking & dragging! That sounds like much more of a user problem than a software problem.

Another usability problem is the placement of the Address bar. Why is it at the same layer as the toolbar? (Back, Forward buttons). I believe there is a Bug reported in BugZilla about this in Mozilla, but of course... nobody cares about Usability issues.

So right-click on the toolbar and select "customize...", then place it where ever you want it. Have you even *tried* Phoenix??
As for Mozilla, blame Netscape, their graphic designers wanted it that way, which is why, despite having been patched, it hasn't made its way into the Moz trunk. That particular bug doesn't even have an owner right now!!

Why can't I have "Selective Text on Right". And that "Toolbar Customizer" with the drag and drop has bad usability problems. It's very confusing to use. And having to "Name" your toolbars?? Err..

Selective Text on Right is actually very bad for usability, but if you want it, file a bug and see what the Phoenix developers say.
As for the toolbar customizer, how do you figure that it has usability problems? It works the same as almost any other toolbar customizer; you move what you want onto the toolbar! The whole point of the Phoenix customization is to have the customizing happen LIVE, as opposed to making a queued list, and then applying your settings. This is a GOOD usability practice.
Lastly, you name a toolbar when you create a new one so that you can turn the toolbar on and off! The new toolbar appears by name in the Toolbar list. I personally create a new bar called "Address Bar", then drag the address text field onto it. Go to View, then Toolbars, and there it is! Now you can create toolbars and turn them off and on as you wish. Again, this is GOOD UI practice.

Also, the Bookmark Management is very sloppy. They need sidebar management for bookmarks.

They have it. You can add, delete, rename, move, etc., your bookmarks from the Boomark sidebar. Again, have you really used Phoenix, as in for more than 30 seconds? I really don't think you have. Almost all of your "complaints" are false.

Re:Usability Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

skins shmins

Debian?

[tconnors]

Hmm, I'm tracking unstable, and keep periodicly trying apt-get install phoenix, but it still aint there. Is anyone working on this one? Of course, I am perfectly happy with galeon (I will never need to touch mozilla again. Yay!), but is perhaps phoenix even smaller?

Re:Debian?

[gl4ss]

i would be very happy about this too.
tried to look for it the other day too but no banana.

phoenix is very usable on my windows machine(and fast as f***, not only that, but lacks the extra features i've never found use for and that just annoy me anyways) and looks just like the thing i'd want on my linux machine too(200mhz mmx/96mb).

so, SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE IT TO GET INTO unstable..
(gee, i'm so f****n lazy i can't be bothered to point my apt-sources somewhere else too..)

Re:Debian?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that you can just download the Linux binary (see the Phoenix Binary Releases page) and run it, yes? No need to apt-get, no need to compile - just unzip it somewhere (say, ~/bin/phoenix) and there you more or less go.

I'm sorry if I'm missing your point - I need sleep. Or coffee. One or the other :/

Re:Debian?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote: "...you can just download the Linux binary..."

Duh! The binary's for i686 and I'm a prat. Sorry...

Re:Debian?

[Espectr0]

Are you forgetting that Galeon is mozilla without XUL and some tweaks?

Galeon requires mozilla, period.

Re:Debian?

[crimsun]

See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-d evel-200210/msg00167.html

Your best bet is to contact Eric directly to check with the status of Phoenix.

I can finally stop using IE

[gtshafted]

I'm too poor for Opera (and it's not so cool for javascript and dhtml)... and while mozilla is pretty cool overall; unless the web didn't have any pictures, it's just too damm slow even when compared to crap like IE. Phoenix is sooo coool (and soo fast)

missed first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Last post!

Here's why I won't use it

[roc_machine]

I'll probably get called an IE Zealot and modded down for this...

I've ran Phoenix 0.2, and I really tried to like it. Tabbed browsing, pop-up blocker, custimized toolbar, and it doesn't have the bloatedness of Moz. Stable too for a 0.2 release. BUT...

IT DOESN'T RENDER THE PAGES I WANT TO VIEW PROPERLY! I ran into the same problem with Netscape 7 and Moz 1.

Sites that I couldn't load properly in Phoenix:

Airmiles.ca
- Couldn't load the front page.
Hotmail
- Loaded front page but couldn't log in.
IGN Cube
- This goes for all IGN game sites... the articles that are locked for subscribers have an 'i' beside them. This does not show up in Phoenix.
My Employers Self Serve site
- I can log in but the page hangs on the welcome screen.

I only have about 15 sites bookmarked, and the above 4 don't work. Who knows how many other sites are out there.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, maybe I have to configure something (If so, let me know please!), but the bottom line is that these sites load fine in IE.

I don't want to hear people say "These websites aren't following a standard". Tell me something I don't know.

I want a browser that lets me view the pages I want to see, thankyouverymuch. Until there's an alternative that does this, I'm sticking with IE along with its swiss cheese security.

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that hotmail works like a charm.

Interesting to note it uses more RAM than IE though...

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[Jugalator]

I'm using Phoenix 0.3 on Windows right now. Never touched any settings.

- Airmiles loads just fine, including front page. I browsed the site and everything looked to be in order.

- Don't know about Hotmail since I don't have a Hotmail account. Go figure... :-) But how does it not allow you to login? It gave me a friendly "please re-enter your password" when I typed in some bogus info. Does it do that for you, or does something else happen?

- You should tell IGN to see what's the problem with Mozilla-based browsers. Sounds like it wouldn't need a tremendous amount of effort to fix.

- I don't know the procedure, but you should send your employers self serve site to the Mozilla team (try posting it to an appropriate mozilla newsgroup on Google Groups for example - I think they have a public news server at news.mozilla.org as well) so they can look into it. Since the source view shows its almost entirely made of Javascript code, it wouldn't be surprising if they program IE-style with document.all and god knows what. But it could be something else like a bug in Mozilla's rendering engine. Why not notify them to help?

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[roc_machine]

- Don't know about Hotmail since I don't have a Hotmail account. Go figure... :-) But how does it not allow you to login? It gave me a friendly "please re-enter your password" when I typed in some bogus info. Does it do that for you, or does something else happen?

Just hangs... nevers refreshes into my hotmail welcome screen. Just stays on the login screen. Myabe I tested that site at a bad time. I know my Employee site doesn't work. That site I've tried under Netscape 7 and Moz at different times. Nada on all 3. I'll see if there is someone I can talk to about that... as I said earlier, I would like to use Phoenix.

Just looking at my link to airmiles... try this link to see if it works:

airmiles

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[skryche]

You know that there's nothing that Mozilla can do about people writing browser-specific code, right? What do you hope to achieve by bitching to us about it?

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[ajs]

Link works fine in Moz on Windows. Loads pretty fast, though it's image-heavy and a pretty awful page in general.

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[khuber]

We have internal sites that use VBScript (developed by idiots), and you're forced to use IE for those. There are pages that have both JavaScript and VBScript. It's stupid.

-Kevin

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[Vann_v2]

Er, Airmiles and Hotmail work fine for me. The IGN website has the same problem you listed. I can't verify the last one, though. Are you using an ancient version of the browser, or something? This is Mozilla 1.0.1 and half of your pages work as they are intended.

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[roc_machine]

Er, Airmiles and Hotmail work fine for me. The IGN website has the same problem you listed. I can't verify the last one, though. Are you using an ancient version of the browser, or something? This is Mozilla 1.0.1 and half of your pages work as they are intended.

Couldn't comment on Moz when it comes to the first 2 sites... they just didn't load in Phoenix. I did have probs in Moz (1.0.1) on the last 2... ditto for Netscape 7 (I guess they're all pretty much the same in a way).

Might be my ISP's intercepting proxy that's causing a little havoc, but that's a little farfetched as IE seems to work fine on those. It also could've been the imported links. From what I remember, I only tried those 2 sites using the imported links from IE.

I'll give it another go today perhaps. I miss tabbed browsing already.

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, hotmail works fine from Phoenix, I use it every day. Airmiles also looks fine (I don't have a card so no login). Maybe you should try deleting the phoenix install and profiles and reinstall as the release says.

Re:Here's why I won't use it

[tialaramex]

The airmiles and Hotmail sites work for me, is it possible that you didn't install the PSM (the bit of a Mozilla based browser that handles crypto) ?

Hotmail is unreliable anyway, I wouldn't read much into problems logging in to Hotmail unless they're consistent and IE still works on the same machine, same time of day, same OS. Microsoft have never really had Hotmail stable since they migrated.

The missing lock icon on IGN is caused by some Javascript which is, you guessed it, IE only. For some reason they check whether you have IE > 4.x or NS > 5 and then do loads of proprietary IE DOM mangling. Tell them it sucks and (especially if you're a subscriber) they might fix it one day.

If it's any comfort their "test" for the lock icon is more ugly than you'd imagine without looking. Way more ugly. So it was probably written by an intern or a frightened Mac user who thinks programming is like dark magic.

Speed is many forms

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it will still have the same slow Javascript engine and lethargic DOM, so who cares?

Wow

[davidmb]

I loaded chrome://navigator/content/navigator.xul in a mozilla tab, then loaded it again into the sub-browser, then again and again repeatedly. I bet this could go on forever!

What lies?

[Per Abrahamsen]

I'm posting this with Mozilla 1.2a from 200 MHz Pentium II with 64Mb ram and Windows 98. Mozilla is so fast that additional benefits would not help. It may or may not be faster than MSIE, both react subjectively "immidately", so I don't really care. I do have QuickLaunch enabled, but since I only start Mozilla once (after boot) anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Of course, swapping between large applications is slow, but apart from the browser the only applications I run is an X server and some ssh connections (it is basically an X terminal), and apparently they all fit within the 64Mb, so for normal use it is fine.

But I don't call you a liar for stating that Mozilla feels slow to you. You may have another usage pattern where MSIE feel faster.

Re:What lies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once tried Mozilla with win98 lite (with msie eradicated, 95ish explorer and the like). The whole system was very fast, and Mozilla launch felt like notepad. Try it for yourself sometimes...

Re:What lies?

[Spy Hunter]

I think that WinXP kills mozilla performance. Whenever I see someone raving about how fast mozilla is, it's always Windows 95 or 98. On my WinXP computer, Mozilla is still as slow as ever to load, and quicklaunch makes hardly any difference at all. Could something in WinXP's VM system be biased against programs like Mozilla?

Re:What lies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla 1.2a from 200 MHz Pentium II with 64Mb ram and Windows 98. Mozilla is so fast that additional benefits would not help. It may or may not be faster than MSIE, both react subjectively "immidately", so I don't really care

I run Moz 1.1 under Win2k on a dual P3-500 with 256 MB, and it doesn't come close to "immediately". It's at least a half second to open a new window and display a 200kB home page from the disk cache. Heck, it misses 5% of my mouse clicks if I don't do them emphatically. Your standards may be low.

Re:What lies?

[Dr. Evil]

I found Mozilla fastest and most responsive on Win98. There it is only a pig, not a sloth.

Mozilla has terrible performance though. In my circles it's even been the butt of a few jokes.

It's good enough for my purposes, but coworkers still laugh at me for using it when it is faster for them to walk back to their desks and launch IE than to wait for Mozilla to come back from swap on my machine. That's Win2k though.

Re:What lies?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there never was a 200MHz Pentium II. There was a 200MHz Pentium Pro, and a 200MHz Pentium, but the Pentium II debuted at 233MHz and went upward from there.

And the other point you miss is that if Mozilla is *at all* subjectively slower for *most* (read 51% or more) people, then it's slower. Per Abrahamsen stood shouting that it runs faster on his 83 Mazda 323 isn't going to impress them.

Re:What lies?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I'm not sure what the crap all you kids are talking about here. It's fast as heck here on my win2k box, with 256 megs. I don't remember the processor speed but it's nothing special--I'm at the office. Is your machine, like, virus infected or something?

Cinelerra

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Think about Cinelerra. If the authors did spend the time wasted writing their own (ugly and unintuitive) user interface in optimizing code and writing a fscking decent manual, now we'd have a great software.

This is what I need!

[den_erpel]

Whoooohoooo!

Since I am using:
mutt for mail
slrn for usenet
bitchx for chat

phoenix is exactly what I need for browsing! _and_ it is still Mozilla. Let's fire up alien
$ tar cvfz phoenix-20021016.tar.gz /usr/lib/phoenix /usr/bin/phoenix
$ fakeroot alien phoenix-20021016.tar.gz

Yeah, I know, I should build it from the mozilla CVS, but I'm in a hurry here >:)

This is Good!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Phoenix is a good idea, a small and simple stand alone web browser, that only needs decompressing in to a single directory...

and for those needing the whole Kitchen sink (like me) there is good ol mozzy with the email client and a simple html editor...

Many thanks and a Laurel & Harty handshake goes to the Mozilla & phoenix teams!!!

If only you could manage all the fucking bookmarks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a bloody personal toolbar folder or whatever at the top that you cannot delete.

It is exactly like that fucken Links folder in IE's bookmarks.

Galeon and Links

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the guys behind Phoenix did a good job, but the Galeon interface is still much faster than the Phoenix one.

Take also a look at Links , the fastest -graphics- browser ever made (it runs circles around Opera. No kidding.)

Javascript and graphics need to be enabled before compilation, so download it (less than 4 Mb) then...

# ./configure --enable-graphics --enable-javascript
# make
# make install

Start it in graphics mode (otherwise you'll have a console only lynx clone)

# links -g

And enjoy it.
It still lacks the bells and whistles one can find in other browsers, so there are problems with complex and bloated websites (Java, Flash), in that case I'm happy with Galeon, but I find it perfect for anything else.

Results of my brief comparisons

[purrpurrpussy]

And they had better be optimising for speed!

I downloaded it straight away to have a look and apart from not rendering tables the same way as IE (something to do with pixel positioning and sizing - probly my fault) I notices it is not that fast.

A brief comparison of a little demo I did (www.freshbrains.co.uk) - this is a bunch of simple transparent sprites boinging around) shows that IE6 is about 2 to 2.5 times faster than Phoenix (which I assmue is the Gecko core).

Still a way to go! But yer gettin there!

Re:Results of my brief comparisons

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be probably caused by javascript you used.

But try this page...

Gecko chokes while loading images

[rajeev_king]

I guess Mozilla/Gecko has a unique problem from the beginning. It doesnt load all the images, if the page is composed of lot of images .We have to manually refresh it ,to see it fully.
Anyway Phoenix is a right step forward.

Good for them

[mirko]

From their FAQ:
"We need all the distribution we can get. Tell your family. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. If you're a student, get it distributed at your college. Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Make some noise on your blog. Spread the word!"

Thanks, Mr Tansey ;-)

Wow

[Panoramix]

That being said, I'm fetching Phoenix right now. Lets see how it fares against Galeon...

I'm dumping Galeon. At least for a while.

Render is noticeably faster, and the UI feels as fast as GTK. Can't believe this thing is XUL. Amazing.

I smell a marketing tie-in

[4thAce]

To the next Harry Potter book (out Real Soon Now). Just think of the hordes of moppets suddenly eager to throw over their AOL browsers for Open Source.

sniffing glue again?

[slittle]

It's a system library, yes. Not built into the kernel.

And the apps are just as much front ends as any other program that makes heavy use of prebuilt libraries/toolkits.

Streamlining "cross platform", too

[Gregoyle]

I noticed that they streamlined the definition of "Cross Platform", too, leaving only two platforms being developed.

Alas, I don't have the time (or the skills) to attempt a one-man Mac port of Phoenix, so I guess I'm stuck with Mozilla, which really wasn't that bad to begin with. Too bad, I was really thinking it would be the perfect browser for me, too. Maybe I'll check out Chimera, but I have a feeling it won't be as cool.

You want speed?

[hacker]

You want absolutely raw speed in a graphical browser? One word... Dillo. Without a doubt, the smallest, fastest browser I've ever used. It loads in about 0.03 seconds here, and renders all of Slashdot's main page in about 0.8 seconds.

FAQ: What You Can Do To Help

[Milican]

This is from the first question of the FAQ entitled "What you can do to help"

What can I do to help?
We need all the distribution we can get. Tell your family. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. If you're a student, get it distributed at your college. Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Make some noise on your blog. Spread the word!

Well David Tansey (submitter of story).. the Phoenix team must like you now! :)

JOhn

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Quoth the Phoenix, 404

[dr_eaerth]

Phoenix 0.3? Don't you mean Pheonix 404?

The requested URL /pub/phoenix/releases/0.3/phoenix-0.3-win32.zip was not found on this server.

(Yes, I AM a windows user.)

But seriously, I really like Phoenix 0.2. It's not as fast and as useful as the version of Opera I use, not by a long shot, but it's small and doesn't force me to use some lame Windows installer/registry timebomb. I doubt I'll use it for a main browser until it's as fast as Opera, but these two features make it perfect as a backup browser, for those commercial sites with broken javascript interfaces.

Bad news!

[varslot]

A conservative linear prediction based on your data for size versus version number shows that Phoenix will disappear somewhere between version 1.7 and 1.8. However, as the data seems to follow a quadratic curve rather than a linear one, the disappearance is likely to happen a lot sooner.

Re:Bad news!

[Jugalator]

... as in 1.0? That would be a great way to celebrate the world's smallest browser!

"The Phoenix Team is proud to announce that we have finally shrunk the browser to the ultimate size: 0 bytes. Thanks to everyone supporting us in our quest to develop the smallest browser on earth."

Re:Bad news!

[dze]

That's one way of guaranteeing bug-free code...

Re:Bad news!

[packeteer]

0 bytes is immpossible but maybe some day all programs and media files will be able to be represented as either a "1" or a "0".

frost pist?!!!1!1!1

[Anonymous Coward]

I claim this FP on behalf of Mac OS X, which is better than Lunix and Microsoft Windows 95 is better than both of them.

I think it's amazing....

[Bish.dk]

I think it's amazing that every +0.1 release of Phoenix makes it to the frontpage of Slashdot, when the Mozilla project aren't even announcing it on their own frontpage. Is it really significant enough to let 250.000 people know about every change???
-- Henrik

MOD PARENT UP INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above post. Lunix sux and always will and Windows rules and always will. Win 95 4-ever!!!!!11!!11!1!!1

Corba? Gag me with a spoon

[Anonymous Coward]

Corba isn't a great idea. It suffers the flaw that you rail against. Its big, heavy, big, slow, tries to be everything to everybody, big, too difficult to implement.

Did I mention its big?

Ummm..

[ZigMonty]

You're comparing the sizes of compressed archives. Maybe later versions just compress better? Maybe they are getting more redundant :-)

Just kidding, I really like the idea of this browser.

Puh Leeze

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape started the browser version inflation.

Ironically, Netscape only ever had one great release of their browser, 3, but unfortunately, its Javascript is so old that its virtually unusable these days.

AppleScript

[luiss]

Would surely be nice to have something like AppleScript for Linux (or other UNIXes besides Mac OS X)....

Re:AppleScript

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean simple shell scripting or perl or tcl or ....

PS: MacOS X is not Unix.

ICQ---ICQ Lite, Netscape---Netscape Lite?

[Ilgaz]

You got the idea if you run win32 and original ICQ somehow. They have cut all the features people call bloat and people trying it,just loves it. Its ICQ Lite. Now they also (from their www page,I got this impression) push it to new ICQ users.

You want more advanced stuff, you can get full version.

I am just an end user. I guess someone at AOL Browser division would think it right?

Pure browser...

I don't like Mozilla for certain reasons but... of course, I don't want probably passport-required-soon IE to take over fully.

ps: I am a registered Opera user

Target Audience?

[Anonymous Coward]

If mozilla's target audience is developers, and Netscape's audience is for end users, who is phoenix 'for'? If it's for end users, is there any way it could be included into a desktop on a gateway computer? or compaq, whatever?

how is this new(s)?

[dagyo]

Not to beat a dead horse, but Phoenix 0.3 was released over a week ago.

It was mentioned in this post - Phoenix 0.2 Web Browser: Lean, Mean Mozilla.

Even though the original post on 10/7/02 (when 0.3 was released) was an announcement for 0.2. Come on now... news?

Re:how is this new(s)?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect.

Re:how is this new(s)?

[Taloon]

Actually, the article on 10/7 was a review of 0.2, the release was on 10/1.

Check the roadmap.

0.3 was scheduled to be released the 8th, but was delayed because what was going on with the Mozilla codebase for the 1.2beta release.

grep | sort | more results &&

[42forty-two42]

Actually, as more is an interactive app, it should always be at the end, without a redirect or background.

mollazis

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. I'm using the latest Phoenix right now and I STILL can grind, roast and brew a pot of coffee between every mouse click.

The ONLY reason I'm using this thing is because I'm sick of all the MS security crap and click-through agreements.

Hey, wait a second.. why don't I just go back to Opera? Let me know when they get Phoenix so it can load and run in less than a minute.

Re:mollazis

[Anonymous Coward]

When you get older you will stop caring about trivialities of teen angst like worrying over freedom of software, manufactured bands like Britney Spears or the "evil" movie studios.

Teen angst is something that results when you realize that the whole world is screwed up and you only have a few useful years to do anything about it before you get sucked into being a part of why its so messed up. Post-teenage angst is that hopelessness that you feel when you realize you wasted your only chance to change your miserable little corner of the universe on keg parties and chasing after females that rejected you anyways, and now you've been sucked into the whole machine and must grind out your remaining years as another redundant cog that perpetuates the whole thing.

I know. I was you, now I am the cog in the machine content in my own little niche and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I can hardly wait

[night_flyer]

until 0.4 comes out....

please be sure to let us know Slashdot!

source code?

[42forty-two42]

The webpage dosen't seem to say how to fetch the source code.

Less memory?

[Bazman]

How can I tell if it is using less memory? If I start up a phoenix-0.3 and a mozilla I see the following:

USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 29153 0.0 7.5 34168 19372 pts/8 S 13:56 0:00 ./phoenix-bin
root 29174 0.0 8.0 33988 20656 pts/8 S 13:57 0:00 /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin

That's not much of a difference in memory size. I'm only using the mozilla browser and not the mail component.

Clue me please.

Bazman

(actually I see about six of each of those but I assume thats threads-as-processes for you)

What's with the binary-only releases?

[AugstWest]

No source? I wanted to compile it for OSX, but I can't seem to find any sourcee.

Re:What's with the binary-only releases?

[forsetti]

From the release notes:

12. Okay, so where's the phoenix source?

cvs.mozilla.org. Mozilla trunk + mozilla/browser + mozilla/toolkit.

Mozilla is not a *nix app

[Nagash]

My God. You mean they want to make an app that does one job only, and does it well? But that's so... so... Unix! I thought we were supposed to be making everything the same as Windows. I mean, IE has chat and email and... oh, wait. Nevermind.

I realize this is said in jest, but it touches on an underlying feeling people seem to have about the Mozilla project: "It's too big and bloated!", "It should be small apps strung together!", "It violates the Unix philosophy!"

You are forgetting a very, very important point: Mozilla is not a *nix app. Sure, it's very popular on *nix machines, but that doesn't mean it's a *nix app. I quote mozilla.org's description of itself:

Mozilla is an open-source web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability. We coordinate the development and testing of the browser by providing discussion forums, software engineering tools, releases and bug tracking. ...

Now, we intend to use the name Mozilla as the generic term referring to internet client software developed through our open source project. ...

So, Mozilla is a set of technologies, but not a specific [technology] (in biologic terms, Mozilla is a genus; a particular product is a species).

There is nothing in there about making "the best browser for *nix". The point is, Mozilla is meant to work on multiple platforms, which means you can't just take the *nix philosophy and use it everywhere. It doesn't work that easily. Faulting Mozilla for not following the *nix philosophy is like faulting an Office suite for having bad support for programming: that wasn't the point in the first place.

Now that Mozilla is pretty mature, we will start to see the sub-projects develop that tailor Mozilla for various platforms. Phoenix is just one of these and that is the point of Mozilla.

Woz

browser only vs Suite

[Stalcair]

offtopic a bit...

Normally I am deeply warry of tightly integrated or embedded systems simply because in the past it has made me either loose the apps I like, doesn't allow me to integrate on various levels with them (and thus use them but suck it up), or if I do stick with them I might have extra bloat on the suite that is never fully removed (from a diskspace, latency and memory perspective).

That being said however, I have been trying out the entire Mozilla suite (1.2 now) to see how it fares. However, since I have been using webmail for so long and rarely chat anymore on IRC, and newsgroups are a thing of the past unfortunately... I suppose I have nothing to lose, right? I guess my question is, what are good products for each of these areas: IRC, Newsgroups, Mail, Addressbook maintenance... and on both Windows and any Linux? Also, where is a good site to review these apps? Hardware always seems so easy to find reviews for but while there are so many sights that half-heartedly review various software apps there seems to be no good search engine/site for these that I know of (throw me a freak'n bone here :)

Second question (group of questions I suppose): How easy is it to integrate these (non-Mozilla)apps with the Mozilla browser?

Getting better, still some bloat issues

[skrowl]

This thing with 1 tab open (mozzilla.org/start) was using 5 more megs of memory than Opera with 7 tabs (slashdot, easybuy2000, tomshardware, a few others)

Good prorgress. The load time still sucks.

Re:Getting better, still some bloat issues

[hkmwbz]

I don't get it. What is the problem with memory use? You have memory, right? Why not use it? I, for one, am glad if an application can use more memory to increase performance. It's a good thing! As long as it doesn't gobble up all of it, and releases it again when needed.

Please, a program is supposed to use RAM, and if it can do so without a negative impact on other programs - go ahead! Use more!

Re:Kick ass

[forsetti]

The Linux-Phoenix binary runs great on FreeBSD (using it now!), but you have to install linux-gtk (the port worked great, I assume the package would as well). Fire up the binary, and you're up and running!

The Java engine is about 6MB by itself!

[StupidKatz]

The actual Phoenix browser is probably only 4MB or so. Opera 6, without the Java engine, is about 3.5MB.

Considering NS and IE are somewhere around 40-60MB, I believe you need to lay off the crack. 9MB for a browser with all the browser-specific fixins is NOT large.

Re:The Java engine is about 6MB by itself!

[Anonymous Coward]

He was comparing it to lynx.

For the Future

[offlerthecrocgod]

Cant wait till release 0.6 by the then it will be so light and small you wont even have to download it anymore you can just pick it out of the ether!!WOOOHHO I love Mozilla! real Ethernet transfres straight to your head

What about Pterydactyl?

[therealmoose]

It that mozilla with a Phoenix based UI?

What's next? Yeti, which is only the IRC and mail functions, with the UI of Thunderbird? When will the madness end!

Here's an idea...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Get the Phoenix dev team to install a dozen or so webcams in their respective work areas. This way, interested parties can keep up on the progress in real time and Slashdot won't have to post such frequent updates.

Besides, those who love the software so much will find it's much more satisfying to masturbate to pictures than it is to Slashdot news bites... "ohhh...look at him rework the rendering engine...mmmm...that's some sweet codin'...I'd love to have private access to that member function"

[I have now grossed myself out with that last bit]

I love phoenix...!

[nooboob]

Runs great on my linux box, but crashes OFTEN when I'm in windows....anyone else have trouble with it under Windows?....btw, the way Phoenix lets you construct your toolbars is awesome!

still no type ahead find

[nazh]

been quite addicted to this feature in moz1.2a. and it worked great in phoenix 0.1
in ver 0.2 it was not working but they assured it would be back in 0.3, but now they say;

# Type Ahead Find is not working in this release. It hasn't been removed, it's just not working. We didn't get this fixed for 0.3 but intend to fix it for a future release.

Feature request

[awch]

One feature I've always wanted in a browser was a "View selection" option. No, I don't mean an option to view the selection source. I want to select a part of the page and be able to render only that part of the page. That would greatly help printing only the information that I am interested in.

Images are still downloaded

[WD]

Unless Phoenix has a fix that Mozilla does not, the blocked images are still downloaded. They're just not displayed. This is explained here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id =94118

Once this one is fixed, it'll make Mozilla/Phoenix even more valuable for dial-up users!

Still twice the size of Opera

[Kjella]

Mozilla: 11mb
Phoenix 0.3 Win: 7mb
Opera 6.05 Win (no java): 3.4mb

Granted, there are a few issues about Opera (particularly that they ship with "Identify as IE" as default, which makes it hell to fix things that doesn't work right in Opera. I've actually got three different things in FAQs, Opera needs to identify as

1. Opera, not IE
2. IE, not Opera
3. Mozilla/Nutscrape, not Opera OR IE

Of course the answer should be easy, it should identify as Opera and web designers program accordingly. And all should use the real HTML standard, not the IE-"standard"... riiiiiight.

Still, I look forward to seeing a streamlined browser. I hated Netscapes "suite", and I don't like the Mozilla "suite" either. The browser's okay, but for the other stuff I certainly know of better alternatives.

Kjella

Fontconfig

[RichiP]

Is there a fontconfig support patch for Phoenix? Actually, is the source code even out for it? I've been trying to find it in the repository, but haven't yet.

Some of us like where the address bar is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hate it when the address bar is separate from the buttons: it takes up unecessary space as far as I'm concerned, and I hate wasted space.

The thing with Phoenix, Mozilla, Galeon, Opera, IE, whatever, is having options.

I have tried Phoenix, and I can really understand why people would like it, but for me, Mozilla is more comfy. I like Mozilla. It's speed is great as far as I'm concerned, and the small amount of extra speed from Phoenix doesn't seem worth it to me. But that doesn't mean someone else won't perceive it as worth it, for whatever reason.

Really, the important thing is that there are choices. I think that's why Mozilla got started in the first place. To the extent we have Galeon, Phoenix, and discussions of which of 6 browsers is better, I think Mozilla has been a tremendous success. It's reassuring to think that we might be entering an era of "which browser do you prefer?" rather than "Why would you need anything but IE?"

"Application framework"

[TheSHAD0W]

If Mozilla's "framework" were so tight, then why is it Phoenix's offering loads up more quickly than Mozilla? If the functions required for the mail, composer and IRC clients were moved into separate libraries then they could be pruned by the user if he so desired.

I'd probably always still install the full Mozilla product, but having the option would be a nice thing.

A few questions

[prator]

I've got Phoenix installed now, and I was able to install Mouse Gestures through Tools->Preferences->Extensions, but how do I configure Mouse Gestures now? I want to map the gestures button to middle mouse, but I don't have the menu like Mozilla has.

Also, I can't figure out how to add sites to the pop-up whitelist.

-prator

size!=speed

[Espectr0]

Correct me if i am wrong, but i thought file size != speed.

Yesterday a friend mailed me a program he made. It was only 20k. But it used 2 megs of ram.

Phoenix is really nice, but i can't use java on it because it will slow down too much to continue browsing.

Re:size!=speed

[mythr]

Speed != RAM usage.

It's easy to write a really slow program that uses practically no RAM. It's all about balance. I don't see how you are proving your point on speed with a memory footprint. (That only works sometimes.)

Ok why won't mozilla.org load for me?

[PovRayMan]

www.indecisions.org/prm/image-stuff/Mozilla-Org.pn g

I'm getting this weird hijacked site instead of the regular site. I wanna read up on some info, I'm sure i can find alternative links, but what the hell is going on?

Is anyone else getting this?

Memory reports in Linux are NEVER accurate!

[FooBarWidget]

The reported memory contains shared memory and all kinds of other stuff. So even if top/ps reports 20 MB in RSS, it doesn't truly use 20 MB.
Ditto for X (RSS includes your video card's memory) and all other apps.

Re:Memory reports in Linux are NEVER accurate!

[Bazman]

So is there no way of finding out how much is shared? Its useful, because my concern is a web browser for a multi-user machine, and I dont want the memory to run out if 10 people are running mozilla..

Is /proc/$pid/status any help?

VmSize: 43180 kB
VmLck: 0 kB
VmRSS: 25336 kB
VmData: 20812 kB
VmStk: 80 kB
VmExe: 244 kB
VmLib: 19056 kB

Its a very important question. Recently another of our multi-user systems died horribly because a class was running matlab 25 times - and the new version of matlab uses 10 times the memory as before.... Crunch. Thats the matlab java front-end for you. Good job its off-switchable.

Baz

Re:Memory reports in Linux are NEVER accurate!

[FooBarWidget]

"So is there no way of finding out how much is shared? Its useful, because my concern is a web browser for a multi-user machine, and I dont want the memory to run out if 10 people are running mozilla.."

Memory is shared between all 10 Mozilla sessions.

The best way to watch your memory is to use /usr/bin/free, Gkrellm (with memory monitor) or the system monitor applets for the GNOME or KDE panel.

slightly ot: a shortfall of pipelines

[Mr Z]

The Unix command line philosophy more closely resembles functional programming: data goes in one end of a component, and comes out the other end suitably transformed. This makes the protocol for fitting components together easy to understand.

One thing I pine for occasionally with pipelines (whether they're text or binary data) is the ability to specify more than one input, or tee off the output to more than one destination application. The Unix tee program lets me tap off of a pipeline to a file, but not to another program. I can kludge around it all with mkfifo and tee into that, but not all programs that accept file inputs like to do so from a named pipe. It also starts to get rather complicated to set it all up correctly.

Basically, what I'm saying is that stdin and stdout are a good start, but it would be even more useful if you could specify a vector of inputs and had a better way to fan out your outputs.

One thing that object models have over pipelines is that you build more of a web-like structure, not a linear concatenation of operations. I suppose that's also a drawback, when analysing the complexity of the system. :-)

--Joe

Interesting what the Phoenix site ...

[haloscan]

From the Phoenix FAQ page:

What can I do to help?

We need all the distribution we can get. Tell your family. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. If you're a student, get it distributed at your college. Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Make some noise on your blog. Spread the word!

Hah.

[TheSHAD0W]

Actually, I do quite a bit of my web work with a text editor; but laying out tables strictly with text is a royal pain. For that, a nice, simple WYSIWYG tool is better. Mozilla's editor lets me quickly switch in between those modes, so I'm pretty fond of it.

To tell the truth, however, I much preferred Netscape Communicator's WYSIWYG interface over Mozilla's current one; Mozilla is a bit less flexible in table-building.

Why Phoenix?

[the_danielsan]

..when there is Galeon. Galeon has a LOT of additional features and all the bloat removed from Mozilla: http://galeon.sourceforge.net/

What many people don't know: You can start Galeon in server mode, what will keep the Galeon process in memory to allow it starting faster (1 secs): /usr/bin/galeon --server --server-timeout=0 &

There you go.

Working Themes would be nice

[Lord Kestrel]

I really like this browser, but working themes would be nice. You can install them, but you can't ever get them to activate via the prefs menu.

Other than that, it's pretty useable. I'd still like to be able to pull up the Location window, instead of having to type in the drop down at the top. And I'd REALLY like to be able to disable that autocomplete. I hate that damn thing. And no, it's not from the pr0n sites that I'm hitting (work computer, no pr0n). I just find it annoying.

I just hope...

[LinuxTek]

They keep the tabbed-browsing and improve on it. It is the best feature that mozilla has, and the feature that made me use instead of the other ones.

It is particular useful when you don't want to wander off too far from where you are. Like on /., I usually middle-click on a story link so I can read the story but not loose track of the /. page.

Latest nightly has GTK! :-)

[TeknoHog]

Well, not 100% completely but it's looking pretty good, just like my other GTK applications. This is not in the 0.3 milestone, you need the latest nightly.

It's interesting though that even plain XUL-look Phoenix and Mozilla depend on some GTK functionality (e.g. libgtkembedmoz.so). But anyways, now it even has the correct GTK look. w00t!

Xft Support

[dpete4552]

I wont be using it until it comes with Xft support.

one suggestion

[sewagemaster]

for some reason my zonealarm adblocking function does not work with phoenix. maybe zonealarm uses a name matching in the exe...?

How it should be done

[spitzak]

People keep defending Mozilla by saying you can remove the modules. But I feel that a program that was *only* a browser is really what we need, and that everything else (mail, ftp, chat, etc) could be done by *seperate* programs, not modules. It would also be much, much easier to add new functions.

Here is how it would work for mail:

Some new interface is added so a program can act as a "server" of web pages that are seen by the local machine. For instance a program can run that will then claim that anything starting with "/mail" should go to it. In my ideal situation this would replace the filesystem entirely so any program can read data from any service by using open() and read(), though I realize that there may be additional calls needed for synchronization.

This program then generates the display and email interface, exactly like hotmail or whatever does to display your email from a remote machine on your browser.

The browser works like normal and has no idea it is displaying or creating email.

Any deficienices in how the interface works are addressed by adding new browser-like functionality that can be used by things other than email, and by changing the email client to use them.

This all seem remarkably easy but I never see this approach proposed. Am I missing anything?

works for me

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

I'm a convert. Yes, there are still some bugs. For example, it still has some problems with searches within forms ... well with forms in general. But considering they have a build just about every night I suspect it isn't long before this problem is solved.

Certainly I love the lean speed of it, but I also can't believe how I lived without tabbed browsing up until now (I know other browsers have it, but I didn't). There are alot of other little features I like - such as fun with the mouse wheel and fonts, the recently revised bookmark system. But mostly I like that it keeps them nasty pop-ups at bay. Reading the NY Times and WAPO are no longer a pain (or as painful).

That said, I wonder if they can keep this level of energy up. I hope they do. And I hope they can do it without bloating the product.

Once they get this bad-boy un-bugged, I'm getting all my lame users at various charities I do free stuff for to upgrade from their pre W3C beasts. The install, use and system suckage is very, very reasonable - especially considering the price.

Re:works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

especially considering the price.

Cheap non-profit bastards!

Maintenability.

[jotaeleemeese]

Smaller pieces of software with well defined tasks are easier to mantain.

Installer?

[Gendou]

There is no installer.

OT: "cp /dev/urandom /dev/hda"

[Gendou]

cp /dev/urandom /dev/hda

I'm too afraid that I might be wrong in order to actually try it, but I'm 95% sure this won't do what you think it will.

Remember, /dev/hda isn't your hard drive, it's a device file that, when read from or written to, will trigger some code in the kernel that will read from or write to your hard drive. Unlinking /dev/hda shouldn't have any effect on your hard drive (although you'll have some trouble mounting/unmounting filesystems until you recreate the device!). When you cp over an existing file, the kernel unlinks the destination file first (at this point you no longer have a device file that points at your hard drive) and then copies the source file over. So you'd have a useless file named /dev/hda that was just a normal, non-device file because that's what happens when you try to copy a device. You should be able to use mknod to recreate any devices that you clobbered while playing around.

If you did this, however...

cat /dev/urandom > /dev/hda

... then you'd be fucked. You might want to consider updating your .sig. HTH HAND. YMMV. IANAL. RTFMBTTOTPSAW.

Last Post!

[alpg]

"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of
that is -- `Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like it put
more simply -- `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it
might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not
otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be
otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...