Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla 1.2 Beta Released

nberardi writes "Mozilla 1.2 Beta is out. Typeahead now works on Mac and Java now works on Jaguar. On Linux, the classic theme now picks up GTK native theme. See the release notes for more info."

448 comments

  1. If only... by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If only there was a theme that used the OS native widgets, without the ugly 'classic' icons...

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:If only... by dalassa · · Score: 2

      The classic skin looks alot less ugly than the netscape 6 theme on OS X. Those round gray buttons are really jarring.

      --
      Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
    2. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Help yourself. Unpack the classic theme (classic.jar is a zip archive) and replace the icons with your own.

    3. Re:If only... by JonK · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Aah, but then you might, by bowing down to the usability wishes of the AOL-using masses, offend the critical 733t-geek demographic who, when switching between their various desktop enviroments, want the same "looks-like-arse" theme throughout (see also: CDE, Athena, most any Gnome and KDE themes, all the "who needs MacOS X - I can theme Enlightenment to look just like it" comments passim ad nauseam etc.)

      And if we offend the overweight-and-hairy Lynx-or-die brigade, Mozilla will surely fail.

      --
      Cheers

      Jon
    4. Re:If only... by unixmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      It does actually , uses GTK on Linux and native widgets on Mac/Windows when classic theme is selected.

      --
      Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    5. Re:If only... by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      The reason is that the native widgets /should/ use less system resources...

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    6. Re:If only... by SimplexO · · Score: 1

      I haven't gotten a chance to look at 1.2b, (I use nightly builds) but on my version I have noticed that while the prefrence window stays skinnable (I use the modern skin), the buttons in the actual browser are skinned to look like my xp.

    7. Re:If only... by evbergen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sadly, there isn't even any such thing as OS native widgets on Unix. Every toolkit has its own, and every application gets to choose its own toolkit.

      We need an X protocol that works at widget level instead of pixel level. It'd be great if we could design /that/, together with a good widget definition language, and to stop reinventing the OS in huge toolkits that even provide timers and I/O and mistreat X as a dumb framebuffer backend.

      Client-side rendering, high-level application frameworks, *yuck*. Provide your high-level GUI stuff through an IPC channel and get out of the way. Let me have my own main loop back. Thank you.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    8. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont they remove that ugly default theme?

      I dont know anyone who can stand it.

      Its horrible!

    9. Re:If only... by archen · · Score: 1

      To me the question is, does using native widgets actually allow you to follow CSS? Does it allow this across all platforms? My guess is that probably not, judging how IE seems to handle some things but not others.

      For instance, create a textbox with the border set to one and notice how it doesn't work the same as a textarea with border set to one - bug in IE, or limit of the widget? how about setting the margins and borders of elements inside of a dropdown menu?.

      Mozilla allows you to control everything with the widget because mozilla uses it's own. I imagine people wouldn't be too impressed if things worked differently in the windows 98 version compaired to the windows XP version because the OS. When we're talking about a browser that works in everything from OS2 to Windows to Unix (using god knows what windows manager/widget set) the Mozilla team would spend forever chaising their tails just trying to accomplish the same things. In my opinion it makes sence that they use their own widgets.

      That being said, it would be ncie if some of them looked a little nicer...

    10. Re:If only... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2

      Actually I think that both GTK and QT are good enough development platforms to become "standard"--which is the problem, since neither will back down (neither should back down, since they both have really cool features).

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    11. Re:If only... by archen · · Score: 1

      er.. with IE set the border not only to 1px but set it to solid also..

    12. Re:If only... by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Personally, I'm anxious for the day it uses gtk-2.0 instead of gtk-1.4. I tried it with gtk2 and couldn't do any cutting/pasting (known bug, already in Bugzilla, I believe). Other than that it was great-- they're very close. Even better: once it is stable on gtk2, then Galeon 2 is ready to go. Either way, hats off to all Mozilla coders, Mozilla is a great browser and gets better all the time.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    13. Re:If only... by waffle+zero · · Score: 1
      Sadly, there isn't even any such thing as OS native widgets on Unix. Every toolkit has its own, and every application gets to choose its own toolkit.
      Motif anyone? I sure do love those diamond radio buttons.
    14. Re:If only... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Provide your high-level GUI stuff through an IPC channel and get out of the way. Let me have my own main loop back. Thank you.

      Right on. I'm waiting for somebody (it won't be me) to create an SVG based gui_server that accepts binary serialized XML on a socket, transforms it, renders it and synchs events back to the app. That would then in turn render either using X (with spiffy vector extensions) or OpenGL. Evas can do this. That would rock absolutely, and if you wanted to mix and match, you can use XEmbed as well. You could have XUL transformed to SVG :) Why not? Kinda like Quartz and Display PDF except better.

    15. Re:If only... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2

      Three words: PicoGUI.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    16. Re:If only... by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Informative
      If only there was a theme that used the OS native widgets, without the ugly 'classic' icons...

      Phoenix looks like it's going that way. I would be using it right now instead of the new Mozilla beta, but Phoenix doesn't let you disable third-party cookies (you can't check the checkbox that controls third-party cookies, at least not under Win2K). Once they get that fixed, though, I'll more than likely switch over to Phoenix. All I really want is a browser. I use Mutt on my home Linux server for mail, so I don't need a mail client, and I use text editors (such as JOE or Notepad) for editing HTML and CSS.

      The thing that bugs me right now about Mozilla 1.2b is that the Pinball theme doesn't work (it didn't work in Phoenix, either, and for the same reason...it hasn't been updated). Classic is ghey (as you noted), and Modern isn't much better. Pinball ought to be the default. :-)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    17. Re:If only... by oliverthered · · Score: 2

      How about a common toolkit interface then, ok so QT is C++ and GTK is in poor mans C++ why can't they get together and sort the interfaces out, 2 toolkits fine, two seperate interfaces cheers mate just what I wanted!

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    18. Re:If only... by uhoreg · · Score: 4, Informative

      It only uses GTK/etc. to *draw* the widgets. It doesn't use actual GTK/etc. widgets.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    19. Re:If only... by Masem · · Score: 1

      FYI on Phoenix & 3rd party cookies, I found out today that you can implement the "ask about cookies" feature that Moz has that allows you to selectively accept or reject cookies as they come in, and make that choice permanent if you desire. You have to activate this by editing the users.js prefs file in your Phoenix profile, and adding the same lines as are needed for Moz (what those are, I can't recall off the top of my head). If you go to the Phoenix message boards and search on cookies, you'll find an informative post on that. This doesn't quite replace that feature that's there but uncheckable, but does allow you to effectly block those cookies.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    20. Re:If only... by Misch · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Something changed between the 1.1 and 1.2 versions that prevents old skins from being used. I tried to use the Pinball skin when 1.2 alpha came out. It worked fine, except taht I couldn't open up the mail window some of the time on some of the platforms.

      I wish I knew what changed between 1.1 and 1.2 on the interface... I'd try and go fix it myself.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    21. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i am mystified as to how you arrived at the number "three."
      Pico - one word
      GUI - not really a word, but not two either. Either it's one word or three.

      it is, however, one of the sweeter OSS projects that i've seen in a while :)

    22. Re:If only... by Rev.+Rudolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Same on Windows, for what it's worth.

      The theme does a reasonable impression of native widgets, and in doing so will help new users feel comfortable with Mozilla, because it looks like what they're used to.

      However, it is /just an impression/, a mock-up of the real thing, made from nothing more than XUL, CSS etc. Try /using/ Mozilla, and that illusion will quickly fade, as the widgets don't /behave/ like the real thing.

    23. Re:If only... by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      I disagree.
      Widgets do not make a human interface. You been a higher level of abstraction which encompasses the behavior of apps, like GNUStep.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    24. Re:If only... by Bedouin+X · · Score: 2

      Maybe he's counting the Dot Org.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    25. Re:If only... by Bedouin+X · · Score: 2

      And guess what?

      IE doesn't use native widgets.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    26. Re:If only... by archen · · Score: 1

      True, but notice that IE widgets can do quite a bit more than the regular windows widgets seem to.

  2. pinstripe theme by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note that if you're using the pinstripe theme, you've got to use the one made for nightlies.

    I don't know why.

    First thing I noticed.

    --

    --
    pants ahoy
    1. Re:pinstripe theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Note that if you're using the pinstripe theme, chances are good you're a homosexual Macintosh user.

      I don't know why.

      First thing I noticed.

    2. Re:pinstripe theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clever.

    3. Re:pinstripe theme by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      The funniest part is that I am a homosexual Macintosh user.

      I don't know why.

      First thing I noticed was that I really liked men. Then I noticed that I really liked Macintoshes.

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    4. Re:pinstripe theme by FaasNat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately the pinstripe theme currently only works on OS X. I would also love to use this them on my Windows and Linux box. Anything out there that's similar?

      --
      There's never enough when you have too little
    5. Re:pinstripe theme by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      What the hell is up with that theme? I tried installing it on Linux and it said I have to be running OSX. But why? Isn't the skin API totally cross-platform? I use the same skins on Linux and Windows, why are we making an exception out of OSX?

    6. Re:pinstripe theme by epsalon · · Score: 2

      The API is cross-platform. This specific theme is designed to use OS-native widgets
      As stated in the FAQ, the theme uses the OSX Appearance Manager to render the theme, and thus is designed only for OSX.

  3. Link prefetching by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Interesting
    check this out: Link prefetching

    seems to mean that if you're reading page 1 of a multi-page article, page 2 will be loaded in the background. nice!

    1. Re:Link prefetching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if your reading a page with links you dont want to click, lets say to a picture of a man stretching his balloon knot open, then they'll be cached for you and swallow up more and more system resources. nice!

    2. Re:Link prefetching by PEdelman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This sounds cool, but it looks like the page author has to specify what has to be pre-fetched. Due to the relatively small marker-share of mozilla, there will probably be few sites which implement this feature. Too bad, because it looks like a nice feature to me.

      --
      Like science? Comics? Wicked...
      Funny By Nature
    3. Re:Link prefetching by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... provided the page is written for link prefetching explicitly. It doesn't mean you can go to a site like Google News and it will start loading the various articles in the background.

      Perhaps that's good, although I'd like to see an option where you can choose to apply the feature to all links leading to HTML pages. This combined with a customizable maximum bandwidth restriction for the prefetching would be nice.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Link prefetching by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      This only works if the page you're viewing is specifically set up so that Mozilla can prefetch. So sayeth the FAQ:

      A web page provides a set of prefetching hints to the browser, and after the browser is finished loading the page, it begins silently prefetching specified documents and stores them in its cache.
      ...
      The browser looks for a HTML tag or HTTP Link: header with a relation type of either next or prefetch.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    5. Re:Link prefetching by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Interesting
      And if your reading a page with links you dont want to click, lets say to a picture of a man stretching his balloon knot open, then they'll be cached for you and swallow up more and more system resources. nice!

      That's a fair point - there is potential for abusem since the web page decides which "hints" to issue. Hopefully it'll eventually have an "enable prefetching for these sites"-type access control, similarly to the way it's done with cookies. Or a limit on the amount of data to prefetch.

    6. Re:Link prefetching by qurob · · Score: 1


      This kind of link crawling isn't new at all, but is useful under certain conditions.

      I can imagine my 50 users just SATURATING the T1 when their web browsers start automatically following links from CNN, Webshots, Nascar.com, Weather.com, and other work-related web sites.

      Mozilla's FAQ on pre-fetching

      It competes for bandwith against other non-Moz apps... But it isn't as if you can't turn it off.

      Anyone have a link/info to the old programs that used to do this under Windows?

    7. Re:Link prefetching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, then you load /.'s comment page, and crash mozilla for loading way too many links, before it reaches its bandwidth load...

    8. Re:Link prefetching by jlv · · Score: 2
      On by default! No UI setting to disable this! ARGH.

      (Yes, you can disable it, but you have to edit the preferences. Sheesh)

      We are considering adding UI for this preference; however, the overriding theory is that if link prefetching needs to be disabled then there must be something wrong with the implementation.


      This should be disabled by default, with a UI preference to enable it.
    9. Re:Link prefetching by Steveftoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about a button to manually prefetch links on pages that you like? Not all pages should have their pages prefetched. For the advanced users, for the normal people it should be auto -on - or off.

    10. Re:Link prefetching by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps that's good, although I'd like to see an option where you can choose to apply the feature to all links leading to HTML pages.

      What would be great is if it could recognise if a page is of thumbnail images, and then automatically download the linked images. It would make browsing porn much quicker.

    11. Re:Link prefetching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize how rarely it will be used in the "real world?" Almost no one uses link tags beyond stylesheets, and the few that do, often do so with dynamic stuff and thus they won't be fetched (ie Bugzille, Slashdot).

    12. Re:Link prefetching by trollercoaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cool, this could lead to preslashdoting.

      --

      Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.

    13. Re:Link prefetching by GeorgePBurdell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems like there's a lot of potential for abuse with this, especially given that right now you have to manually edit the prefs file to turn it off. What's to stop a page from tagging a really huge file, hosted on someone *else's* server as a "prefetch" item. Everyone who goes to page A starts "prefetching" from page B in the background - enough people do this and you've got a DOS going on.

      Even if that scenario is not likely, I think it's still an odd choice for Mozilla - the philosophy behind the idea seems to be "the browser knows best and will think for you behind the scenes." On the one hand that sounds great: the browser will anticipate my next move. On the other, that doesn't sound so great... My cable modem starts blinking when I think I'm not grabbing anything and I get suspicious.

    14. Re:Link prefetching by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://leech.mozdev.org/

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    15. Re:Link prefetching by Eimi+Metamorphoumai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How is this worse than just embedding the image into the webpage, possibly with height=0 width=0? When you go to a webpage you already pretty much give it carte blanche to download what it likes; this doesn't seem very different.

      --

      Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.

    16. Re:Link prefetching by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Funny

      I still cherish the days with modem when I could see the goatse.cx pic load before my eyes and go away before it was done, now with DSL it's instant, and you think this is good?!


      :)
      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    17. Re:Link prefetching by roca · · Score: 3, Informative

      > What's to stop a page from tagging a really huge
      > file, hosted on someone *else's* server as a
      > "prefetch" item.

      You can already do this by loading someone else's page into a hidden IFRAME.

      Nothing new here. Move along.

    18. Re:Link prefetching by ObligatoryUserName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about limiting the prefetching to pages in the same domain as the page doing the prefetching. Perhaps you could explicitly allow addtional domains for prefetching in the head of the document.

    19. Re:Link prefetching by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The style of web browsing I use is to load all the links I want to read in new windows by clicking on them with the middle button. Then they can be loading in the background while I read the first part of the article. It forms a kind of queue of pages to read, so when I've finished reading the first page I just close that window and go on to the next (which is ready instantly). The result is up to a hundred browser windows open at once - but I know that I'm not the only person who browses like this. Of course, it helps to have a browser which can open lots of windows without thrashing and slowing the machine to a crawl (like Dillo) or one that has tabbed browsing.

      This style of following links can also work well with offline browsing and a proxy server designed for offline use like WWWOFFLE. If you go online briefly and click on all the links you want to load, the proxy remembers to download them. Then a few minutes later you can go online again and all the pages will be loaded ASAP. Once they've loaded you can disconnect again and continue browsing. This makes the most sense for people whose internet access is metered (hmm, I wonder if something like this could work for palmtops).

      But what I'd really like to see in a browser is an explicit 'to read' queue. When you click on a link with the middle button, it doesn't immediately open in a new window or tab but instead is added to the queue and starts downloading in the background. On the browser's toolbar there is a 'next page' button which goes to the next URL you have marked for reading.

      Automatic prefetching of all links from a page, la wget -r, would be crazy for many heavily-linked sites. But you could have heuristics for it or specify particular sites where the link following should be more aggressive.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    20. Re:Link prefetching by j7953 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Perhaps that's good, although I'd like to see an option where you can choose to apply the feature to all links leading to HTML pages.

      No, that would be a very bad idea. Just right now in the navigation menu of the Slashdot page I'm viewing ("Post Comment"), there are 17 navigation links, plus the category links, etc. You cannot tell me that you'll be following all of those 17 links. Web sites (and probably ISPs as well) would not like such a feature due to the increased bandwidth costs they'd have to account for.

      Also note that e.g. this page has a "log out" link that I really do not want to be automatically prefetched for obvious reasons. Granted, it contains a query-string so Mozilla would not prefetch it anyway, but I imagine there will also be web sites that have log out links without query strings in the URL. And there are lots of other actions that might be associated with following a link (think prefetched one-click-shopping).

      The HTTP standard (RFC2616) states that "In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered 'safe'", and if there are side effects, "the user did not request the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them", but I wouldn't trust on web site administrators knowing this.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    21. Re:Link prefetching by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be a nice feature. You can also accelerate your pr0n browsing with mouse gestures. For instance, the Right-Up-Left gesture over one or more links (read "thumbnails") will open all those links in new tabs. Very nice. :-)

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    22. Re:Link prefetching by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right. And so you go to /., open an article, and...

      I see a use for a "load in background" click option. That could sometimes be very good. But "load all links"? No. Not even "load all links when selected". There's too much problem with hidden links already.

      (Mind you, as long is Mozilla is the browser of a small minority this wouldn't be too bad. But once people start designing web pages to take advantage of this ... unh unh.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:Link prefetching by Lionel+Hutts · · Score: 2

      That's fine in theory, but, if it works correctly, why would anyone want to turn it off? Remember, it's only prefetching pages when the server says to. It also automatically interrupts prefetches if the browser is not idle.

      --
      I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
    24. Re:Link prefetching by mpsmps · · Score: 5, Informative

      Embedding an invisible image has a variety of problems.

      1. Relying on obscure side-effects leads to bad code. For example, one could imagine a highly-optimized browser-rendering engine may choose not to read the bits of the image because they won't be visible. It's much better to have an XHTML tag that explicitly expresses the desired semantics and leave it to the presentation tool to properly figure out how to present.

      2. Languages, standards, and practices evolve. For example, if my webages are XML interpreted by XSL stylesheets, do I really want to start embedding browser hints in my XML pages (or have my XSL stylesheet assume a browser is the client)?

      3. How does the browser know not to start prefetching the image before it has loaded the main page? The prefetching FAQ says that prefetching uses an idle test to avoid doing harm. Embedded images can't readily be optimized by an idle test.

    25. Re:Link prefetching by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Ed,

      If you're using Mozilla, or the recently-released Phoenix (highly recommended), you can also accomplish your browsing style by right-clicking the links and selecting "open in new tab". The other page will open a new tab within your existing window. When you're done reading the current page, you can click on the tab for the other page without having to juggle windows.

      What's nice about Phoenix in this respect is the default behavior is to have the new tab open in the background. I complimented the design team for this on their discussion board and some guy came back and said you can also set this up in Mozilla via the prefreences. It's supposed to be controlled by the checkbox 'Load links in the background'. You can also set middle or right-click to open these tabs in the preferences.

      Seth

    26. Re:Link prefetching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what wget is for. Know it, learn it, it is your friend.

    27. Re:Link prefetching by aftk2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Interesting idea, although it's too bad that, according to the FAQ:
      URLs with a query string are not prefetched.
      This really limits how useful this feature might be. I can imagine reading a multiple page article, and on page one of that article, the link tag prefetches page two while I'm reading page one, for quick access to the next page. Unfortunately, the URLs to most articles on the web contain query strings (a query string is the question mark (?) that preceeds a bunch of variables in a URL.)

      Interesting idea, at least.
      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    28. Re:Link prefetching by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > This kind of link crawling isn't new at all, but is useful under certain conditions.

      pr0n! w00t!

    29. Re:Link prefetching by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      If you can configure Moz to (a) have tabs open in the background and (b) have 'open in new tab' bound to a single mouse click then I might do that. Actually, I knew already that (b) was possible but I haven't taken the time to learn the XUL or other voodoo necessary to configure it.

      After discovering Dillo I hardly use Mozilla any more. I might try Phoenix if it is a bit snappier (how does it compare to Galeon?).

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    30. Re:Link prefetching by zmooc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Perhaps that's good, although I'd like to see an option where you can choose to apply the feature to all links leading to HTML pages. This combined with a customizable maximum bandwidth restriction for the prefetching would be nice.

      And that, my friend, would be the end of the Internet. How many of the links on a website do you generally click? On slashdot, I think, it would at most be something like 5%. Let's say 5% of the users would enable this feature. Now their browsers start pre-fetching. Since they normally only click at most 5% of the links, preloading all would multiply their bandwith-usage by 20 times. So. Our 5% of the users uses 20 times as much bandwidth as they would without preloading. So the average bandwidth-usage for web-browsing would about double and that's with only 5% of the users having this feature enabled. Bye bye Internet. There's a reason this really simple to implement feature isn't there yet.

      But.... combined with a reasonably large distributed network of caching proxy-servers, pre-fetching might be worth a try.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    31. Re:Link prefetching by Jorrit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would turn this off immediatelly even if it works correctly. I have limited bandwidth every month. I only want to load what I need. Not what the server thinks that I need.

      Greetings,

      --
      Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
    32. Re:Link prefetching by jswitte · · Score: 1

      The result is up to a hundred browser windows open at once - but I know that I'm not the only person who browses like this

      I do this. I've never opened up a hundred before, but.. I remember doing this in Windows once (it was what was there.. and it was a school machine that had Fortress on it - even worse) and the really horrible thing about windows (explorer) is that if one page causes explorer to crash, they ALL crash..

      I've thought since then that the reasonable thing to do with multiple browser windows would be to open each one as a protected process, with some kind of code-linking to shared web-browser code, instead of each one being "inside" the same parent web-browser process. (or if M$ would just make a $@%# OS that just works..) I don't know enough about OS-design to know if this kind of process management is feasible though.

    33. Re:Link prefetching by thegoldenear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mozilla focuses upon being standards compliant, rather than making Netscape and Microsoft's mistake of defining their own techniques outside of the W3C. (I think there's also some degree of themselves informing the W3C when its sensible to). so, is prefetch not a part of a W3C HTML specification?

    34. Re:Link prefetching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mozilla and Phoenix preferences allow you to assign middle-click to open a link in a new tab. No XUL hacking necessary. Preferences, Navigator, Tabbed Browsing, Open tabs instead of windows for, Middle or control-click of links in a Web page (for Phoenix: Preferences, Advanced, Tabbed Browsing, ...)

      And phoenix starts much faster for me, though it still wants a sizeable chunk of memory. Unlike dillo, mozilla/phoenix (well, gecko) supports more standards, but Dillo is probably faster. For me (1GHz, 256MB) Phoenix loads on par with Galeon. On the other hand, Galeon is more featureful in some areas than Phoenix.

    35. Re:Link prefetching by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      you can also accomplish your browsing style by right-clicking the links and selecting "open in new tab".

      Even nicer, you can configure the middle mouse button to open a new tab on a link.

      I get a hard time with any other browser since. It's like using a TI calculator after getting used to the HP concepts (stack et al).

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    36. Re:Link prefetching by jlv · · Score: 2

      If it works correctly, then let there be an option to turn it on.

      Basically, they're inventing something new here, and if it isn't turned on by default and in everyone's face, it will never get used. It took 2 point releases of Netscape 2.0 to get them to add the ability to disable JavaScript.

      IMHO, I don't care if "Netscape Navigator 7" has this on by default. Mozilla shouldn't.

    37. Re:Link prefetching by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I opened loads of browser windows one time at school and the shared net connection, not being intelligent enough to allocate bandwidth per-user, pretty much came to a halt for everyone else on the network! Actually I think it was lots of small FTP downloads from Simtel in parallel.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    38. Re:Link prefetching by mblase · · Score: 2

      How is this worse than just embedding the image into the webpage, possibly with height=0 width=0?

      Because (a) height=0 and width=0 are not well-supported -- they'll probably display the image as 1x1 pixel or at full size; (b) presumably prefetching can be turned off on the client side if one so desires.

    39. Re:Link prefetching by prockcore · · Score: 2

      "What's to stop a page from tagging a really huge file, hosted on someone *else's* server as a "prefetch" item"

      What's to stop them from doing it now? With iframes?

    40. Re:Link prefetching by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how I get my morning news from Slashdot and WND. I use Opera, so I just Ctrl-Shift click all the headlines that look interesting, and click to the next section when that's done. I read all the opened pages, closing as I go. Then I am back to the original window which now has a new page, and I repeat.

      Options to never prefetch on certain sites, or to prefetch every link on certain sites, would eliminate this step for me. But OTOH I'd be closing quite a few pages that I wasn't interested in. The "never on this site" option is a must, though, just like per-site cookie and JS filters. Some sites, no matter how reputable, are a little overzealous when applying new technology.

      I'd like to see rel="next" links automatically used for prefetching just like rel="prefetch". Some pages (multi-page articles) already have these, so this feature would be useful immediately.

    41. Re:Link prefetching by Erik+Fish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well if there's an enable/disable for prefetching it's sure to be accessable via the best Mozilla plug-in ever!

    42. Re:Link prefetching by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      A nice idea. I can see myself starting to read some random tech story and thinking, "This is really informative. I bet all the links are good resources too," and I'd click such a button to fetch them.

      But how many pages are pure content? It's unlikely you'd want to prefetch all the pages that the nav links go to, and every page has some nav links. On a fat pipe it might be OK, but at 56k I'd probably be done reading the first page and all that got fetched in the meantime would have been the stupid nav links.

    43. Re:Link prefetching by arkanes · · Score: 3, Informative

      Off topic but relevent: When you open a new window from within an explorer window, with open link in new window or by hitting ctrl-n, then it's a child window of the original, and dies when the parent does. A totally new IE window, opened by invoking iexplore.exe, is a seperate process. As for why it works exactly like this - I don't know.

    44. Re:Link prefetching by kenthu · · Score: 1

      What's even easier is to use CTRL-SHIFT-LEFTCLICK, which loads a link in a new tab in the background, no matter what your settings are.

    45. Re:Link prefetching by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that web pages are not designed with prefetching in mind as you said. The browser has no idea which pages are important and which are not.
      Unless you could right click on a link and have it be prefetched... but in that case I just middle click it and mozilla opens it in another tab, and I go back to reading the first page while the second loads. That works well for me.
      Maybe if there was a system for auto-downloading all the site's content ahead of time. So you could have an intelligent browser go and download whole sites for offline viewing and archival purposes.

      It would be so nice to be able to save a website to disk and view it offline. But in reality it only kinda works.

    46. Re:Link prefetching by Proc6 · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the same Slashdot crowd that is all for removing tabs and extra spaces from HTML to save "network bandwidth" would be the mortal enemy of something like this. Talk about a waste of bandwidth!

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    47. Re:Link prefetching by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's all in the preferences. Under "Tabbed browsing", select "Load links in background" and "Middle-click of links opens a new tab"

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    48. Re:Link prefetching by LordNimon · · Score: 2
      There's a big difference. With embedded images, the browser isn't done loading the page until all embedded images are loaded, and that can affect what you see and how responsive the browser is. Ever try using a web page while it's still downloading? It doesn't always work.

      But with this new Mozilla feature, the web browser does the loading in the background, without disturbing you.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    49. Re:Link prefetching by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      Warning if you are using mozilla 2.1b you probably want to switch prefetch off as mozilla does no checking whatsoever on what is automatically downlaoded. See... http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175118 ...it's like they didn't think at all before implementing it.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    50. Re:Link prefetching by idontneedanickname · · Score: 2, Informative

      Naviscope does this much better, it prefetches links with next you can specify. You could for example, have it prefetch all links that say 'page 2' or 'next' and for slashdot 'Read more...' (of couse they would hate that :P )

    51. Re:Link prefetching by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

      ...and if it is then every W3C compliant web browser should be supporting it anyway

    52. Re:Link prefetching by leuk_he · · Score: 2

      Nice tool, But it is unsupported now for about 2 years. It does not have autoconfiguration for mozilla or opera above version 4.

      Also it has no updates for the anti-ad stuff, what is its main purpose.

      It is has had great potential, but th authos seems to have it abandoned,

    53. Re:Link prefetching by horza · · Score: 2

      If you're using Mozilla, or the recently-released Phoenix (highly recommended), you can also accomplish your browsing style by right-clicking the links and selecting "open in new tab".

      Even easier is just to click on the link with the middle mouse button, which will open the link in a new tab in the background. You can just scroll down the page middle-clicking on any links you want to read later, and not disturb the flow of what you are reading. Makes for a very addictive style of surfing. You can also middle-click on any tab to instantly make it go away.

      Phillip.

    54. Re:Link prefetching by epsalon · · Score: 2

      The W3C recommendation does not mention <LINK TYPE="prefetch"> as a link type, but it is allowed to add new link types.
      The W3C recommends adding a profile attribute to the <HEAD> element to sepcify this.

    55. Re:Link prefetching by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

      then you have a point. mozilla.org don't appear to be developing this quite in line with the specification.
      however, I have faith that they're following their motto of doing the 'Right Thing', even tho I haven't been following the development of this feature in particular

    56. Re:Link prefetching by McCarrum · · Score: 1

      > Warning if you are using mozilla 2.1b ...

      If you're using Mozilla 2.1b, can you send a copy to me?

      (Sorry, couldn't resist)

  4. GTK.... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mozilla's binaries still depend on gtk 1.x, however when compiling from source you can tell it to use gtk2. I don't know how stable that is, though...

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:GTK.... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      XFT support for mozilla is almost ready, so this shouldn't be a pain for too long

    2. Re:GTK.... by cyco/mico · · Score: 3, Informative

      As it seems, they are not there yet. But there's a patch from the galeon guys, who seem to be working on that too. You can find the respective hints here (galeon2 installation instructions).

  5. Type ahead find is great by fault0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Type ahead find is great. Been using it since Moz 1.2 alpha. The neat thing is that you can type a search phrase, and you can search again with ctrl-G. My only suggestion would be to have type ahead and find searches appear in a history combobox in the find window.

    1. Re:Type ahead find is great by zwoelfk · · Score: 1


      Hell yah. Type-ahead makes browsing much nicer. Now, if I could just replace the editor with my own choice (i.e. vi) I'd almost be able to replace lynx!

    2. Re:Type ahead find is great by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      In my nightly build the typeahead stuff caused the backspace key to stop behaving as a "backbutton-key" even when I've done no typing at all. I know that alt-left does the same, but one key is easier :) Does it still behave that way in 1.2b?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:Type ahead find is great by jesser · · Score: 1

      In my nightly build the typeahead stuff caused the backspace key to stop behaving as a "backbutton-key" even when I've done no typing at all.

      I think that's fixed in 1.2b (bug 172956).

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  6. Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Type ahead find works on Mac Mozilla and works correctly with IME.
    Linux Mozilla (in the Classic theme) will pick up the native GTK theme and HTML form controls now pick up the native theme on winXP.
    Mozilla now supports link prefetching; see the Link Prefetching FAQ for details.
    Mozilla Mail includes a new "filter after the fact" capability so users can create a filter and then run that filter on already downloaded mail. Filter logging has also been implemented.
    A long requested feature, show toolbars as text/icons/both, has been implemented.
    You can launch the browser with a bookmark group as your start page. This loads several pages into tabs at startup.
    Java compatability with Mac OS 10.2 (Jaguar) has been repaired.


    Wow. Do we REALLY need a story every time a new Mozilla comes out?

    The text/icons/both thing should have been done LONG ago.

    1. Re:Hooray! by Lussarn · · Score: 4, Informative

      I saw the link prefetching feature and thought oh no, there goes our server bandwith. But after reading the FAQ it seems that it's the author of the page that selects what's prefetched and whats not.

      Nice feature.

    2. Re:Hooray! by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Was that ironic?

      Although the faq says it wont prelink unless the browser is idle, the webmasters can still take advantage of this

  7. Mime Types by nagora · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Have they done anything about adding large numbers of mime types (ie, made it not be a pain in the arse) yet?

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  8. And Blizzard Represents.... by unixmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    XFT support on Linux! Now we can get cool anti-aliased fonts on Linux!

    You must compile from source with --enable-xft and need fontconfig & xft2 package from www.fontconfig.org and of course freetype2 from www.freetype.org

    Great thnx to Chris Blizzard for this!

    Oh btw now HTML for controls & scrollbars use your native GTK theme widgets when classic theme is chosen.

    --
    Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    1. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how long until I can just download it and have it working straight out of the box. What you describe is too much effort (it's easier for me to stay in Windows).

    2. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by nmg · · Score: 1

      Really? That's the only thing that prevented me from using Mozilla before. I'll have to try it out.

    3. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by tempest303 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you have Red Hat 8, you already have Xft2 and fontconfig installed and working, and Mozilla 1.2-final will ship with Xft2 enabled and (it looks like) GTK2 widgets, too!

      So ideally, with a RH8 rig anyhow, there's really no effort at all. Just wait for the Moz 1.2-final RPMS to come out, install them, and voila! Beautiful font rendering, with no hassle. :-)

    4. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by scotch · · Score: 2
      I have Red Hat 8, and among its other problems(*), the xft stuff seems to be broken. Text is written to random parts of the screen (on top of other windows, etc), some text doesn't show up until you move the window or scroll the text, etc. The fonts look nice (when they're drawn in the right place), but the rendering is noticibly slower (800MHZ p3), for example, when text scrolls in a terminal window.

      * - Lack of configuration to a fault, for example.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    5. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by tempest303 · · Score: 2

      Guess I've never seen the bugs you're referring to, except in Abiword, where I saw something similar.

      As for the "lack of configuration", it's not a fault, it's a Good Thing(TM). See here for why: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html

    6. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by npietraniec · · Score: 2

      As long as you're installing freetype2, you can make sure to fix the bytecode interpreting

      ...The difference on RedHat8

    7. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and here I was expecting a copy of warcraft written in xul or something.

    8. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by MartinG · · Score: 2

      are you using a matrox card by any chance?
      If so, there are known problems in the render accelleration IIRC. Try searching on bugzilla.redhat.com I'm not sure if thats where i heard about it though. if so add your comments, if not raise a bug!

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    9. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by scotch · · Score: 2
      It happens in gnome-terminals and other apps on my system. The text is sometimes written on top of the root window, on my panel, or anywhere else, really. I'm using xinerama, don't know if that has anything to do with it.

      As far as lack of configuration, I've read the arguments, and I disagree with them. Linux has over the years attracted users that like having the ability to control their software (all the way from the kernel to the desktop). To piss on these users in favor of the proverbial joe six pack is shortsighted, IMO. If my companies business plan was to piss off existing customers in the hopes of attracting potential customers, I'd find another company to work for

      Metacity, in particular (referenced in your url), is an interesting beast. There are umpteen million window managers out there, some guy rejects them all as too buggy or too configurable, so writes yet another window manager. Great. But in metacity, I can't turn off opaque move. This is unacceptable on slower systems. I also can't vertically or horizontally resize windows. This might seem like fluff to you, but it is very powerful and useful on a large (multi-headed) desktop. Keybinds in general suck in metacity. Sawfish, the now-ugly-stepchild of the gnome project, had all of this. Instead of writing YAWM (yet-another-window-manager), why couldn't the author of metacity work with the sawfish (or other existing WM) to work out sensible defaults and cleaner preference system? You can argue that all the configurations of existing window managers make them buggy, bu t this flies in the face of my experience. A new project like metacity is likely more buggy than a project that has been around, has all the features you want, and has been tested by thousands. A classic case of not-invented-here-syndrome, IMO, which plagues linux like a bad STD.

      There are lots of nice things about gnome2 and redhat8. Lack of configuration is not one of them. Thank god you can still replace metacity with sawfish (although they've made it *HARDER* than in previous release - sheesh).

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    10. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by scotch · · Score: 2

      Thanks, I will - I've been planning to, I looked a bit at the xft and gnome sites, but haven't found anything yet. I do have a matrox card, btw.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    11. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by BrunoC · · Score: 1

      If you're a bold person you should give the experimental XFT nightly builds a shot. They have been working great here for a couple of weeks with TTFonts and RH 8. There's also RPM's for RedHat 7.x

    12. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by Ishikawa+Goemon · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Where to start...

      1. Metacity was started as a personal project. HP was scratching his own itch, not trying to write THE gnome wm. Other's loved it and adopted it.

      2. Sawfish uses lisp/scheme/guile/whatever, which HP was not interested in screwing with.

      3. Metacity was written to be lean and mean, not kitchen sink. This kept bugs to a minimum, throughout the development of it. Even early versions "just worked". Sawfish, on the other hand, was a mess.

      4. He who writes the code, makes the rules...

      Ishi

    13. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by scotch · · Score: 1, Troll
      5. He who turns away users, turns away users.

      6. Profit?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    14. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by alan6101 · · Score: 1

      I've got Mandrake 9.0 running with Texstar's RPMS which include XFT2 and an XFT2 enabled version of moz 1.0 on a dell laptop with 1600x1200 and it looks amazing. I installed a few fonts and added the appropriate font directory to /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and WOW. It really looks great, better rendered fonts than when I had windows on the laptop with or without cleartype.

      --


      This space for rent.
    15. Re:And Blizzard Represents.... by dmiller · · Score: 2

      - Lack of configuration to a fault, for example.

      Have you tried running gnome-font-properties? What more configuration do you want?

  9. Probably a little redundant... by MacOS_Rules · · Score: 5, Informative

    Moz 1.2 works like a champ on my iMac under Jaguar. 1.1 was a little sluggish, but 1.2 seems to have corrected that and then some. Startup times are now nearly as fast as IE 5.2.2, and Moz is and hopefully will continue to be much less crash prone than IE. This is in and of itself amazing, considering it is 1.2 BETA.

    Great job to all who work on this effort. It is much appreciated by many in the computing field.
    Cheers!

    --
    If a man's character is to be abused there's nobody like a relative to do the business. -Thackeray, William
    1. Re:Probably a little redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.2 Alpha crashed a few times on me.
      Strangely, my Cable modem quit connecting, so
      apparently my loss of a connection caused it
      to crash!

      (Moz 1.2 Alpha on Win2k)

    2. Re:Probably a little redundant... by BlueGecko · · Score: 2

      I'm on a 667 MHz G4 PowerBook with 512 MB RAM, and while I dislike IE for the sole reason that it does not have popup protection, there is no way you're going to convince me that Moz 1.2 is loading as fast as IE. Chimera does, but not Moz 1.2. The Mac version of Mozilla proper still has a long way to go before I would consider foisting it on anyone.

  10. Fast releases by koh · · Score: 4, Informative

    moz development has been considered sluggish by many a few months ago... now that they have the infrastructure right, they do release early and often. Nice :)

    Too bad I'm still stuck to 1.0.1-r1 on my gentoo distro... ;)

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    1. Re:Fast releases by rizzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why are you stuck to 1.0.1-r1? Just unmask 1.1 and you'll get 1.1. You can copy the 1.1 ebuild and make a 1.2a ebuild. As soon as 1.2b source is released I'll be submitting a 1.2b ebuild.

      You just need to unmask it by commenting out any mozilla lines in /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask. The gentoo people mask apps to create an aura of stability.

      --

      "More organs means more human." - Zim

    2. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An aside about Gentoo's Mozilla support:

      Despite a dozen people (including myself) diplomatically (or not) yelling at them to inform them of their idiocy, the Gentoo developers continue to insist that 1.1 is unstable, much like odd-numbered kernel minor versions, and that only 1.0 and 1.2 are stable.

      If you look at the Mozilla ebuild ChangeLog, you'll even see that the morons are going to great pains to backport some 1.1 fixes to 1.0.1.

      I mean, how dull can you get?

    3. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go for excessive bleading edge, from cvs ebuilds, those are very nice. (for not prone to bust the entire app type of updates).

    4. Re:Fast releases by koh · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your very informative reply (so that's how you unmask packages !), I'm eager to experiment around.

      I hope emerge rsync doesn't overwrite package.mask, though... that would be a pain for upgrades :)

      --
      Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    5. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is possibly because the new versions of mozilla compile using gtk2, which breaks things that use gtkmozembed, like galeon.

      At least that was the reason stated in the package.mask

      why they can't specify a gtk+ build instead, i don't know.

    6. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as 1.2b source is released I'll be submitting a 1.2b ebuild.

      Oh good...now I don't have to. Be sure to drop a message in the forums when you get it done for the rest of us :)

    7. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope emerge rsync doesn't overwrite package.mask, though... that would be a pain for upgrades

      Prepare to be disappointed.

    8. Re:Fast releases by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      It's even easier than that. Just emerge /usr/portage/path/to/pkg.ebuild

      It won't check for masks if you explicitly give the full path instead of just the package name.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    9. Re:Fast releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty easy to build with gtk1 instead, so I doubt that's it... And Galeon 1.2.6 is compatible with all post 1.0 versions when compiled from source (that info was current to 1.2 alpha, may not be correct w/ beta)

  11. Type-ahead Find by RPoet · · Score: 5, Informative

    1.2 is really worth installing just for the Type-Ahead Find feature. It's one of those "how did I ever manage without it" features, and a punch in the stomach of anyone who says free software isn't innovating. This feature almost obsoletes the use of a mouse while surfing (well, almost). You see a link you want to follow, called "Click here". So you type "cl", and that link is marked. Now press enter to follow it. So simple, yet so efficient.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    1. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Typeahead rocks my socks, but the Mozilla team didn't invent it. Internet Explorer for the Mac has had this for quite some time.

      A trivial point, maybe, and I certainly agree that Mozilla is innovative, but they weren't first in this case.

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    2. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a punch in the stomach of anyone who says free software isn't innovating.

      Who has ever said that? Most people get venture capital when they can prove that "our product is similar to product X which had enormous income." Open source has no restriction, which makes innovation (both good AND bad) occur on almost ever product, unless its a copycat to provide a product that costs money.

    3. Re:Type-ahead Find by Loligo · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Typeahead rocks my socks, but the Mozilla team
      >didn't invent it. Internet Explorer for the Mac
      >has had this for quite some time.

      IE has had "fill in the box" type-ahead completion for years, but it sounds like what he's describing is different.

      As an example, say you wanted to reply to this article. Instead of clicking on "Reply to This", you'd type enough of "reply" to jump the highlight to the link in the active window.

      Not exactly the same thing. Not even remotely the same thing, even.

      -l

    4. Re:Type-ahead Find by Corvaith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds good, sure. But, I can't be the only person out there for whom it's more of an irritant than a feature. On long pages, if you accidentally type something without focusing on, say, the form box... then it'll scroll you right down to the link it thinks you want.

      I'm therefore waiting expectantly for the feature that lets you turn this *off*. I'm sure it's nice for some people, but if you don't want it, being forced to have it is a pain. If there /is/ a place to disable it... it's definitely not anywhere visible.

    5. Re:Type-ahead Find by cthlptlk · · Score: 1


      >Typeahead rocks my socks, but the Mozilla team
      >didn't invent it. Internet Explorer for the Mac
      >has had this for quite some time.

      IE has had "fill in the box" type-ahead completion for years, but it sounds like what he's describing is different.

      As an example, say you wanted to reply to this article. Instead of clicking on "Reply to This", you'd type enough of "reply" to jump the highlight to the link in the active window.

      Not exactly the same thing. Not even remotely the same thing, even.


      No, they're not the same, but IE does have move-the-focus typeahead. And autocompletion typeahead. It has both.

    6. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 1

      Right, Internet Explorer does autocomplete on forms. I'm talking about something completely different.

      Of course it's not the same thing, silly :P

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    7. Re:Type-ahead Find by oldmacdonald · · Score: 1

      The link in the story has instructions on how to deactivate it.

    8. Re:Type-ahead Find by archen · · Score: 1

      nope, you have to midify pref.js to diable it

      user_pref ("accessibility.typeaheadfind", false);

    9. Re:Type-ahead Find by sehryan · · Score: 1

      Except I am browsing at 3 right now, and there are 29 "Reply to This" links, 4 viewable on my screen. Which means I have to sort through at least 4, or at most 29 links to get to the one I want. Seems easier to just move my hand.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    10. Re:Type-ahead Find by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Which means I have to sort through at least 4,
      >or at most 29 links to get to the one I want.
      >Seems easier to just move my hand.

      Drat! This one example on one web page invalidates the use of this feature on any of the other pages out there.

      Thanks for setting me right. I'm a better, stronger person for it.

      -l

    11. Re:Type-ahead Find by Loligo · · Score: 2

      >IE does have move-the-focus typeahead

      Where? I'm on IE 6, and I don't get anything like the behavior he's describing.

      -l

    12. Re:Type-ahead Find by Kidbro · · Score: 2

      The fact that type-ahead works with non-links too (start your search by typing / (slash)), it shouldn't be much trouble. It's usually fairly easy to locate a unique, or at least unusual word near the link in question, and then tab or shift-tab once or twice in order to get to the link you want.

      I'm trying this very feature out atm (using Phoenix though), and it works well, even on slashdot (takes a couple of "clicks" to get used to, but that's all).

    13. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Mac IE 5 and it works like a charm.

    14. Re:Type-ahead Find by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE/Mac and IE/Windows have nothing to do with each other. IE/Mac has typeahead find and has for a long time (and is generally a much better browser than IE/Windows).

    15. Re:Type-ahead Find by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2

      Except I am browsing at 3 right now, and there are 29 "Reply to This" links, 4 viewable on my screen. Which means I have to sort through at least 4, or at most 29 links to get to the one I want. Seems easier to just move my hand.

      Well - try identifying some unique word just before or after the link you are after.

      In getting to and replying to your message, type

      /hand

      Hit TAB and the "reply to this" link is selected. Hit Enter and you're done.

      Cheers,

      Toby Haynes

      --
      Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    16. Re:Type-ahead Find by goon+america · · Score: 1

      Seems easier to just move my hand. [ Reply to This | Parent ] That's true for that case. However, it works *wonders* for things like the PHP manual. Wanna look up a string function? Go to the manual page, type "str" and it hilites the "String Functions" link. Hit return and type "rep" to move to the "replace()" function ...

    17. Re:Type-ahead Find by tibbetts · · Score: 2

      It's one of those "how did I ever manage without it" features, and a punch in the stomach of anyone who says free software isn't innovating.

      Now, I won't quibble with the belief that this is an example of free software's innovation, but type-ahead (well, vi-style, anyway) has been a feature of at least one even older free Web browser for a while now, if not others.

      (For the record, the feature Without Which I Cannot Do has to be mouse gestures. Just click and drag to the left to go back a page!)

      --
      :wq
    18. Re:Type-ahead Find by cthlptlk · · Score: 1


      >IE does have move-the-focus typeahead

      Where? I'm on IE 6, and I don't get anything like the behavior he's describing.

      IE 5.2 under Mac OS X.2. I used it to reply to this message.

    19. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who only read the changelog, the type ahead link finder was in mozilla 1.2a for windows, not in it for mac, and don't know about the linux version.

    20. Re:Type-ahead Find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just checked IE 5.2 under Jaguar, and I can't find anything remotely similar to the typeahead find that's available in the mozilla 1.2b that i'm posting from.

      here's what I do in mozilla: actually... type-ahead find seems to have broke. Before, I just typed /Something and it would find Something... now, nothing. i wonder if it's because i have a window with a form open.

    21. Re:Type-ahead Find by mosch · · Score: 1

      Where is that in IE 5.2? I'm using 5.2 on 10.2 to reply to your message and christ if I can figure out what you're talking about. The only find i can see requires i hit cmd-f, then type shit into a window.

    22. Re:Type-ahead Find by cthlptlk · · Score: 1


      Where is that in IE 5.2? I'm using 5.2 on 10.2 to reply to your message and christ if I can figure out what you're talking about. The only find i can see requires i hit cmd-f, then type shit into a window.


      It isn't anywhere--that's kinda the point. Just start typing the text of the link that you want the focus to move to. When I type "r" the focus moves to "rob's page" (the first match on the page) and when I follow immediately with an "e" the focus moves to the reply link. Links that have focus have a little box around them. (If the focus is in a text box, you have to tab out, or whatever you type will go into the text box, rather than move the focus around.) When you press return when a link has the focus, IE follows the link.

    23. Re:Type-ahead Find by mosch · · Score: 1

      oh, so it can only find links? that would explain why i couldn't find it.

  12. Great News by MercuryWings · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've been using Mozilla since the 0.6 beta days and count my blessings on a regular basis. It's nice to see they've added the GTK support - now it'll not only be a linux app, but will have the look and feel that is consistent with other GTK-based apps. That part tended to be irritating - didn't feel like GTK, didn't feel like KDE, felt like one of those 'let's design the entire interface to our own personal tastes' programs that one finds far too often on that 'other' OS.

    One question I have though - does it support GTK 1.2, or 2.0 (including the anti-aliasing fonts feature)?

    --
    Karma: Shagadelic (mostly affected by those tight knickers - yeah baby, yeah!)
    1. Re:Great News by distributed.karma · · Score: 2

      The Galeon page says that the Mozilla GTK2 interface is far from ready. However, there should be ways to enable AA fonts on older GTK, though it's quite unstable.

      --

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

    2. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are misinformed.... the XUL stuff still stays within it. so basically you don't get much of a difference.

  13. Beware of GTK themes by Psiren · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some of the themes I tried with GTK and Mozilla this morning crashed Mozilla on startup. Others were okay. I guess there are still a few bugs to work out there.

    1. Re:Beware of GTK themes by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well of course, that's why I"just say NO" to themes. OS themes, browser themes, any theme at all besides the defaults they come with.

      Not because I don't like themes, but they are version specific for each release... and having to drop/change themes with each new release seems like more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

      Maybe someday in the not so distant future, they will build a theme utility that will adjust theme graphics to match the current GUI... but I doubt it.

    2. Re:Beware of GTK themes by roca · · Score: 2

      Please file a bug about any themes you find which crash Mozilla. Or at least mention theme here on Slashdot.

    3. Re:Beware of GTK themes by Psiren · · Score: 2

      Several of the Xenophilia ones. Can't remember which ones though. I ran a talkback build so I sent the crash data that way. Haven't got time to file bugs atm I'm afraid.

  14. Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember all those offline browsers and 'modem accelerators' that sucked up your modem bandwidth by downloading contantly, spidering every link on every page you visited?

    While the Mozilla project is an incredible piece of work, I have to question this feature. It appears that they've designed it so that a page designer or webmaster decides what is appropriate for prefetching or not. Still, if used inappropriately, this feature could lead to more information being transmitted across the internet that is either discarded or unwanted. In a worst-case scenario, an inexperienced web designer might routinely run into his bandwidth cap or unintentionally force users who have bandwidth caps to exhaust their allowance.

    If you can only download 3GB per month over your cable modem, do you really want the designer of a page deciding that your browser needs to spend time downloading ads or useless images?

    For some people, this could be really useful. For others, it could be a real pain. Team-Moz, if you have any consideration at all, please adjust the default configuration of Mozilla so that this feature is turned OFF.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It requires the web-"designer" to hint, what pages to prefetch.
      Since, the employer of named designer pays for the bandwith, it surely will be used only at adequate places (Cost/Benefit).

    2. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the specs, please. It doesn't prefetch ALL links, only those explicitly set as such in the web page. Which, as far as I know, accounts for exactly zero web pages in existence today.

    3. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm.. How about web designers that:

      - add a prefetch tag to the banner ads, making it look as though you'd clicked them.

      - prefetch all those pop-up or pop-under ads, so you have a snowballs chance in hell of closing them faster than they can open. (Not all popups are bad - you shouldnt have to disable them completely)

      - slashdot trolls embedding prefetch tags into their links to some site that I cant remember right now, something about goats.

      There's lots of room for abuse, and it's enabled by default, and can't be easily shut off (easily as in through the UI - not every user is comfortable editting text files). If you think every webmaster can be 'trusted', you're naive.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Bonker · · Score: 1

      It requires the web-"designer" to hint, what pages to prefetch. Since, the employer of named designer pays for the bandwith, it surely will be used only at adequate places (Cost/Benefit).

      So far as I can tell from the prefetching FAQ, there's nothing built into this to keep it from, say, prefetching banner ads, which are very typically hosted on a different server than 'real' web content. Thus, the designer of a web page can force your browser to download ads for his benefit and without any cost to him. The cost is borne either by you (if you have limted transfer/month, like most Australian cable modem users) or your ISP.

      I block popups with Moz and I also block known banner-ad servers. If I used this feature and didn't happen have a sever blocked, then I could be forced to download images from it which would sit in my browser cache and never be displayed. Like I said, it's a worst-case scenario, but a very viable one.

      Who ever thought that we'd have to cripple Javascript with pop-up blockers and Moz's anti-JS features to get rid of annoying (and costly) advertising?

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    5. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Tack · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So far as I can tell from the prefetching FAQ, there's nothing built into this to keep it from, say, prefetching banner ads, which are very typically hosted on a different server than 'real' web content. Thus, the designer of a web page can force your browser to download ads for his benefit and without any cost to him.

      This isn't an inherent problem with prefetching. You can do this with regular HTML now. Consider:

      • <img src="bigbaduglybanner.gif" width=0 height=0>

      Or, you might use CSS and set display:none (although I'm not sure if the browser will fetch the image in that case, but some might). Or, if you want to cause the client to load an html, use an iframe also with 0x0 dimensions. You can see there are ways to do exactly what you're worried about right now, in all browsers, without prefetching.

      Jason.

    6. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the web designer only benefit from you downloading the ad if your request has the HTTP Referrer: header pointing back at him?

      From the FAQ, "prefetched requests do not contain a HTTP Referrer: header. This is because the user has not explicitly requested the prefetched document."

    7. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Draigon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not sure if this was mentioned, but wouldn't it be possible to silently download a program to your cache? I skimmed through the FAQ and didn't see any blocks on file types.

      Someone could download it to your cache then maybe find a way to execute it.

      --
      -Rabbit
    8. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by mobileone · · Score: 1

      I often use mozilla on GPRS. Telia charges me 2.5 Euro per MB. I would turn off this feature before connecting.... PS: 2.5 Euro is actually quite cheap. A two hour "always-on" train ride with web, mail and ssh usually cost me 2 MB worth of bandwidth. That is quite cheap compaired to a GSM dialup connection!

    9. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Read the specs, please. It doesn't prefetch ALL links, only those explicitly set as such in the web page. Which, as far as I know, accounts for exactly zero web pages in existence today.

      However, it only takes a minimal amount of underhandedness to start screwing people over. Banner ads are everywhere, and a large percentage of them are implemented by having a site drop in a block of code that references a CGI script on a server run by the company managing the distribution of banner ads. If the company running the banner distribution server decides that having their advertising clients' linked pages load faster is a valuable feature, all they would have to do is add the prefetch code to the output of their CGI script -- both Mozilla and IE will happily process a META tag in the body of an HTML document, even though by the specification, a META tag should occur only inside the HEAD tag block. So the user's network connection bandwidth would get usurped to prefetch the advertiser's web page, even if the user has no intention of clicking on the banner ad.
    10. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by roca · · Score: 3, Informative

      This point has been made elsewhere but it needs to be reiterated:

      A Web page can already force you to download arbitrary files. For example, it can include a hidden IFRAME linked to some URL. This prefetching feature does not allow Web sites to do anything nefarious that they couldn't do before.

      In fact, this prefetching feature is strictly better for users than hidden IFRAMEs or similar, mainly because prefetches are given bottom priority so they never interfere with your other Mozilla network activity.

    11. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can only download 3GB per month over your cable modem

      That amounts to an average speed of 1.2 K/s (the speed of a 14.4 modem). Are you sure this is a reasonable cable modem deal?

    12. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Draigon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but typically there is a download dialogue displayed. This is done "silently"

      --
      -Rabbit
    13. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by supergiovane · · Score: 1

      The day after Javascript had been released how many pages used the windowopen command to display ads? None, i guess.

      The positive note is that up to now it is far more lucrative to use for commercial purpose the messenger service of Windows* than the pre-fetching HTML extension of Mozilla.

      Obviously OFF by default and a policy like the one used for cookies would be welcome.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a Java(script) programmer so I know of the existence of the windowopen command only because of Mozilla options. Forgive me for possible techincal inaccuracies.

      --
      Signatures are for stupids.
    14. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Goats have NOTHIGN To do with

      http://goatse.cx

    15. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by roca · · Score: 2

      Not if it's something that the browser can display natively, like an image or a Web page.

    16. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by roca · · Score: 2

      Bad news: they can already do this in any browser. All they have to do is include a zero-height IFRAME in their banner that SRCs the linked page. This is actually a *lot* worse than Mozilla's prefetching, since it will compete for bandwidth with other page loads and it can't easily be disabled.

    17. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Eightlines · · Score: 1
      I think a much bigger problem is that Link Prefetching isn't standard yet. Sure IE has developed tons of proprietary commands, but should Mozilla do the same? I remember seeing prefetching in one of Mozilla's Blue Sky documents years ago, here, and thinking it was a good idea. But really, shouldn't it be something that is recommended to the W3C?

      Then again, I guess that's the way these things get started. Don't get me wrong, I still think its a great idea I'd just like to see an innovative solution like this not go to waste.

    18. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if this was mentioned, but wouldn't it be possible to silently download a program to your cache? I skimmed through the FAQ and didn't see any blocks on file types.

      As with all the other ways that people can abuse this, it can already be done.

      Someone could download it to your cache then maybe find a way to execute it.

      Such as? A bug allowing a web site to execute code in the cache would be a MAJOR security issue. Having one more way to put something there is not.

    19. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by damiam · · Score: 1

      Slashdot already restricts the HTML that you can enter, so prefetching goatse.cx (or any other page) wouldn't be possible.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    20. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by damiam · · Score: 1

      I *think* it only fetches HTML files (that'd make sense). Even if I'm wrong, note that Mozilla prefaces user prefs directories with a random string (like "asd5Wk28/myusername/cache/"), which makes such hacks considerably difficult.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a recommendation like this one?

    22. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      - add a prefetch tag to the banner ads, making it look as though you'd clicked them.

      Prefetching does not send the HTTP Referrer header, so the site with the ad banner would not get credit from the advertiser for a supposed click-through.

      See the Link Prefetching FAQ.

    23. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banner networks tend to use GET values to count click-throughs (eg click.cgi?site=naughtyprefetchabuser) rather than the HTTP Refererr field.

  15. Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by toupsie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Of course, lets heap praise on the Mozilla developers for their hard work. Without it, we would not have the best browser for Mac OS X, Chimera. Mozilla is a full of bloat that Mac OS X users don't need. We already have iChat, Address Book, Mail and iSync built into our beloved UNIX operating system. So a lot of Mozilla's functionality is not needed -- newsgroups are nice but we have better alternatives. Chimera is what Mac OS X users really need. Its blazingly fast, supports standards and gives Microsoft Internet Explorer something to aspire too. Poor Omniweb never knew what hit them.

    Get the latest nightly build here!

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by analog_line · · Score: 4, Funny

      The next time I read someone in all seriousness using the term "blazingly fast" the baby seal gets it.

      Chimera's great, I use it, but it has zero speed advantage over OmniWeb. Nil. Goosegg. And in my opinion, OmniWeb looks better.

    2. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by Macka · · Score: 2


      I tried Chimera and didn't like it. Way light on features and just didn't *feel* very nice. So I settled on Netscape 7 + the popup blocker. Now it's the only browser I use and I'm very happy. Mozilla is the proving ground for future versions of Netscape, so I fully support the work they are doing.

    3. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by sporty · · Score: 2

      What about the XUL support that mozilla provides? I like my neat little google bar, the dom inspector and thigns like that, which mozilla has.

      Plus, those apps aren't built in, they are added on. If you don't like iChat, drag it to the trash. We dont' need no steekin' uninstallers.

      SO maybe instead of ignoring our options, how about we dismiss them as we please. That's the point of having a choice, nuh?

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    4. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by duncangough · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention one thing - it's getting better all the time :-)

    5. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by bstadil · · Score: 2
      What about the XUL support that mozilla provides?

      Good point. Try RadialContext ig you haven't already. I love this feature. Wish that this could be incorporated into normal Apps. This is a much better approach than a normal toolbar.

      Now if only the spellchecker worked with 1.2b ;-)

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    6. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by roca · · Score: 2

      Be careful with your terminology. Chimera is developed by Mozilla.org and is 90% the same code as the Mozilla application suite.

    7. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Be careful with your terminology. Chimera is developed by Mozilla.org and is 90% the same code as the Mozilla application suite.

      That's why I kissed Giant Lizard butt at the beginnning of the post.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    8. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by iomud · · Score: 2

      My only problem with chimera is it's stability, it crashes constantly. Once the bugs are ironed out and it gets a little more feature complete I think it'll be my browser of choice. I'd really also like to reduce the size of the icons even when they're in small mode it still takes up way to much real estate for my tastes. I'd much prefer something along the lines of ie when configured to use tiny icons.

    9. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by sporty · · Score: 2

      My resolution is too high. The icons look like smuges. But what doesn't work for me would work for someone else :)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    10. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Sound like you have the same complaints I do with Chimera. However, I find that all browsers on Mac OS X crash more than I like. But since Chimera launches in mere seconds on my Mac, it has become my choice. You are right about the interface, IE is much cleaner. I really need to sit down and hack up a different one.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    11. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > The next time I read someone in all seriousness using the term "blazingly fast" the baby seal gets it.

      "Compared to Netscape 4.7, Netscape 3.01 is blazingly fast."

      (OK, so I hate baby seals. Had to club three of the fuckers just to get into my office this morning.)

    12. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by kraksmoka · · Score: 1

      omni web is a finished product, and the extension of many, many years of development by Omni Products. comparing it to Chimera is unfair. lets put it this way: i used to use OmniWeb on my NeXT cube in 1996 when it was far faster than Netscrape. Chimera is incomplete, and crashy, but very impressive and cat quick. If only it had a close tab icon. either way, we win in this one. gs


      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    13. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Mozilla should also ignore Mac OS X users. Sounds fair.

    14. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by Avumede · · Score: 2

      I actually use both regularly, and Chimera feels about twice as fast for me. However, I usually still use Omniweb since it looks better, and has better support for international webpages.

    15. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by frawaradaR · · Score: 1

      Chimera is promising, but it really only has one advantage over Mozilla, and that is Cocoa. Mozilla currently does a tremendously poor job of rendering type other than Lamerican ASCII. Most of Unicode looks like shit in Mozilla because they have failed to implement ATSUI, whereas Chimera uses ATSUI by default (being a Cocoa app). Add an eth or a thorn in code, and it looks like shit (rendered with another font), and this also goes for virtually all of the characters in Latin-Extended and other Unicode blocks.

      Mozilla also has a cosmetic problem in that it looks like a fucking WIN-DOS app with that damn ugly default theme of theirs ("Modern", although it looks like MS-DOS to me).

      This aside, Mac OS X users deserve not to wait another three years for Chimera 1.0. Mozilla is here, now, and it is the best, all in all. Mac OS X users can go to bugzilla and advocate for 1) clean and full ATSUI support; 2) Services support (needn't be Cocoa for that); and 3) Pinstripe and Mozilla bundled as default themes.

      Btw, why the fuck do you advocate for Chimera while at the same time being a proponent for the non-Cocoa app Thoth!? Halime is a Cocoa news app that beats the shit out of anything in the field, especially for those of us who mix languages all the time.

      Death to MacRoman.

      --
      frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
    16. Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2

      We already have iChat, Address Book, Mail and iSync built into our beloved UNIX operating system. So a lot of Mozilla's functionality is not needed

      Windows users have no need for Mozilla, either. After all, they have Outlook[Express], MSN Messenger, and all the other MS tools built-in. Hell, they have Explorer integrated, even! Therefore, no portion of the Mozilla project is even remotely useful to the Windows crowd.

      I'm sure you can admit there are definite reasons for alternatives, even when the already-available software is best-of-breed.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  16. Moz versus IE by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the two rapid releases of Phoenix and Mozilla, with Netscape (the browser) being pushed by AOL, and with Chimera popular on the Mac, IE may have more users, but aside from being more stable and configurable, Moz is now steadily heading for a 1-1 user:browser ratio. Hopefully, this will result in an extremely customized browsing experience.

    1. Re:Moz versus IE by azzy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Moz has gone beyond 1-1 user ratio. I have several versions of Mozilla installed.. it's about 1-3 user:browser ratio :)

  17. Xt by dollargonzo · · Score: 2

    XT??? HELLO???

    everyone forgot about Xt which works beautifully, and decided to make their own widget sets. this is really annoying when trying to embed Xt stuff into applications that use gtk or qt.

    --
    BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    1. Re:Xt by evbergen · · Score: 1

      Xt is just another toolkit. In fact, it is the mother of toolkits (t = toolkit, remember?). How does it suffer less from the problems I mentioned, other than that it's a little smaller and tries a little less hard to provide its own API to replace unix?

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    2. Re:Xt by dollargonzo · · Score: 2

      that is the point: it IS the mother of all toolkits. no one said we didnt need a toolkit, just a standard/default one. Xt fits the bill. it was there and worked, so no need to change

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    3. Re:Xt by roukounas · · Score: 3, Informative
      XT??? HELLO???

      everyone forgot about Xt which works beautifully, and decided to make their own widget sets. this is really annoying when trying to embed Xt stuff into applications that use gtk or qt.

      Xt was (is) just a toolkit framework on top of X, it does not change or modify the X protocol. Not only that, but Xt is a mediocre attempt at a toolkit, compared to modern standards: programming with Xt is not easy or intuitive and the on-screen widgets are not up to it.

      Xt is not the answer, but a unified toolkit would be nice. I don't think it will happen though, not in this lifetime.

    4. Re:Xt by dollargonzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      no one is asking you to use the Xt widgets. you can make them as pretty or as ugly as you want. but embedding other Xt stuff is much easier. there is no reason why gtk widgets can't be built on top of Xt, besides the fact that they use gdk.

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    5. Re:Xt by Redline · · Score: 3, Insightful

      programming with Xt is not easy or intuitive and the on-screen widgets are not up to it.

      No joke. To program directly with Xt is to hate your life. But I think you miss the point. Toolkits written *on top of* Xt, like Athena, OLIT, and Motif, are able to interoperate much better than say Qt and Gtk+. You can embed Athena widgets in a Motif app, or vice versa. It is not so easy with non-Xt toolkits. It helps if you think of Xt more like GDK than GTK+, like a sub-toolkit. Nobody writes apps completely with GDK, but *lots* of apps use it indirectly.

    6. Re:Xt by gol64738 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      M. O. O. N.

      that spells toolkit!

    7. Re:Xt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!
      I just watched all 6 excruciating hours of that the other day.

    8. Re:Xt by BJH · · Score: 1

      One of the two guys who wrote the original Gimp toolkit (the basis of GTK+) has publically stated that the one thing he would go back and fix is to make GTK use Xt.

  18. Question about typeaheadfind by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Type Ahead Find is currently part of the default install. To turn it off, use:

    user_pref ("accessibility.typeaheadfind", false);

    Or, to remove it completely, find all files in your installation subdirectories that match *typeaheadfind*, and delete those files.

    Whilst it's great that stuff like this is being implemented, is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality rather than having to get users to resort to deleting or editing files?

    If it's already there, for gods sake, why on earth do they insist on giving you these contrived instructions on how to deactivate it?

    If the aim of Mozilla is to get a sizeable userbase and encourage developers to avoid writing for IE only then the first thing they should do is make it easy for the common computer user to do this sort of stuff without having to resort to editing text files.

    Once they have to do that, then you lose and IE will continue to reign.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is a beta release.. Perhaps they have more important things to do than put the option in the UI.

    2. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by aengblom · · Score: 2

      is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality

      Of course. Step one is to build the feature. Step two is to make interface. It's called "BETA" be patient.

      Anyway, with IE, the feature would just exist. It probably wouldn't even HAVE a way to deactivate it.

      [sidenote to editors] It's time to create a Mozilla section. Every release doesn't need front page play.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    3. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Kidbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the aim of Mozilla is to get a sizeable userbase and encourage developers to avoid writing for IE only then the first thing they should do is make it easy for the common computer user to do this sort of stuff without having to resort to editing text files.

      Good point, but remember that this is the first time we see this feature. I wouldn't expect it to be finished yet (and if you can't live with non finished stuff - don't run betas). I can't speak for the Mozilla team of course, but being a GUI Application developer, I can tell that sometimes you choose between implementing a feature and providing a rough interface to it, or not implementing it at all - as providing a nice "user friendly" (whatever that means) interface would take twice, three or a hundred times longer.
      I would expect there to be a nice point and click interface by the time this leaves beta...

      Moral of the story: Patience :)

    4. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Pastis · · Score: 1

      remember that's a BETA. Let them implement the functionality. You will get your UI in time
      See the bug dependencies

      Plus you can be sure someone at mozilladev will add a litle checkbox for easy access in a mozilla/phoenix extension. (reminder typeahead find is broken in phoenix for the moment)

    5. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by hiroko · · Score: 1

      Phoenix is adding something for this. It's not fully operational yet - you can't remove extensions, but you can disable them. FAQ

      --
      Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
    6. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      If Microsoft has taught us anything, it taught us that added features should be turned on by default and made difficult to turn off through obscurity. Lesson learned, I'd say.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    7. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by pmz · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality... ...why on earth do they insist on giving you these contrived instructions on how to deactivate it?

      Well, why don't you type "about:config" in your Mozilla location bar. By your argument, there should be pointy-clicky stuff for all 1100+ configurable parameters in Mozilla. Implement that, and Mozilla turns into something like Microsoft Word or the Windows Control Panel (shit everywhere piled under menu upon menu).

      Trust me, it is a good thing that Mozilla doesn't put everything in the GUI. Be thankful that the configuration is in a plain text file and not some binary GUI database or, worse, the Registry.

    8. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by an_mo · · Score: 2

      Whilst it's great that stuff like this is being implemented, is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality rather than having to get users to resort to deleting or editing files?

      Get multizilla. Besides a great tabbing interface, it gives you a quick option button that opens a menu containing "open preference editor", where you can edit all user preferences with a mouse click.

    9. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by an_mo · · Score: 2

      It's aready been done in multizilla. Just click on the preference button and on the menu choose "open preferences editor".

    10. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Remember that mozilla is not intended for the end user, but to the power user.

      If you want to use a mozilla-based browser intended for the end user, then use Netscape

      (according to the mozilla website)

    11. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by goon+america · · Score: 1
      By your argument, there should be pointy-clicky stuff for all 1100+ configurable parameters in Mozilla. Implement that, and Mozilla turns into something like Microsoft Word or the Windows Control Panel

      Just because there is a lot of stuff to configure does not mean they have to do a poor job designing the interface.

    12. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      Here's an idea. Instead of making a UI for each pref in some monster uber-control panel, give each pref its own url (like about:config/prefgroup/prefname). At this url would be a page with a form to modify the pref and save it in your user.js file. Then next time you read about some new whiz-bang mozilla feature, the article will include the URL, and you can turn it on immediately in the GUI. When someone posts a message to a board somewhere asking how to turn on popup blocking, you can reply with and they would simply click on the link and get a page to turn it on with. Wouldn't that be great?

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    13. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by epsalon · · Score: 2

      Don't write it here! Submit it to bugzilla! I suggest using this bug: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17199

    14. Re:Question about typeaheadfind by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      Done! Thanks for the pointer into the maze that is Bugzilla, I never would have found that by myself.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  19. more sites not Mozilla accessible by Hurricane_Bill · · Score: 1

    Ok, I've endured not being able to access the BBC site since it crashes my machine everytime. Now I can't access 'My Yahoo' anymore. Was able to up until today. (I can still access www.yahoo.com).

    I'm guessing the problem is java related. Can anybody else access MyYahoo running Mozilla? Does this beta resolve some of the issues with java crashing the Mozilla browser?

    1. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by jmertic · · Score: 1

      Both work great for me, and that's since the ~0.9.8 days. My issues is Ebay crashing Mozilla. I know there are Bugzilla reports out on it, and I have a feeling it's more of an Ebay issue than a Mozilla, but that's Ebay for you.

    2. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same:

      If you can browse without Java, just remove the plugin from the plugin dir.

      Else you'll have to work out the problem - running mozilla from the command line helped me find mine ( I'd removed the Java version the plugin was using ).

      Hello Sun ! : A more robust Java plugin for Mozilla would help sell Java, and stop people ( well, me and Hurricane_Bill ) from disabling it to be able to browse.

    3. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me guess. You've tried to install the java plugin by copying the library to the plugins directory. Don't do that. Symlink it instead. A search for news.bbc.co.uk on bugzilla would have told you that.

      cheers,
      Tom.

    4. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A search for news.bbc.co.uk on bugzilla would have told you that.

      Finding comment #4 to bug #170541--one of many bugs involving the bbc.co.uk would of told him that. Or you could have just offered your advice and spared us the supercillious attitude.

      The release notes do say "On Unix: Make a symlink to /usr/java/j*/jre/plugins/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_ oji.so in your mozilla1.2b plugins/ directory. Do not copy the file, but instead make a symlink to it." They should add "Or Linux."

      Certainly the Mozilla team is not to blame for this bug. And Sun really needs to provide better installation instructions. But don't fault users for being confused, as if a simple search would reveal everything they needed to know--heck, I figured out the java installation through trial and error. It's not simple-simon.

    5. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Finding comment #4 to bug #170541--one of many bugs involving the bbc.co.uk would of told him that. Or you could have just offered your advice and spared us the supercillious attitude.

      Listen, asshole. I was simply trying to demonstrate how useful the bugzilla can be. Yes, I could have simply dispensed some advice and left. But due to the fact that I took the "teach a man how to fish" attitude, maybe the original poster (probably you) will be able to solve moz-related problems more easily in future. The reason I mentioned it was that that's how I found it when I had the exact same problem. I typed in the domain name of the web site I was having problems with, and up it popped! In bright red half way down the page, "Browser crashes when trying to load BBC homepage". So fuck you.

    6. Re:more sites not Mozilla accessible by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      if on linux, make sure your jre is a symlink, not a copy. This used to get me when copying my plugins from old moz version to new.

  20. GTK on Phoenix by distributed.karma · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since Phoenix (my default browser, as Mozilla is a hog) is built from the Mozilla tree, its latest nightly also has the GTK look. Time to rpm -e galeon.

    --

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

  21. anyone else experiencing this problem? by eastbam · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    open up 3 tabs, right click on the 2nd tab (middle one) and choose 'Close other tabs' in the menu. for some reason, it doesn't seem to work anymore.

    oh well, im going back to Mozilla 1.1

    1. Re:anyone else experiencing this problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We heard you the first time on mozillazine.

    2. Re:anyone else experiencing this problem? by sporty · · Score: 2

      bugzilla.mozilla.org - you go now!

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:anyone else experiencing this problem? by Danga · · Score: 1

      I tried exactly what you said and it worked perfectly...

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    4. Re:anyone else experiencing this problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use Pie menus. Up & right, then down closes the current tab.

  22. Link prefetching abuse? by billybob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what happens when the greedy web master decides to add "rel=prefetch" to his tags for banners?

    --
    Joseph?
    1. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they'd be loaded anyway. It's useful when almost all of your users will go from page A to page B, and you want to load page B for them while they're reading page A.

    2. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      No, his point is that it'll preload the page the banner links to, which would look just like a click-thru to the advertising company.

      So he gets his 0.005$ per click-through from every mozilla client that views his page, and you pay devote system resources and bandwidth on a link you never wanted to click.

      While it could be a good feature, it should be disabled by default, and accessible through the UI.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by sporty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's something mozilla is missing, blocking based off of filters. It'd be nice if I can say, fine, take everything on this server except .swf files.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    4. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by roca · · Score: 4, Informative

      The greedy web master doesn't get a cent, because Mozilla doesn't send a referrer for prefetches.

      BTW your greedy web master can already just include a hidden IFRAME with SRC pointing to the click-through, which WILL send a referrer, so Mozilla's prefetching adds no new danger here.

    5. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably won't though, because Mozilla won't send a referer, and it doesn't like prefetching pages without query strings.

    6. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by TheOneEyedMan · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted a check box in my browser that allows me to quickly turn shockwave on and off to avoid those horid adds. Now I have it set up so that mozilla doesn't have shockwave and IE does so I browse with mozilla until I see something I NEED shockwave for. Not a great solution but I'm open to ideas.

      --
      Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. --Phillip K. Dick (remove SPAM to email)
    7. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by goon+america · · Score: 1
      The greedy web master doesn't get a cent, because Mozilla doesn't send a referrer for prefetches.

      Really? Does it send some other kind of header informing the webmaster at the receiving end of a prefetch what is going on?

      Oh, and BTW ad schemes don't use referer headers anyway. They usually have referer id tags hidden in the URL.

    8. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just rename flash to *explitive* until I want it--about twice a year. Some bright monkey came up with a script to do this at the press of a button, but I can't find a link for it. Spose you could write your own.

    9. Re:Link prefetching abuse? by Phroggy · · Score: 2

      It's something mozilla is missing, blocking based off of filters. It'd be nice if I can say, fine, take everything on this server except .swf files.

      Bug 135511.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  23. And Emacs had it forever by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, the bugzilla item which typeahead find sprang from was named "implement typeahead find (like Emacs isearch)".

  24. It only prefetches _one_ item... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    and only if explicitly specified, and if nothing else is going on (i.e. if you have an active download, prefetch is disbabled).

  25. Wow, this nice! by Otter · · Score: 1
    I'm posting in it now, under 10.1.

    Startup time was a few seconds, compared to the minute+ for earlier versions, and it feels really smooth and much more Mac-like.

    Is the text anti-aliasing non-native, though? What I'm typing now in this edit box looks really fuzzy.

    Thanks to the Mozilla Mac team for making things work this well. I remember back in the M13 days, when not only did startup take 5-10 minutes (with everything as proportionally slow) but the developers didn't even think there was a problem! I'm going to stick with this for a few days and see if it replaces IE in my daily use.

  26. What about windows? by jmertic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When will native widgets find thier way to the Windows versions?. Currently, I moved to Phoenix 0.3 because the Mozilla interface seems to lag on my hardware ( P2-366, 160MB ).

    1. Re:What about windows? by uhoreg · · Score: 1

      It's there already. Use the Classic theme.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    2. Re:What about windows? by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Answer - NEVER.


      If you want native widgets go and run Gecko embedded in something such as K-Meleon.


      Of course the concept of 'native widgets' on Windows is little more than a joke since Microsoft routinely inflict their own brand new non-standard monstrosities onto their users with each release of IE or Office. Still, Mozilla uses the Win32 theme engine if its there, so it looks pretty cut on XP.

    3. Re:What about windows? by roca · · Score: 2

      Someone already mentioned this but they don't have enough karma:

      We *already* support native look on Windows, but it only works on Windows XP, because only Windows XP gives us the theme engine hooks we need.

  27. Link Prefetching = Waste of Bandwidth by SuperMario666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great feature, but if its use becomes widespread, look for more of your favorite sites to buckle and fold under financial pressure from the increased consumption of bandwidth.

    1. Re:Link Prefetching = Waste of Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ill-informed. The site has to explicitly enable it for those links for which it would like to enable prefetch.

  28. Actually.. No. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2

    They're releasing slower now, a lot slower. It's just more people care about it. Back in the milestone days you'd get a new release every month or so, now it's about every 2-3 months.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:Actually.. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slower now, but at least most stuff works. Back in the milestone days it was "download to fix the tons of stuff wrong with the last release" - then wait for bugs in the new one to come up and bite you in the ass. I definatly like this cycle more! If you want bleeding edge, the nightly builds are always abailable.

    2. Re:Actually.. No. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2

      Well, in my personal experience, 1.2a was much more unstable than m18, but then its a lot faster and more feature rich too. I'm not really upset with Mozilla's performance, just pointing out something.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  29. 1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0.1 by News+for+nerds · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Look this Bugzilla Bug 70812 [meta] mozilla stops accepting keyboard input...
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70812

    Its Target Milestone is 1.0.1, but nothing has changed in 1.2 beta. What a mess.

  30. Typeahed adds more - like VI in my browser! by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really like the typeahead find. The great thing is that not only can it apply to links (just by typing) but it can also apply to text across the page just by typing "/" before you type what you are looking for, with Accell-G going to the next match.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  31. wow, fastest mozilla ever by kraksmoka · · Score: 1

    definately the fastest build i've used to date. running on mac os x jaguar. get it if you don't got it already.

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  32. UI Not needed by tweakt · · Score: 4, Informative
    Whilst it's great that stuff like this is being implemented, is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality rather than having to get users to resort to deleting or editing files?
    1. This is a BETA release. (remember Mozilla is not intended for end users)
    2. It's nothing you'd ever need to turn off unless it was causing major problems (ie: crashes).
    1. Re:UI Not needed by sglane81 · · Score: 2, Funny

      it was causing major problems (ie: crashes)

      You should use "eg" instead of "ie" next time when discussing this topic. Everone knows "ie crashes."

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    2. Re:UI Not needed by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      It's nothing you'd ever need to turn off unless it was causing major problems (ie: crashes).

      This is almost never a good argument, especially for a non-essential cruft-like feature like typeahead. It's infuriating to have application developers make decisions for you. Why don't we have a little more "opt-in" mentality? This "you don't need to turn that off" attitude is really infuriating.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    3. Re:UI Not needed by Phroggy · · Score: 2

      2. It's nothing you'd ever need to turn off unless it was causing major problems (ie: crashes).

      Or unless you never find it useful and every time you accidentally hit the wrong key, it jumps you to a random place on the web page and you lose your place?

      I'll try it for awhile, but I suspect I'll be disabling it.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  33. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml by GerardM · · Score: 1

    Works fine for me with the new release. PS my yahoo looks good as well. NB I do not really use it but it recognizes me and everything :)

  34. You could do this before and without too much work by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Informative



    Here are the instructions

    I have it working with Mandrake 9 and Mozilla 1.0.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  35. NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Informative

    The binary of Mozilla that you have supports antialiasing right now.

    Go here and follow the instructions near the top of the page. Provided you have a recent version of FreeType2 on your system and some TrueType fonts for it to find (you have to uncomment a line or two in your unix.js file and tell it where to look), you'll be using antialiased fonts in no time. It looks great, and I wish they'd do it by default. One other thing--you may want to set unhinted to "false", as fonts appear to render better that way. Experiment with your system, though.

    I've gotten this to work with the latest Mozilla and an otherwise fresh install of Redhat 8, plus a few .ttf's in the directory "~/.fonts".

    1. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by unixmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Normal anti-aliasing & xft2 anti-aliasing are not the same. Xft2 can anti-alias without using XRender extension of X windowing system and Xft2 is far more easy to customize compared to Xft1. :)

      --
      Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    2. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by Lendrick · · Score: 2

      Ahh, I was wondering about that. All that aside, though, most people are just looking for antialiasing and really aren't concerned with what library is doing it. I wonder why they haven't turned it on by default... it's a frequently requested feature, and not many people are even aware that it's been implemented.

    3. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I followed those instructions and got it to work -- looks great.

      However, my question is, why does this have to be in the unix.js file? Every time I install a new version of Mozilla, it's going to get overwritten. Isn't there some way to set these prefs in my ~/.mozilla dir so that they don't get overwritten when I install new versions? I tried putting a unix.js file in there, but it didn't help.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    4. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by Lendrick · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I tried the same thing... no luck for me either. You'd think that since it's under "default" there'd be some way to override it, but I have no idea where to start.

      At any rate, I used to have a little shell script that would wget the latest mozilla nightly and then copy flash and the java VM into their appropriate places. I'd do something like that, and have it copy unix.js as well. It's kludgy, but it works.

    5. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But the point is that the Xft stuff looks *so* much better than the unix.js stuff. If you get yourself the Xft build you'll never be satisfied with the unix.js hack again. Honestly.

    6. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by libre+lover · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't there some way to set these prefs in my ~/.mozilla dir so that they don't get overwritten when I install new versions?

      Copy your unix.js file to your ~/.mozilla/foo/bar/ directory (the same directory that has your prefs.js file). Then edit your unix.js file. Finally, rename the unix.js file to user.js
      --
      Error: .sig undefined
    7. Re:NO NEED TO RECOMPILE by rweir · · Score: 2

      Put it in your prefs.js file instead. Moz will leave it alone.

  36. Good defaults are more important by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    In fact, the Mozilla UI redesign project, Phoenix, is planning to have fewer options (in the UI) than Mozilla, rather than more. Instead they will focus on making Phoenix "do the right thing" out of the box.

    Too many options just confuses ordinary users. Of course, that is only true for options in the UI. You can have as many options in obscure text files as you want, only nerds are going to see those.

    In my opinion they should have a "Super advanced options" button hidden somewhere, which gave an UI for all the options, for nerds only. Like the customize fascility in Emacs.

  37. Put down the club, step away from the Baby Seal... by toupsie · · Score: 2
    The next time I read someone in all seriousness using the term "blazingly fast" the baby seal gets it.

    You toucha da Baby Seal and I'll senda Gianni Jacklone over to breaka your knees. Capiche? Fagetaboutit!!!

    Chimera's great, I use it, but it has zero speed advantage over OmniWeb. Nil. Goosegg. And in my opinion, OmniWeb looks better.

    OmniWeb wouldn't know a cascading style sheet if it jumped up and bit it on the ass. I constantly find errors in its interpretation of stylesheets. I find OmniWeb's rendering to be substandard compared Chimera. Save the 25 bucks and use Chimera.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  38. How much memory will it use with my MAC OSX by DJ+FirBee · · Score: 1

    Hi guys, Does anyone know how much memory this will take to run on OS X Darwin ? I have heard that Mozzilla is huge on OS X and I am concerned. Thanks.

    1. Re:How much memory will it use with my MAC OSX by veddermatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm running most recent OS X (10.2.1) and this version of Mozilla is taking up 8% RAM (of 512 MB)

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  39. Wow - what a bummer by baptiste · · Score: 3, Informative
    I've used Mozilla as my primary browser/email for a LONG time. Been happy with it. But I made a clean install of 1.2b (after uninstallin 1.2a) on my Win2K/SP3 laptop, and it won't even go past the splash screen. I guess something in my prefs file is hosing it - sure would like to know what.

    Still digging, but it won't even start? Sheesh.

    1. Re:Wow - what a bummer by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Try blowing away your profile, that normally fixes problems such as that. It may also be a skin problem, the skin format changed (again) recently.

    2. Re:Wow - what a bummer by The+Very+Evil+Doctor · · Score: 1

      Try a manual deletion of your Program Files\mozilla.org directory after the un-install.

      I've had a bunch of cases where weird things happen because the un-install routine doesn't wipe out the directory and the install routine doesn't delete it if it exists. You can't layer a new build over each other, so this can cause much weirdness with major code jumps. This seems to happen much more so than in the past.

      This won't affect profile data (which is in Documents and Settings by default) unless you manually put them in there. If so, just move 'em out before you delete it and fix your profile as necessary (it's flat text and easy to fix).

    3. Re:Wow - what a bummer by baptiste · · Score: 2

      I always do this (wipe the directory out completely) Most likely its a prefs.js issue - but I'd rather not blow the profile away if I can help it - but the above skin suggestion may be the ticket. Still digging

    4. Re:Wow - what a bummer by baptiste · · Score: 2
      It may also be a skin problem, the skin format changed (again) recently.

      That was it - was using an old SkyPilot. Removed the skin from my profile directory and the lizard lives! Thanks for the tip.

  40. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a really good point. If you land on a malicious website, they could make you download extra stuff you don't know about anyway.

  41. Prefetch doesn't specify the referer header by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    I don't know if the banner companies actually uses referer, but if not checking for it might be an easy way for them to combat such abuse.

  42. Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. by sporty · · Score: 2

    I don't think that's very fair to say. Note, that this bug has at least 8 bugs that are dependencies for this to be fixed. It's called a missed goal. It happens from time to time.

    -s

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  43. Disabling it by RPoet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Alright alright, if you really want to disable it, the way to do it is described here. Requires some prefs.js entry though.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    1. Re:Disabling it by Corvaith · · Score: 2

      Thanks! (And to the other person who replied similarly.) Still, the point stands--editing the preferences file shouldn't be required to turn off stuff like this.

  44. Bugzilla blocks links from Slashdot! by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    Put the URL into another browser window and jump directly.

  45. Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. by cats-paw · · Score: 1
    Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

    WTF?

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  46. Mozilla's feature flood by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really have to say that I find the recent development of Mozilla very inspiring as it brings completely new, unique features to the users. First came integrated popup and advertisement blocking. A simple but effective feature. Then came Type Ahead. Then came link prefetching. Now, in what time span?

    I don't know about you, but at least my opinion is that the browser software has suffered from some serious stagnation during the past years. Since Internet Explorer 4.0 and its CSS and "DHTML" (mostly Javascript+CSS) support, I haven't seen much development in the browsers at all. Opera was innovative with mouse gestures, but I think the browser that truly turns this stagnation of browser features that's often limited to things like "slightly better CSS support", etc is Mozilla. I'm not even sure how it's possible for the team to bring so many new features in such a short time. Is it a side effect from being open source with browser enthusiasts working on it day and night? Is it "just" because a very flexible and well written code base? An efficient organization of the mozilla developers? A combination?

    IMHO, the changes in Mozilla from a late version such as 1.0 are surely larger (at least more useful) than the changes since Internet Explorer 4.0. Each new version is right now bringing lots of new features. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts for sure. :-)

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Mozilla's feature flood by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm not even sure how it's possible for the team to bring so many new features in such a short time. Is it a side effect from being open source with browser enthusiasts working on it day and night? Is it "just" because a very flexible and well written code base? An efficient organization of the mozilla developers? A combination?

      All of those things. I think type ahead find was written by an open source contributor (of course the module owners helped out, as with most Moz features). Mozilla is very very easy to hack on, as it's very componentized and large parts of it are just text files (xml/js/css). And finally they've been doing stuff like code review, super review, commit for a while so they are pretty slick about it.

    2. Re:Mozilla's feature flood by goon+america · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI Type Ahead is not a new, unique feature. IE 5.* for the Mac has had it for the past 3 years. I should know, I've been using it since that time.

    3. Re:Mozilla's feature flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been asking this question for a very long time now.

      So mozilla has all this cool stuff, so???

      Even with all this standards compliance, i really dont see much change in my browsing. Infact i really haven't see anything new and innovative that i REALLY cared about since the 4.0 browsers.

      Maybe with all this CSS, DHTML, XML, XUL, ect.... someone will make something REALLY cool that i can't live without. But right now, i just use whatever browser i just happen to think is cool at the time.
      Lots of time i just use IE becuase its there, i try toi use mozilla mostly becuase i like some of the themes, and phoniex is really quite nice, but still nothing to get a hard on about.

  47. iCab by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    I know iCab has this feature already, for about 3 or 4 releases now. I also thought it was really slick, until I saw the first patch release to keep it from pre-fetching "logout" links. (Oops.) It seems like Mozilla has circumvented that problem, by requiring the designer to provide the hints. OTOH, iCab did have a GUI to [dis|en]able this feature. I think Mr. Clauss would do well to see how this feature goes over with the Mozilla crowd, and incorporate the "hinting" idea if it works. Pre-fetch with good hints would be a boon to my wife and I - we only have 56k at home. I would hope that I could add rel="prefetch" to A tags as well as LINK tags, too.

  48. Security danger by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I noticed pre-caching when I read the release notes last night. In my opinion it is a major security danger.

    A lot of police investigations go by the browser cache to see where you have browsed. Now you are giving control over to the cache to someone else.

    It would be simple to put a link in the page source to some kiddie porn or other illegal information. You would never see the link on the page and would have no way of knowing what had been inserted in your browser cache until the police inform you of how long you are going to be in jail. Sure, it is possible that the police won't use the browser cache as proof of guilt (don't bet on it), but that requires a lot of trust. And if they want to be technical about it, it is technically illegal to possess that information, no matter how it was acquired.

    And the gain isn't at all proportional to the risk. No pre-caching is done except on sites specifically engineered for it. That means next to none.

    1. Re:Security danger by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      As someone pointed out earlier...There is nothing preventing a malicious web page designer to load an image into the user's cache (e.g., via javascript preloading, or via img src="xyz.jpg" width="1" height="1" code...

      I wonder how the argument would stand in court (Gee, I have 10 Gigs of illegal pr0n on my disk, and I think it was because of mozilla precaching)...

      S

    2. Re:Security danger by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A lot of innocent until proven guilty hinges on the fact that if there is a reasonable doubt that you did not do something then you are innocent, because proof cannot exist with reasonable doubt. So the fact that you are using Mozilla, and Mozilla has the option for totally innocent looking pages to sneak kiddy porn into you cache would be a valid defense. also there would probably be html files cached that employed that tactic in you cache as a very strong defense.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Security danger by Mnemia · · Score: 2

      That's a problem with the police and the law, not with Mozilla. Technology should not be held back because of some irrational and uninformed fear of "bad information" and a mentality that they should try to nail everyone they can. It really seems to me that any decent lawyer would be able to get you off on a charge like that, especially given that they likely could prove that the page was doing it.

  49. Some problems by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've got to admit, I am have some problems with Mozilla 1.1 (final release). Recently the problems have led to instability. I was trying to buy a generator on eBay the other day. I had a search going and I opened windows to tabs as I found auctions that interested me. Mozilla kept dumping me. My box is a G4/500MP with 512 RAM running OS X 10.2.1. I've had window focus problems where I click in a Mozilla window text box but my focus is still on another window. I have to switch apps and back to regain control. The javascript driven menus on my PacketShaper 4545 web GUI still don't work. This one is really annoying. And the web GUI to the PacketShaper renders very slowly. Overall I'm pleased with Mozilla. It just needs some honing to fix some of the current problems.

    Maybe delaying a release and all new features for a short time to fix existing bugs would be worth it. My $.02.

    1. Re:Some problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      eBay is known to cause problems with mozilla.

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_stat us =UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bu g_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&type0-0-0=sub string&value0-0-0=ebay&field0-0-1=component&type0- 0-1=substring&value0-0-1=ebay&field0-0-2=short_des c&type0-0-2=substring&value0-0-2=ebay&field0-0-3=s tatus_whiteboard&type0-0-3=substring&value0-0-3=eb ay

    2. Re:Some problems by emok · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is not this buggy for most people. Make sure that before you upgrade, you delete all of the files from your previous install. Not doing this has caused crashes for me in the past.

    3. Re:Some problems by LetterJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a general Mozilla issue with Ebay as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what it is, but Ebay will bring down my installations of Mozilla 1.2 EVERY time.

  50. Cautionary e-mail tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After 5 years of using Eudora I switched over to Mozilla. I really like the mail program and had the quick launch on. However, when the program crashed one day, I started it up again and couldn't access my mail, my settings, anything. I found out there were many people in the same situation as me on the newsgroup.

    Trying to get the mail back is a royal pain in the ass, there is no tool for it, you have to edit all the text by hand and try and figure out what the files are supposed to be like. Right now I can't access all that mail and have gone back to Eudora. I just don't have the time to spend the hours and hours to learn how to recreate all these setting files from scratch.

    My personal suggestion: wait until there is a better mail recovery option for it, or know exactly what files you need to back up and do it often. Mozilla mail is not ready yet and it was a costly lesson not just for me but for many others.

    1. Re:Cautionary e-mail tale by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a really old bug. When Moz-Mail crashed, it used to corrupt its mail index files. The trick to getting at your mail again was just deleting the corrupt index. It would reindex them the next time it started. Nowadays, when it sees a corrupt index file, it rebuilds the index automatically.

      How long ago did you have this problem? To my knowledge, it's been fine for over a year.

    2. Re:Cautionary e-mail tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This problem was just in the past month. It is due to the corrupting of the prefs file (which happens when you have quick launch running). I did try and do the older fix for the corrupt index file but that didn't work.

      The two files that you need to rebuild are:
      panacea.dat and prefs.js
      I had to create a new profile (this was concurrent with a pain in the ass windows dies because it has been running too many months) and in panacea.dat and prefs.js you need to change the path name to the new profile. However, my prefs.js was totally reset so I don't even know what it said in the old working version so I can't change the path names.

      Anyway, my problem is recent and there are others on the newsgroup having the same issues (starting up Mozilla one day and everything has been reset).

  51. Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

    > > Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.
    > WTF?


    The war Bugzilla vs Slashdot sadly had this unfortunate outcome. We will have to live with it. But I'm sure you'll find a way to circumvent the problem. But then again, you're circumventing Bugzilla's access protection and you'll surely be a DMCA case.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  52. NTLM still not there ? by zeoslap · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find it in the release notes but until Mozilla implements NTLM it's a no go in a lot of organizations who rely on it for promptless authentication of users. There was mention in the past that it was being worked on but nothing so far...

  53. Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier by Milican · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can share bookmarks amoung all your installs of Mozilla, Phoenix, and probably other Gecko browsers (untested). All you do is add the following command to your prefs.js file:

    user_pref("browser.bookmarks.file", "C:\\Documents and Settings\\userdude\\Application Data\\Mozilla\\Profiles\\default\\wx4vqyna.slt\\bo okmarks.html");

    In addition, you can share plugins by adding the following line to your environment. Her is an example of what I did on my Windows box:

    MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH = "C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Share\Plugin" (in Environment Variables on Win2k)

    Really helps so you don't have to redo plugins all the time and you can share one bookmark file for all!

    JOhn

    1. Re:Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier by veddermatic · · Score: 2

      Or if you are using OS X, just copy the Mozilla.app from the disk image over the one on your HD... boom, you are migrated w/o losing anything.

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    2. Re:Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier by an_mo · · Score: 2

      I couldn't find the way to add the environment variable on win2k

    3. Re:Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Milican, those are nice tricks.

      But where is Roaming Access on Moz and Netscape? I like being able to keep volatile stuff (especially bookmarks and address book entries) synchronized across my different machines that are in different places. An LDAP Server does this just fine with Netscape 4.x but ever since then it just got tossed out the window! Sheesh! I know dozens of people who still use 4.x for just this reason alone. Is there some other way people are doing this??

    4. Re:Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier by aok · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right-click "My Computer", go to the "Advanced" tab and there should be a button for Environment variables.

  54. Migrated from 1.0 on Linux, it IS FAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is way faster than 1.0 on my Linux box. Great!

  55. Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, this is almost true,
    please vote for this bug (99 votes so-far, lets make it 100)

    so that me and anyone else who uses microsoft proxy server 2 or any NTLM authenticating proxy can use mozilla. (this is probably a few million people, and a lot of corporations)

    This bug has been there since 2000-01-11, and won't make 1.2, hopefully it'll make 1.3 alpha 1!!!

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

      Now why would they bother doing this? I can't see what they have to gain by making it harder to reach bugzilla. Besides, all you have to do is paste the link in another browser window and it works fine.

    2. Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because everyone knows the 733T all read /.

    3. Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because submitters/editors have posted links on the /. front page directly into Bugzilla and have brought down their servers before. When those Bugzilla servers go down, it makes it incredibly more difficult for the Mozilla developers to get their work done.

      Which would you rather have?

      a) convenient links from /. to Bugzilla, which DDOS the Mozilla developers' main tool site for getting work done,

      or

      b) Mozilla developers being able to work.

      Slashdot is *not* [freshmeant|sourceforge].net. Why they announce all these beta, alpha, 0.0.1, etc. releases of software is beyond me. There are much better sites for that, and from which links to these projects (or their bug reporting systems) will not cause a DDOS.

      Sure, the Moz people could spend some time and make their referer check smart enough to discern links from within articles from links from within comments (the latter of which probably spark far less hits). But, I'd rather they spend that time working on their software instead of working on code to protect their servers from the Slashdot DDOS. If they want to put in a generic block against any links from /. so as to help keep their servers up and running, I'm all for it.

    4. Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now why would they bother doing this?
      Because every time someone posts any Mozilla related story to Slashdot they get, well, slashdotted. Considering it's a DB driven site, it doens't take all that much to drive the server to it's knees and make it unusable. So for a day or so, they can't use a basic productivity tool. Yeah, you can just copy n paste, but this minor increase in effort probably eliminates all the casual clickthroughs.

    5. Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers by Monkey · · Score: 1
      Yes, I agree that Slashdot editors should use discretion in not linking to Bugzilla from a main story posting.
      However, I think setting up an all out blockage of Slashdot referals is counterproductive to the goals of the project.

      Considering that a large portion of the open source developement community hangs out at least occasionally on Slashdot, I fail to see how stifling discussion on bugs/features promotes interest in the project or encourages developers to contribute their efforts into addressing particular issues.

  56. mail and address book export? by small_dick · · Score: 2

    i tried to find a way to move my mozilla mail and adress book from mozilla to evolution (now the default mail app in redhat 8.0) and could not find a way to do it.

    most of the websites about migrating to evolution discuss windows/outlook, or windows/mozilla, not linux/mozilla.

    I guess since it's open source I should get off my ass and write a conversion script?

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
    1. Re:mail and address book export? by Misch · · Score: 2

      For the address book, you can export an LDIF file from inside Mozillas' Address Book. Then, the LDIF file can be imported straight into Evolution.

      As for the mail, they're in standard mbox files. You can move/copy these to the default mail directory, and they should appear as local folders within Evolution.

      Hope this helps.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  57. Not a good idea by spitzak · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is a very very bad idea. You seriously underestimate the enormous complexity of the communication to a "toolkit". Also there is a little thing called "innovation" where people invent new methods of GUI interaction. This would be stopped by such a design, or would force people to write a parallel toolkit anyway (as many (most?) Windows applications are forced to).

    If you don't believe GUI innovation happens, imagine if X had an enforced toolkit. It would be Athena, in black and white, with this 1-bit color so written into it that it would be impossible to remove, and everybody would marvel at the fact that you could set it to inverse video and all applications would agree. And defenders would claim that the fact that only the middle mouse button makes the scrollbars move was a *feature*. And any intelligent people would be laughing X off the planet!

    Meanwhile, despite it's problems and pretty stupid design even for when it was invented, X is able to replicate interfaces designed 15 or more years after it was invented. This is because of the one intelligent decision they made, which was to keep the GUI widgets out of it!

    Now X has problems. There really should be high-level graphics, at least similar to PostScript. Though also complex, it is far less complex than toolkit interfaces, and perhaps more importantly the set of graphics calls needed has been pretty stable for about 20 years. It may even make sense to add calls to "draw a nice raised box" or "clear this to the flat background color" which would do about 99% of what people want "themes" to do.

    Also there is a bit of "toolkit" inside X: the "window manager" (even though a seperate process, but the communication protocols are there, and I know for a fact that it takes more code to communicate with the window manager than it would take to draw the window borders and handle moving and raising the windows myself). This also needs to be removed.

    But I am serious that putting any kind of "toolkit" interface into the system in a very very bad idea.

    1. Re:Not a good idea by evbergen · · Score: 1
      Now X has problems. There really should be high-level graphics, at least similar to PostScript. Though also complex, it is far less complex than toolkit interfaces, and perhaps more importantly the set of graphics calls needed has been pretty stable for about 20 years. It may even make sense to add calls to "draw a nice raised box" or "clear this to the flat background color" which would do about 99% of what people want "themes" to do.


      Well, that was about 99% of my point. Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    2. Re:Not a good idea by evbergen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's nice that you mention window managers. Although generally not running on the X server side, they are an integral part of the X window system. Even though window managers are specified as an entity separate from the client application, we've seen lots of innovation in window managers.

      If the X server would not mandate certain widgets, just as it does not mandate any specific window manager, but would simply allow a 'widget server', then client applications could still be relieved of the burden of managing their own widgets, just as clients are already relieved from the burden of drawing their own window decorations and moving windows around.

      It would be great if applications wouldn't have to worry about drawing a check mark in check boxes when clicked, not even at the protocol level, and that a widget server would handle that.

      We'd change themes (widget servers) as easy as we change window managers now, and have a well-defined protocol between client application, display server and widget server, just as we have for window managers.

      I'm serious. We need a better X protocol. And it's not HTML/XML over HTTP, sorry. The ultimate test there is to get self hosting I guess, i.e. can you implement a web browser as a web application.

      But until someone implements gecko in javascript, I'm sceptical ;-).

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
  58. Another major unfixed bug by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
    The bug that causes crashes and profile corruption if you have both Netscape and Mozilla installed still hasnt't been fixed.

    That's been outstanding for most of a year now, which is inexcusable for a major bug that causes data loss and crashes. The Mozilla team still has way too many "don't do that" items in the release notes.

    Unless this thing gets cleaned up, it's never going to get market share. Adding additional features of very marginal utility won't help. Could AOL use Mozilla as their standard browser? No way. It's got to just work.

    1. Re:Another major unfixed bug by entrigant · · Score: 1

      Just because a piece of softwares bug database is open it seems to somehow get an incredibly bad rep for being a constantly buggy program. I wonder how many of your programs that "just work" would have a cleaner bug database if it were out in the open? Besides who uses netscape and mozilla at the same time?

  59. New standard? by donutello · · Score: 2

    Is this a new W3C standard? I wasn't able to find any references from the page you pointed to or from a quick search on google.

    So is this an implementation of an existing W3C standard or is it an example of an evil browser deliberately breaking standards compliance?

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
    1. Re:New standard? by asa · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html# edef-LINK

      The link tag has been around for some time. It is used to describe releationships between documents. It was desinged by the w3c with extensibility in mind. The w3c leaves it up to the user agent to determine how to handle link data.

      --Asa

    2. Re:New standard? by DigiDarkCloud · · Score: 1

      [...] or is it an example of an evil browser deliberately breaking standards compliance?

      How is this breaking standards compliance if there's no standard in place? It's not "breaking" the way anything else is interpreted, is it?

      No troll intended. I'm really curious.

      --
      SIG: 11
    3. Re:New standard? by donutello · · Score: 2

      How is this breaking standards compliance if there's no standard in place? It's not "breaking" the way anything else is interpreted, is it?

      It isn't. I was being sarcastic. IE gets accused of breaking standards compliance everytime they introduce a new feature that the w3c hasn't gotten around to standardizing yet.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:New standard? by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      Not breaking as such - but adding can have bad effects... Just look at the amount of images with useful data needed, hidden in ALT tags because people design for IE.

  60. Yeah, I stopped using that by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds good in theory, but once you use you realize that pages have far more links than you thought. A typical page can have 20 or 50 links, only 2-4 of which you would be interested in prefetching. Just look around on this page for a good example. It ends up furiously downloading pages, movies etc for as much as your connection can bear, and it's not good for anyone.

    The Mozilla approach could actually work. If any designers ever decide to use it.

    1. Re:Yeah, I stopped using that by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why I stopped using it, too. Mozilla's prefetch hinting idea is really neat! I wrote Darin and suggested that "next" links be considered prefetch hints as well. These are quite likely to be candidates for prefetching, and using this wouldn't require everyone to update their pages. Of course, hardly any designers are even using LINK at all yet...

    2. Re:Yeah, I stopped using that by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Looks like I was too hasty in reading the FAQ. "Next" links are already on the prefetch list!

  61. Re:You could do this before and without too much w by uhoreg · · Score: 1

    No, this is a different thing. This just uses FreeType2, not XFT2. XFT2 support was only checked in last week, so there's no way you have it working with Mozilla 1.0.

    XFT2 renders slightly differently from FreeType2 (XFT2 renders better, IMHO), and, for those with LCD screens, supports subpixel antialiasing, which Mozilla's Freetype2 does not. Fontconfig allows different programs to use the same configuration, too, unlike Mozilla's Freetype2 support.

    --

    To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

  62. Prefetching & Standards Complience by Thenomain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm missing the standard for it (I'm not on the bleeding edge of things), but I was looking at the HTML 4.01 link rel types and can't find "preload". Fortunately, according to the FAQ, "next" will do just fine.

    This is a not nit-pick, but with all the touting of how 100% standards compliant Mozilla is, I'm wondering what the philosophy is on extending the standard, if "preload" isn't in some later HTML standard that I don't yet know about us.

    --
    This now concludes our broadcast day.
    1. Re:Prefetching & Standards Complience by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Informative

      Complying to W3C standards doesn't mean not allowed to invent your own standards.
      The effect of preload-"tags" is mostly transparent; users of alternate browsers won't be left in the dark just because those browsers don't support that feature.

    2. Re:Prefetching & Standards Complience by asa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      100% standards compliance means not doing anything forbidden by the standards body specifications and supporting the recommendations of the standards body. If an extension doesn't violate the specification then it is in compliance. The LINK element was specifically designed with room for clients to extend and interpret.

      --Asa

    3. Re:Prefetching & Standards Complience by darinf · · Score: 3, Informative

      rel=prefetch is something we hope to turn into a standard eventually. it is better than overloading the meaning of rel=next.

  63. Type-ahead find weirdness.... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

    Is it just me, or does typeahead find have some really strange behaviors? I just d/led 1.2beta and I'm trying it out, and it seems like typeahead find successfully finds about half the occurrences of word patterns, and I can't even figure out if this is detereministic or not. For example, in the article here, I tried to find "moz" and kept pressing F3 to cycle and it was missing quite a few occurrences of the word "Mozilla" which is all over that page. Is there something I'm missing about how this feature is supposed to work?

    1. Re:Type-ahead find weirdness.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case sensitive? (Haven't used the feature myself, yet)

  64. It'd be nice if they DOCUMNENTED it... by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last I heard, the general Mozilla project attitutde about documenting the preferences was that if you don't know what they are, you shouldn't mess with them. As a highly techincal user, I myself would beg to differ. Failing to document all of these options in one place is a cop-out, and their excuse is pure arrogance.

    If I'm wrong about this, and there is complete documentation on all the prefs files, I'd love to know about it.

    1. Re:It'd be nice if they DOCUMNENTED it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's online somewhere, but being a highly technical user, I know that 95% of these options don't have any impact on my life and therefore haven't memorized where one can look them up. Maybe on www.ufaq.org, but maybe not.

  65. whoa by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


    Wow, someone got Linux/Mozilla running on their Atari Jaguar?

    Makes sense, what with the way people tinker with their Dreamcasts and X-Boxes...

  66. Silly moderators by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Funny

    Score:4 for *that*? I mean, I thought it was kind of cute or I wouldn't have written it, but...

    Moderation on Slashdot is a little whacky.

    Oh, what really gets my goat is when I post to some post saying "this post deserves to be modded up", and some whimsical moderator mods the "mod up" post up *instead of the parent*. I remember getting a Score:4 saying that the parent post (Score:1) should be modded up.

    1. Re:Silly moderators by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      Score:4 for *that*? I mean, I thought it was kind of cute or I wouldn't have written it, but...

      Well, it looks interesting, until you actually read it... :P

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  67. There's no "right" app for OS X users. by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agree that Chimera ("Navigator," officially) is a terrific Mozilla browser for OS X, but we have a lot of choices these days.

    Chimera is still pretty sparse on features. I use the nightlies, and run into a fair number of buggy builds. But it's quick, and sure looks like an OS X app. I use it far more than anything else.

    KevinG, the guy who did the Pinstripe skin for Mozilla, was nice enough to compile Phoenix 0.3 for OS X. It's just an experiment, not part of the regular project. But damn if it doesn't work, and it has some very cool features. Even *more* OS X choices:

    http://www.kmgerich.com/misc.html

    This OS X build introduced me to Phoenix, which is now running on my Linux box. Kevin's page says his OS X build requires Jaguar, but I'm using it with 10.1.5 just fine.

    Mozilla 1.2b feels very stable on OS X. It's not as fast as Chimera, nor is it as consistent with the Mac human interface standards. But it doesn't suck, and some users like working from within a suite. I know plenty of OS X guys who are more comfortable with Mozilla's mail than Mail.app. It's a matter of preference.

    To me, Netscape 7.0 is heavy and gaudy. It has a spellcheck app, however, and isn't a bad choice for those who rely on the Netscape/Mozilla suite for email.

    As for Omniweb, it's a great browser. A few more features than Chimera in its current state of development, though don't think it renders as well. Speed is a toss-up.

    Every OS X user's needs are different. It's a great time to explore the platform, however. There's a browser for everyone. Run whatever you prefer, and support the community which surrounds it.

    Thanks to all the developers who make my online experience more enjoyable. Your work isn't taken for granted.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    1. Re:There's no "right" app for OS X users. by EricWright · · Score: 2

      My biggest complaint with Chimera is the distinct lack of preferences that can be diddled within the app... I'm sure I could find the right prefs file, figure out what keys need to be set with what values, etc., but Chimera REALLY needs to add in a more robust Preferences panel than it currently has.

      That and fix the bugs with not saving changes in the fonts panel.

      However, I rarely have crashes with Chimera (no more often than mozilla 1.2a/b has)... except for some plugin issues that have been widely reported on bugzilla. Those got squashed sometime last week, and I've only had 1 crash since then, and that was more of a "my keystrokes aren't registering, but the app is otherwise responding" glitch rather than a true error log-producing crash. I typically get one or two of the nightly builds every week just to see if things are better. Speed has definitely improved in the past couple weeks.

    2. Re:There's no "right" app for OS X users. by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      > My biggest complaint with Chimera is the distinct lack of preferences that can be diddled within the app... I'm sure I could find the right prefs file, figure out what keys need to be set with what values, etc., but Chimera REALLY needs to add in a more robust Preferences panel than it currently has.

      Yeah, I'd agree. Using the hacked OS X build of Phoenix was kind of nice--it's sooo configurable in comparison to Chimera. I really like the way it handles popups, and the extensions are very cool. I appreciate having some preferences right there on the toolbar. Not everyone will, but that's the beauty of Open Source. We get to choose. :-)

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    3. Re:There's no "right" app for OS X users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that he considered all these, but didnt mention IE once, as if it wasnt even an option;)

  68. Leech by fialar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Leech seems to install properly only if you run it as root. (It wanted my to have write access to /usr/local/mozilla/chrome dir.)

    It doesn't work as a user. Weird.

  69. Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. by uhoreg · · Score: 1

    1.0.1 and 1.2 are different branches. See the Mozilla roadmap.

    --

    To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

  70. I can "stand" it... by StupidKatz · · Score: 1

    I care very little about how a product looks...

    I care quite a lot about how a product WORKS.

  71. Java on Jaguar is fine - too bad about no TalkBack by slashbrent · · Score: 1

    The stuff Pinkerton and the other Mac guys are doing is really great, but i'm very disappointed that Mozilla has decided to not offer TalkBack support (crash reporting) under OS X.

    Now, every time the browser crashes (not very often, mind you), i just say, "Well, that will never be fixed." and restart it.

    Bleh. :-/

    --

    Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
  72. Re:Mozilla isn't feature flood. yet by axxackall · · Score: 1
    All Mozilla needs is Lisp (or Guile) embedded interpreter linked to XPCOM - then people around the world will create a feature flood, like it happened to (X)Emacs in its days. As for JavaScript... That's not the real language - many programmers abondon it.

    Or maybe more general idea can work better: language extension mechanism, like PostgreSQL has got. So, developer will add their languages as they like.

    --

    Less is more !
  73. GTK? GPL? by axxackall · · Score: 1

    I wonder if GTK Mozilla is GPLized or not. Any idea?

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:GTK? GPL? by damiam · · Score: 1

      It's the exact same license that Mozilla has been for the last year or two - quad-licensed under the GPL, MPL, NPL, and LGPL.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:GTK? GPL? by axxackall · · Score: 1

      I wonder how is it possible that some commercial web browsers based on [modified ] Mozilla source code somehow lost GPL from their licenses? Isn't it in conflict with GPL license terms? For example you cannot download [for free!] the sources of Netscape browser and, as far as I know, it's just Mozilla with some add-ons.

      --

      Less is more !
    3. Re:GTK? GPL? by damiam · · Score: 1

      That's where the NPL comes in. Mozilla can be licensed under the terms of any of those four licenses (IIRC), and the NPL specifically gives Netscape the right to make commercial closed-source derivitives.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:GTK? GPL? by axxackall · · Score: 1

      I've got it! I can take GPL software, modify it, license under dual GPL/MPL, modify it again and finally sell without any sources. That's the way to get rid from GPL virus, isn't it?

      --

      Less is more !
    5. Re:GTK? GPL? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Only if you own the copyright. As Netscape started the Mozilla project, is a primary developer, and requires each developer to assign them copyright, yes, they can do whatever they want with the licensing. No one else can.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  74. typehead on FreeBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does typeahead work on FreeBSD?

  75. On by default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and no user interface to turn it off. Hey, doesn't anybody on the Mozilla project use a modem? This is so boneheaded. Sure it's a cool feature, but to have it set as a default? What are they thinking?

  76. So, does email do more than beep for email yet? by zrk · · Score: 2

    I'd love to know how to get it working for Linux. I tried suggestions found in bugzilla, but no dice in 1.1.

    In my office, I can't hear the PC beep. I'd like it to work through the speakers, if possible.

    Otherwise, I've not had complaints, and I've been using Moz since .8 or so...

    1. Re:So, does email do more than beep for email yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You've got mail!"

  77. viewing selection source... by esarjeant · · Score: 3, Informative

    There also appears to be a View Selection Source option now. So I can highlight a section of a document and view just that HTML source -- very handy for development.

    --

    Eric Sarjeant
    eric[@]sarjeant.com

    1. Re:viewing selection source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in version 1.1 also. Very handy thingy, indeed. :-)

      z
    2. Re:viewing selection source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for pointing this feature out

      i can immediately see where it will be useful - saving just a portion of an html page - for example perhaps there's a book review on a newspaper page and that review is surrounded by a couple of other reviews and then various link menus etc for the newspaper site - with this feature you can easily highlight the text of the book review, view selection source, copy and paste to save as html - result : the text you wanted still formatted as html

  78. Problem with type ahead? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    The scrolling behavior of the arrow and page up/down keys seems to have changed too.

    Used to be able to simply scroll through the page with these keys (nicer than having to keep a hand on the mouse while reading).

    Now these keys seem to behave differently depending on where you are within a page. Sometimes it seems to move a 'paragraph' at a time. Sometimes a line at a time. Sometimes scrolls from the 'banner' section at the top directly to the bottom with 1 down-arrow.

    What's up with this, and can I disable it without losing type-ahead find?

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  79. Chimera vs. Mozilla by EricWright · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is there any way to import Chimera bookmarks (XML) into Mozilla (HTML)? I did the obvious (Import bookmarks from mozilla and selected my bookmarks.xml file from the Chimera path) but that didn't work...

    TIA
    Eric

  80. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea...(indeed) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  81. Java on Jaguar? hooray! by rhiorg · · Score: 1

    Wow! Who knew that old Atari console could one day run Java? This is kinda like the C# port I'm working on for the TI-99/4A.

  82. Splash screen by WowTIP · · Score: 2

    You'd think they should have found time to replace that awful (windows) splashscreen by now? :)

    --

    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"
  83. Print Preview in Mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Mozilla working on a print preview funciton in the mail program?

    How can I find out?

    They already have one for the browser and I think it would be really handy.

  84. No it is not online. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this document:
    So, is there any documentation describing what each and every preference setting in these files is supposed to do? Alas, at the present, no. However, a good reference (for the time being, at least), would be the Netscape developer docs at DevEdge Online. They might not all be exactly identical to the settings used in Mozilla or Netscape 6, since they're primarily written for Communicator 4.x, but it's somewhere to start.
    The latest documentation of netscape prefs can be found here.
  85. CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, according to the release notes, they still stubbornly refuse to use CSS stylesheets that aren't served with a mime type of text/css if you're rendering a "strict" main document. That's lovely for supporting standards compliance, I'm sure, but alas I still can't see the information on a vast number of web sites out there, from major companies to user pages on some popular ISPs who should know better. This is a Very Bad Thing, and whichever overly petty member of the development team chose to do it (and it must have been an active decision) should perhaps consider that this is not the way to gain a user base.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by asa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      they still stubbornly refuse to use CSS stylesheets that aren't served with a mime type of text/css ... I still can't see the information on a vast number of web sites out there

      You visit sites that include the "information" in stylesheets? That's completely lame. The whole purpose of CSS is to separate the information from the style. If they're including the content in their style sheets then they're doing a lot more wrong than just serving the incorrect mime type.

      --Asa

    2. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative
      The whole purpose of CSS is to separate the information from the style. If they're including the content in their style sheets then they're doing a lot more wrong than just serving the incorrect mime type.

      I was referring to the styling information, not the words on the page. Unfortunately, if a page makes heavy use of CSS for formatting and layout, it can still be very hard to read without it. You could just read the plain text by scrolling around the window lots, but then you could just read the HTML source if you wanted. That's not really the point. IE gets it right: it shows me what I want to see. Moz doesn't. That's an indisputable point to IE, I'm afraid. There is simply no good reason for Moz to be anal about whether it renders using a stylesheet or not, at least not without giving the user an opportunity to override it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by japhmi · · Score: 1

      I am of the opinion that web page authors should check their sites with CSS off to make sure they will still be readable. I still check my websites that I build with everything I can think of, including Lynx.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    4. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, you think that mozilla should ignore the fact that a web server is saying "this file is text/plain" and rather guess that the file is "text/css" because that's probably what the site author meant should happen. hmm...

      sounds an awful lot like asking your browser to guess about the author's intent with invalid html tags, to guess about how to layout a page with invalid css syntax, and to guess what to do whenever any other error condition happens.

      sounds like you don't want mozilla, you want IE. you want a world in which the guessing algorithms "improve" with each release, without regard for the fact that it breaks rendering of some sites that were built for the old guessing algorithm.

      no thanks, i'll stick with a browser that implements web standards, like mozilla. if the site author screwed up, i don't want my browser to pretend for me that everything is ok.

    5. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      so, you think that mozilla should ignore the fact that a web server is saying "this file is text/plain" and rather guess that the file is "text/css" because that's probably what the site author meant should happen.
      sounds an awful lot like asking your browser to guess about the author's intent ...

      But this is exactly my point: there is no guess involved. CSS files are plain text files. The only thing that says they're not is one string from the web server, which is frequently wrong at their end and of no consequence whatsoever at ours.

      If there is a tag at the start of the page that reads

      <LINK REL="stylesheet" HREF="styles.css" TYPE="text/css">

      and, on requesting a download of the file "styles.css", a properly formatted, CSS-compliant file is received, what other intention did you think the author had?

      if the site author screwed up, i don't want my browser to pretend for me that everything is ok.

      Please yourself. Me, I'd rather see the page the way it's meant to look. I don't surf to admire how standards-compliant the web pages I visit are, I surf because I'm looking for information and/or entertainment.

      Standards are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I don't expect, and wouldn't want, Moz to imitate IE's mishandling of, say, the standards for margin and padding specification, because that would cause pages written according to the standards to display incorrectly. But there is no sensible alternative here, it's just being anal about standards for no helpful reason. Accepting CSS files sent with an incorrect "text/plain" type wouldn't break any standards-compliant pages, and the only standard it might encourage (or rather, not discourage) breaking serves no useful purpose anyway.

      And in case you missed it, the problem here is that it's not usually the site author who screwed up, it's the hosting service. That's typically beyond the site author's control. They frequently get it wrong, but there's nothing the site author can do except ask them to fix their servers. Having been that site author, I know exactly how effective that isn't, and changing hosting service just because of this isn't practical: most of the people visiting that site have IE, and those with Moz will just have to live with it. That's a shame, because I'm pretty sure that both those who visit my site and me would prefer for it to be seen as I designed it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      I am of the opinion that web page authors should check their sites with CSS off to make sure they will still be readable.

      I certainly agree with that, and with using design techniques that cause the main content to render before navigation bars and such where applicable.

      That's not really the point, though, is it? I thought we were trying to encourage the adoption of new browsers and a move towards standards compliance, not discourage it. Petty decisions like this simply mean that if I want my web page to work properly with Moz, and my service provider happens not to send MIME types properly, I can not use CSS at all. I'm back in the dark ages of table-driven layout and in-line formatting. Whose fault is that? Well, frankly, who cares? The damage is done any way you look at it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IE gets it right: it shows me what I want to see. Moz doesn't. That's an indisputable point to IE, I'm afraid"

      No, IE gets it wrong. The "type" attribute of the "link" element is an advisory type; the browser needn't make the request if the MIME type is unsupported. However, during the HTTP request and response stage, the HTTP protocol takes over. So, Mozilla does it right. If you don't like it, then complain to the HTTP WG.

    8. Re:CSS is still messed up :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      No, IE gets it wrong. [...] If you don't like it, then complain to the HTTP WG.

      I'm aware of the technical details of the relevant standards, thanks. I think you miss, or choose to ignore, my point, however. The standards are just a means to an end. Neither I, nor those who visit my site, care that on some technical detail, my ISP is screwing up. We both observe that my (correct and standard-conforming) web page data displays as I intend it to on their IE browser, but does not display in a particularly pleasant way on Moz (though it's fine if I view it locally using Moz; this is purely a problem with the ISP MIME type settings).

      Whether you like it or not, your quest to evangelise W3C standards is coming in a distant second for just about everyone else here. Clearly the de facto standard is superior to the official W3C one in this respect; following it hurts no-one, while following the W3C one hurts anyone with an overly picky browser. Mozilla simply will not take over as a serious, mainstream, alternative browser if they continue to make mistakes like this, which is a shame, given the obvious advantages it has in most respects.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  86. Use / to find non-linked text by mbrubeck · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you just start typing "moz...", typeahead will only find text that's part of a link. If you type "/moz..." instead, it will find any text. (Apologies if you already knew this.)

    1. Re:Use / to find non-linked text by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Ah ha! That is useful to know indeed. Sorry, I thought I read the blurb in the README, but maybe I didn't read it carefully enough, since I missed that.

  87. How do I save installed XUL stuff? by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I installed XUL Planet's Preferences Toolbar on Mozilla, but the next time I installed a new version, it was gone and I had to reinstall it. I know that you can install plugins into your ~/.mozilla directory so that upgrading the browser doesn't require reinstalling the plugins, but is it possible to do this for chrome-like things (like the aforementioned Preferences Toolbar)? I've highly customized the toolbar, as well, and I don't even know where that configuration gets saved. Thanks.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  88. You try out the official mozilla lite: Phoenix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  89. already done by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    Looks like rel="next" links are already taken care of. That teaches me to read more carefully next time.

  90. I give up by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    It took 15 minutes for *that* post to get modded up. I give up.

    1. Re:I give up by orkysoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      This post deserves to be modded up :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:I give up by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      This post deserves to be modded down :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  91. Did you actually read the page you referenced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    From HTML 4.01 link rel types:
    Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification.
    Other common linktypes not mentioned there include "Search", "Author"/"Made" and "Icon"/"Shortcut Icon".
  92. Blocking plugins by xiox · · Score: 2

    There's a bug for blocking plugins from various sites. See bug number 94035 on bugzilla.mozilla.org (no link as bugzilla does not allow ./ linking)

  93. Not quite by Flammon · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the iframe has a CSS property of display:none, or visibility:hidden then Mozilla will not load the content of that iframe until the display property changes to something that is visible.

    IE loads the content of the iframe not matter what the CSS properties are.

    1. Re:Not quite by roca · · Score: 2

      Then just hide the IFRAME using

    2. Re:Not quite by roca · · Score: 2

      oops.

      You could just use an IFRAME with zero height, specified with style="height:0" or whatever. Mozilla will load that.

      Of course it would be better if people didn't do this...

  94. Prefetch works with many existing documents by mbrubeck · · Score: 2
    The Mozilla approach could actually work. If any designers ever decide to use it.

    The Mozilla approach already works on many documents on the web that have "rel=next" link tags -- especially documents generated from structured markup (DocBook, other SGML). If you're using Mozilla 1.2 beta, you can try it on various W3C recommendations or the GTK programmer's reference, and thousands of other structured documents on the web.

    1. Re:Prefetch works with many existing documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was disappointed to see that the GTK programmer's reference you linked to doesn't use the document chapter tags and such.... that'd be really damned handy. only using the next and previous tags, not so much.

  95. Site Navigation toolbar by mbrubeck · · Score: 2

    I forgot to mention, the Mozilla "Site Navigation bar" (accessible from the View->Show/Hide menu) also adds functionality for documents with link tags like those mentioned above.

  96. Maybe java will work on freebsd/linux with 1.2 by bee · · Score: 1

    Maybe with 1.2 I'll actually be able to get the Java plugin working with Linux Mozilla under FreeBSD. I tried two different java runtime environments; not only could they not be found by anyone but root (even with world r-x perms), but neither worked-- one tried to create a window that was 4000x3000 pixels when I loaded a page with a java app that created a new window, the other just hung. (And before you ask, yes I followed all the instructions.)

    Would it be too much to ask for to have a few of the very common plugins like java to be loaded & shipped by default? I'd rather have multiple JREs around than be scratching my head trying to get mozilla and java to talk to each other.

    --
    At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
  97. Debian user delight! by PigeonGB · · Score: 1

    Yay! Now I just have to wait only 9 months for all of these cool features! B-)

    --
    I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
  98. Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea...(indeed) by *xpenguin* · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oct 17, 2002:

    First goatse.cx link modded informative.

  99. Re:You could do this before and without too much w by msaavedra · · Score: 2
    XFT2 support was only checked in last week, so there's no way you have it working with Mozilla 1.0.

    Christopher Blizzard has been releasing xft2-patched binaries of Mozilla for some time. They are available here. You're absolutely right that the new XFT2 font-architecture renders better. I'm using it in a patched Mozilla 1.0 right now, and the font quality rivals Windows. The quality of the old FreeType code was not too great.

    --
    "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
    --Henry David Thoreau
  100. Re:Freak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many posts?

    3.

    You can trust me, I'm the official score keeper.

  101. Re:You could do this before and without too much w by gol64738 · · Score: 2

    if you have redhat 8.0, and don't want to get your hands dirty,
    here are Redhat 8.0 RPMS for binaries with Xft2 already compiled in

  102. Re:Mozilla isn't feature flood. yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LISP??? Are you INSANE???

  103. RH8.0 Mozilla 1.1 uses GTK by Bri3D · · Score: 1

    RH8.0's Mozilla 1.1 uses the GTK2.0 theme(Aqua:-)).

  104. feature suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a option where you right click on any person's picture and one of the choices is "view naked." If you choose this it will automatically do a google search for naked pictures of that person (in a tabbed window).

  105. Best feature... by dalutong · · Score: 2

    the "group" as a homepage. i open slashdot, linuxtoday, and google news... click "use current group" and now when i open mozilla it pops open three tabs each with one of my favorite sites.

    Very cool. Phoenix, when will you have this? (Please, please, please put it in!)

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  106. Pre-fetching by mrBlond · · Score: 1
    > Read the specs, please. It doesn't prefetch ALL links, only those explicitly set as such in the web page. Which, as far as I know, accounts for exactly zero web pages in existence today. - Anonymous Coward

    Read the FAQ 'n manual, please. It prefetches pages mentioned in the <link rel="next" tag also, which many pages have had for (internet) ages.

    --
    CowboyNeal for president!
    "Hit any user to continue."
  107. Re:You could do this before and without too much w by gol64738 · · Score: 2

    Ok, so i just installed those RPMS and all i can say is..

    BEAUTIFUL!!

    i highly recommend all RH8.0 users to upgrade your mozilla to the above link. you won't regret it!

  108. Re:Link prefetching-HOW DO YOU TURN IT OFF?? by flamelord · · Score: 1

    this clearly is a bad feature. So how in the world do you turn it off?? I could not click through you link: bugzilla reports links from slashdot are disabled. WTF???

  109. Re:Link prefetching-HOW DO YOU TURN IT OFF?? by Nevyn · · Score: 1
    So how in the world do you turn it off?? I could not click through you link: bugzilla reports links from slashdot are disabled. WTF???
    Here is the FAQ for prefetching... http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefet ching_FAQ.html ...as for the bugzilla thing, just drag and drop the link into another window ... it doesn't get a referer header then and so you can see the bug.
    --
    ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
  110. Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not that big of a deal. Bugzilla just doesn't want to be Slashdotted, since actual people need to use the site. It's still easy enough to copy and paste a Bugzilla url if you really want to see it.

  111. Too Much to do! by rapidweather · · Score: 1

    We have Opera 6.1 B1 for Linux to download, now also Mozilla 1.2 B. Leaves little time to play with Phoenix 0.3!

  112. Insightful? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2

    If you have a GTK desktop then Mozilla 1.2 will just match the current GTK gui (a few bugs notwithstanding) in Classic. You don't need to do anything.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  113. Re:Mozilla isn't feature flood. yet by axxackall · · Score: 1
    Emacs, very enriched application with LOTS of functionality is mostly written on Lisp (the interpreter is embedded into Emacs). Newcoming TeXmacs is written same way on Guile. Guile is used to extend other applications, such as Sawfish window manager and GIMP.

    You don't have anything close to it written/extended with JavaScript. The language is really very weak in all its parts: OOP, typing, macros, reflection.

    Java is not a choice: too heavy, still too buggy. But the most important it's a compiler. The extention language must be able to interprete the source code directly. Besides, JVM is a proprietary property, it cannot be distributed with free software, especially it's compiler.

    As alternative to Lisp (which is really not for everybody - it's only for educated persons) I see Python. Are you happy with Python? Some high-order programming, scripting interpreter, optional bytecode compilation is available, fast enough especially in scripting, general purpose language, popular in several OS distributions (i.e. Gentoo). So, Python? :)

    --

    Less is more !
  114. Horrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link prefetching: I need to turn that off. Every page I go to has lots of links, and this will slow things down to be "prefetching" links I may never need.

  115. i still miss image management... by ovrclokd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    am i the only mozilla user left who thought that pre-download image management - "ask me before downloading an image" in preferences/images - was one of mozilla's best features? no web bugs, no third-party banner ads, total control... it got axed as the "fix" to bug 110112, because of crashes on multiple confirmation dialogues, and despite repeated pleas (vote for bug 146513!), it's still on the wontfix list.

    i'm still running 1.0.1 build 20080808, since that's the last build that still had image confirmation, and so far none of the nifty new features, appealing as they are, have been worth giving it up. anybody want to start a write-in campaign? :)

    (i know, "send code" - but i'm a networking geek, not a Real Programmer. i don't have enough coding clue to even understand the code involved, let alone to try to make changes.)

    --

    --
    # find / -user your -name base -print0 | xargs -0 chown us
    1. Re:i still miss image management... by frankie · · Score: 2
      anybody want to start a write-in campaign?

      We just started something even better -- a pledge drive. Go visit bug 146513 and commit a few bucks to whoever will write the patch for us.

  116. Re:It was a bad idea to begin with... by NamShubCMX · · Score: 1

    What could be nice is to be able to "draw" a shape on the screen (think marquee select in gimp/photoshop) and every links within the shape loads in a new tab...

    --
    We've always been at war with Eurasia.
  117. All of your comments are worthles! by dan_the_heretic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It is just another release of some unimportant software.

    --
    I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
  118. Re:Link prefetching- TURN IT OFF. by flamelord · · Score: 1
    thanks, that FAQ helps:

    To whoever might want to use it:

    " Is there a preference to disable link prefetching? Yes, there is a hidden preference that you can set to disable link prefetching. Add this line to your prefs.js file located in your Mozilla profile directory: user_pref("network.prefetch-next", false);

    "

  119. you must have a 1.2b theme by Khopesh · · Score: 2

    no pre 1.2b-branch themes work.
    there are only a small number (growing by the day) of compatable themes.
    don't get a theme that doesn't specifically list support for 1.2b

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  120. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Introducing, the 1010, a one-bit processor.

    INSTRUCTION SET
    Code Mnemonic What
    0 NOP No Operation
    1 JMP Jump (address specified by next 2 bits)

    Now Available for only 12 1/2 cents!

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