Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla 1.2 Unleashed

Posted by timothy on from the shaftoe's-lizard-vision dept.

asa writes "Mozilla 1.2 has just been released. New to this version are features like Type Ahead Find, basic toolbar customization (text/icons/both), support for GTK themes on Linux, multiple tabs as startpage, Link Prefetching, "filter after the fact" and filter logging in Mail, Palm sync for Mozilla addressbook on MS Windows, and more. This is the latest stable release from mozilla.org, and all users of Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla 1.0.1, Mozilla 1.1 or any of the alpha/beta/release candidates are encouraged to upgrade to this release. You can get builds and more info at the Mozilla releases page and you can find daily Mozilla news and discussion at mozillaZine.org."

61 of 566 comments (clear)

  1. Anyone still using Mozilla? by rpjs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now that we have Phoenix, I mean...

    1. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by ciryon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm using Phoenix in Linux but Mozilla in Mac OS X.

      Mozilla is a good, stable browser with lot's of plugins available. It you have a fast computer it's probably a better choice than Phoenix.

      Ciryon

    2. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, as Phoenix is a cut-down version of Mozilla, it means we shall soon "type ahead" with it too.
      BTW, Mozilla is better for those who also want an integrated mailer, we're not discussing the very same app, here...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    3. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by AmunRa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well seeing as phoenix uses the gecko rendering engine, any improvements to Mozilla/Gecko will get incorporated into pheonix, so development on Mozilla is good for Phoenix....

      --
      " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
    4. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by colinramsay · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know if that was a play on words or a reference to Type Ahead Find, but either way Type Ahead Find is a feature of the latest Phoenix milestone.

      --
      Free iPods - now in the UK!
    5. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Er, yes. I find Moz to be plenty fast enough, and I use a truckload of extensions which don't quite work in Pheonix yet.

      I don't really see what all the fuss is about, I'm using XFT builds for Redhat 8 that Blizzard puts out and they're snappy and look great. I did try Phoenix when I was on Windows, but found it to be no faster than Mozilla but with fewer features. I might try it again in a bit, but Moz is just fine for me.

      I'm waiting on Galeon 2 myself, at least then it'll integrate well with gnome.

    6. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      Type-ahead find is already in Phoenix (as of 0.4 anyway.) Very, very, nice.

      To reply to the parent's parent, Phoenix still needs things like a security manager. But it's getting there...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. You want a web browser these days, you use Phoenix. You want a "communications suite" that lets you chat, send email, etc, you get Mozilla. Different goals.

      Of course, since you change a single #define and then compile Moz to get Phoenix, I'm not sure that you can really say that you aren't using Mozilla...

      --
      May we never see th
    8. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by colinramsay · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not true. From the Phoenix 0.4 release notes:
      Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite? It's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.
      Phoenix is just Mozilla with a couple UI tweaks. We wonder when people will stop saying this. 30,000 lines of code have already been added or changed from Mozilla. We've forked the global history and download manager backends. And XHTML2 is coming to Phoenix.
      --
      Free iPods - now in the UK!
    9. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take a look at the Thunderbird/Minotaur Project.

      --
      OLPC Australia
    10. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Mozilla html editor is TOP NOTCH. It has never crashed on me. The code it produces is human readable! If you just want a quick, straight-forward HTML page, it is the way to go. Pheonix can't do that.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    11. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by Eil · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Remember that Mozilla is two things, a browser and a development platform.

      You bring up an interesting point. If I may nitpick, I've always held that "Mozilla" is two things: a development platform first and a internet communications suite second.

      You say "browser," I say "internet communications suite." What's the difference? Well, the former renders web pages but the latter lets you do that and then some. Calling Mozilla (the software) just a browser is like calling Microsoft Office a word processor or calling a PalmPilot an electronic addressbook. When I mean to talk about the portion of Mozilla that renders web pages, I try to refer to it as Mozilla Navigator. Likewise for Mozilla Mail & News, Mozilla Composer, Mozilla Addressbook, and Chatzilla. Referring to these components by names can clear up a lot of confusion that some people have, especially those who aren't familiar with the whole Mozilla project.

      Not that I'm going to *insist* that people correct their naming conventions, it's just that my method makes more sense to me.

    12. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://spellchecker.mozdev.org

    13. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by axxackall · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Mozilla is a good, stable browser with lot's of plugins available. It you have a fast computer it's probably a better choice than Phoenix.

      Phoenix doesn't build whatever I've tried. So I use Mozilla. Mostly.

      I've stopped using Mozilla mail client, once Evolution evolved finally to what it is now - Outlook killer for Linux users.

      I am not interesting in plugins, but, very rarely, when there is no way arount to get to the site rather than through stupid flash - I use Opera. On the same platform with the same plugin binaries Opera works. Mozilla doesn't. I mean Mozilla doesn't work with plugins out of the box - the best is it shows the flash (somehow, in ery bad quality), but any mouse click on it sends Mozilla to the crash.

      Basically, the only way to call Mozilla 1.x stable is when you don't use it for anything else besides HTML browsing. Everything else (mail, calendar, custom built XUL forms) will crash Mozilla sooner or later. With HTML it's oppositely different - it shows more than 20 tabs in 3-5 windows for weeks on my testing Linux box without crashing. And if it's getting slower - I just restart (close-open-load) some of tabs. Opera is far bellow such stability level. With HTML.

      Everything above is true for Linux. On Windows, I use Mozilla with plugins without such problems - it's stable. And when I name plugins, I mean Flash and Java. So, the problem with plugins is the problem with Linux binary plugin code, not with Mozilla. Perhaps, both Macromedia and Sun have no interest in Linux platform, but have very strong interest to keep their source code closed.

      P.S. But why Opera (by the way, also distributed in binary code) works with same binary plugins better than Mozilla?

      --

      Less is more !
    14. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by mosch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Personally I love the whole download manager thing, makes it much easier to keep track of multiple simultaneous downloads.

      Now if only they'd fix the download manager in OS X (it shows nothing right now, and hasn't for quite some time), and add an option to automatically close the download manager if all downloads have completed successfully.

    15. Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phoenix isn't SUPPOSED to do that! Phoenix is just a browser. Mozilla is a suite of internet applications that includes HTML authoring. Phoenix is just the browsing components of Mozilla stripped out and refined to provide a smaller, faster, simpler interface.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  2. With some limits by Martigan80 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Building on Mozilla's customizability, you can now show toolbars as text/icons/both (in the default Classic theme).

    So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    1. Re:With some limits by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Flamebait

      So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

      And boy, does the Classic theme suck. Why don't they make the modern theme a default? Someone installing Mozilla for the first time might be pushed away merely because of the classic theme...

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  3. New roadmap by edgrale · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who are interested, here is a link to the new roadmap

    source: mozillazine.org

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. New flash player, too by darCness · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In case you weren't aware, a new Flash player for GNU/Linux
    has been released too. It's recommended that you upgrade to this version if you're
    going to use Mozilla 1.2. Unfortunately, audio seems
    to be broken (at least for me under Mandrake GNU/Linux 8.1).

    I've filed a bug report with Macromedia about this. Keep
    it in mind if you upgrade.

  5. shame there aren't more users by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    less than 7% of my million monthly hits are something other than Internet Explorer

    it's a damn shame esp. when Mozilla is now the superior product.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:shame there aren't more users by great+om · · Score: 3, Interesting

      how much of this is because people with 'alternative' browsers (like opera, for instance), change their reported browser tag?

      I, personally, have no idea, but I thought I'd throw this possibility out there

      -Om, Posting from Omniweb

      --
      ------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
    2. Re:shame there aren't more users by G-funk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mozilla now is like ie 3/4 at the time... A far better product to use (standard compliance not withstanding), but as stable as a 2 legged stool.

      I love mozilla, I use 1.0 all the time under linux at work, but it just can't cut the mustard when it comes to windows. It was a sad moment when I had to return the little "e" to my quicklaunch bar after a few weeks of bittersweet mozilla pain.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    3. Re:shame there aren't more users by jonr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The more I use Mozilla, the more I like it. A good mesure of a quality software (or anything else). IE feels like a toy browser now. Mozilla is stable, fast and support correct standards. I just don't understand what people are doing wrong to get Mozilla unstable, on my Atlhon 750/XP it runs for days.
      J.

    4. Re:shame there aren't more users by Plutor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not entirely sure where you got this impression of Mozilla. I started using it around M8 or so, and at that point I would have agreed. But ever since it hit 1.0 (and even arguably before that), it has been as stable as MSIE. I have used Mozilla exclusively for my web browsing needs for the past couple years, and I could not be more happy with it. Cheers to asa and the rest of the Mozilla crew for making a high-quality product I'm extremely happy with!

      I can't remember the last time Mozilla crashed on me.

    5. Re:shame there aren't more users by rseuhs · · Score: 5, Informative
      You should really try Phoenix. It's very stable (I only had 2 crashes in 2 or 3 months of near-exclusive use) and fast.

      Also very nice is the fact that Phoenix needs not to be installed. It just works anywhere you unzip it. No registry problems, no risk of destroying settings, etc. And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.

      So unlike most other browsers (including IE) you don't risk hosing your system when you install/upgrade.

      So I would really recommend you to give it a try.

    6. Re:shame there aren't more users by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 3, Informative

      Opera still reports itself as Opera, just fools crappily written browser checks.

      Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows 2000) Opera 7.0 [en]

      If your log analyzer can't handle that (nowadays), it is time to switch to one that actually get updates. Because this is how it has been at least since Opera 4. :)

    7. Re:shame there aren't more users by asa · · Score: 4, Informative

      You said that you plan on waiting for tonight's nighly build to pick up any 1.2 fixes but that's a bad idea. There are no fixes that have landed on the 1.2 branch since yesterday (and probably won't be any) so if you get or build a 1.2 branch nightly build today you'll have exactly the same thing and if you get a trunk nightly then you'll be getting development builds containing all kinds of new code being developed for 1.3. If you're looking for stability you don't want a 1.3 nightly build. See http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html#tree-managemen t for what this looks like.

      --Asa

  6. Immediate theme change? by SurfsUp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happened to it? The last time this worked was around 0.95 or so. Having to restart to change themes is, for one thing, primitive, and another, a pain in the butt.

    Anybody know what's going on here?

    --
    Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    1. Re:Immediate theme change? by Christopher+Whitt · · Score: 5, Informative

      The feature was called Dynamic Theme Switching or something like that. I can't get to bugzilla right now to search on it. I remember that it caused a whole pile of regressions and new bugs and it was backed out. I think there was an intention of giving it another try later, but I would say that any patches that are lying around are probably completely bit-rotted by now.

      When mozilla.org recovers from the 1.2 release and slashdotting, try searching for dynamic theme switching in bugzilla.

      Christopher

      --
      Mozilla
  7. funny by jki · · Score: 3, Interesting
    from the link prefetching FAQ:

    What about folks who pay-per-byte for network bandwidth?
    - prefetching is a browser feature; users should be able to disable it easily

    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);

    Although I admit link-prefetching may be good, but if it becomes a on-bydefault feature in most browsers, the ones that it will damage are the content providers. Those cannot turn it off (and actually do not have anyway of knowing whether their content is being prefetched (and not potentially viewed at all) or not. Well, I am just whining. Generally, Mozilla seems to be doing great :)

    1. Re:funny by Rovaani · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you'd read the whole FAQ you are quoting you wold see that
      Are anchor (<a>) tags prefetched?
      No, only tags w/ a relation type of next or prefetch are prefetched. However, if there is sufficient interest, we may expand link prefetching support to include prefetching tags, which include a relation type of next or prefetch in the future. Doing so would probably help content providers avoid the problem of stale prefetching links.
      So content-providers can decide all by themselves if they want to pre-serve the content. Althoug it is possible for a malicious web-site to set pre-fetch headers pointing to third-party web-site , thus draining their bandwidth.

      Also:

      As a server admin, can I distinguish prefetch requests from normal requests?
      Yes, we send the following header along with each prefetch request:
      X-moz: prefetch
      Of course, this request header is not at all standardized, and it may change in future Mozilla releases.
      --
      Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
    2. Re:funny by asa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SlashDot uses them -- look at the document nav bar in Moz/Opera, you'll see Next/Previous, which go to the next/previous story. Unless you have a habit of reading every article, Moz will pointlessly prefetch the next story up, and you'll happily ignore it. Users who used to (e.g.) read every other story now actually end up fetching every story anyway.

      rel="prefetch" is fine, rel="next" makes me nervous. I don't want content providers to stop using rel="next" because of the deranged behavior of some clients :P

      If slashdot uses link rel=next and no one uses it then why are they including it in the source? Authors use this tool to specifically connect pages. It is assumed that people will be navigating to the next document linked or the author wouldn't include that tag. Authors who are using link rel= next that don't want people navigating to that linked document shouldn't be using next so you shouldn't be nervous about content providers stopping use of the tag. What have you lost if slashdot removes the tag if, as you suggested, no users actually uses the link rel=next to get to the next article?

      --Asa

  8. Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? by deadmantalking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A serious question. OpenOffice started incorporating GTK/GNOME widgets, Mozilla builds support for GTK themes...
    Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?
    Anyone has any insights?

    --
    A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
    1. Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? by ultrabot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?

      Something about the QT license. It's GPL or proprietary (it's your choice), while LGPL (the license of GTK) is more corporate-friendly.

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? by Shillo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the case of Mozilla, they needed a lightweight windowing system abstraction (on top of which they built their own set of widgets), and gdk was the right choice. GDK is a layer underneath Gtk, and it provides a lightweight portability system sitting directly on Xlib. Qt (AFAIK) has something similar, but Qt's portability layer is canvas-like (again AFAIK), which isn't so convenient if all you want is simplified drawing primitives.

      OO.O is benefitting from Ximian work, and that naturally involves GNOME.

      Sun/HP/the rest of the CDE people wanted something that can easily replace Motif in all the places where Motif appears. Since this means a lot of legacy pure-C apps, Gtk seemed a natural choice, too.

      So in each case, it was a different issue, rather than a single, obviously decisive feature.

      As for the technical differences, yes, Gtk and Qt are different, but not as much as the advocates of either like to think (personally I prefer Gtk/GNOME, but the only strong technical reasons I can name are bonobo-activation, atk and gstreamer systems, which I consider uber-cool, but not absolutely essential).

      --

      --
      I refuse to use .sig
    3. Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? by Skweetis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mozilla has used GTK to render its widgets as long as I can remember (since M7 or so). It sounds like they just added support for the theme portions of GTK.

    4. Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Ubercool and none of that stuff is working reliable. Gstreamer is crashing the hell out of my system. So who wants to deal with unfinished crap ?

      Head over to irc.openprojects.net (or whatever they call it now) in the #gstreamer channel, and we'll see what we can do about finding and fixing whichever problems you're having. There are several known problems, i.e. with i386 glibc linuxthreads, that we're hunting for workarounds for, and can cause random crashes.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
  9. Without Mozilla, IE would not be free by dagg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If AOL stopped supporting Mozilla development, then they wouldn't be able to hold it over Microsoft's head. It is quite a dance those companies play.

    This was posted using Mozilla 1.2

    --
    Your sex on a platter
    --
    Sex - Find It
  10. Re:Running it now... by Quazion · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mozilla has no spyware ? bah then i dont want it!

  11. How about Flash for PowerPC Linux? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why is it that commercial vendors who say they support linux only provide packages for Red Hat?

    Last I heard, Red Hat only ran on x86. Or actually I remember they had an S/390 distro too.

    On other x86 distributions, you at least have the hope of using alien to switch the package format. But I use Debian on a PowerPC Macintosh.

    I'm pretty sure Macromedia wrote software for the Macintosh before they even had any products for Windows. Flash right now is supported on the Macintosh, so the software is supported on PowerPC architecture.

    How about getting us a Flash for Debian PowerPC Linux?

    The "Red Hat" only mentality is why I think there isn't much hope of companies succeeding in shipping proprietary products for Linux. People on other distros or architectures get particularly irritated that they can't do whatever the product provides and write an open source replacement, where they wouldn't have bothered if the commercial app supported all the platforms.

    If a bunch of volunteers working for no pay can support, what is it? 8000 packages on eleven architectures, why can't a commercial vendor support all the major Linux distros and architectures?

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  12. Re:Running it now... by Tet · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What more can a nerd want?

    The ability to run multiple instances of Mozilla on different screens. This worked until 1.0rc2, and then they removed it. Since I *need* this funcitonality for my job, I have to keep a copy of the old version lying around :-(

    --
    "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  13. Please use mozilla net installer by suds · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please use the netinstaller (~250kb) which would find a closest mirror for you automatically to download.

  14. Hooray! by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the last uses I had for explorer was to browse CNN. Mozilla 1.1 had problems formatting HTML on some (most) CNN articles;

    Upgraded, tested, and now it works like a charm. What is that procedure to remove IE again?

  15. Prefetch paranoia by codexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that prefetch thing such a good idea?

    For example, it will prefetch a document from another host that the one you're browsing. In the FAQ they say that they don't see that as a security risk. But I really don't like the idea that I could be tricked into prefetching stuff I don't want by a simple HTML tag (goatse, copyrighted material and other illegal stuff).

    Yes it can be disabled but not from the GUI preferences, so many people won't even notice it.

    Well I'm probably just being paranoid. :)

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
    1. Re:Prefetch paranoia by codexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trusting the site owners is not the same as trusting the content from its users. I trust the slashdot people, I don't trust the trolls that are posting goatse links.

      --
      True warriors use the Klingon Google
  16. tabbed browsing still "broken" by X_Caffeine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe they still haven't incorporated "single window mode" into the built-in tabbed browsing features of Mozilla. Every person I've talked into trying Mozilla wants to know why windows still open all over the place when they're using tabbed-browsing mode. Instructing them to go find an obscure plug-in, and then configure it, is not an acceptable solution for Joe Mousepad.

    P.S. The default theme is impossibly ugly. ORBIT

    --
    // I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
  17. I think it's interesting... by MungoBBQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...that after hearing so much about the user's right to freedom of choice when it comes to browsers, the Mozilla Messenger makes it impossible to use MS Internet Explorer to view the URLs I receive in e-mails.

    Yes, I use MSIE for web and Mozilla for e-mail since its IMAP functionalities blow Outlook Express out of the water (actually, it does that just by being bug-free), but why on earth am I not allowed to open links I click in my e-mails with MSIE?

    Maybe it's just me, but I think it's ironic that Mozilla is trying to tie me down to its web browser just because I want to use it for e-mail.

  18. New ways of breaking marriages by MungoBBQ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Me: You can't use IE! It's unsafe and bad for you!
    Wife: But I like it better than Mozilla! Mozilla just doesn't feel like home to me!
    Me: You don't understand, IE is BAD for you!
    Wife: But...
    Me: Bzzz! BAD!
    Wife: You insensitive asshole! Why can't you understand when you are hurting my feelings.

    I forsee a new book by John Gray: Mozilla is from Mars, IE is from Venus.

  19. I like "view selection source" by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 5, Informative

    hightlight an area of a page, right click and there's an option to "View selection source". which opens the html source and cues it to the area you had selected.

    Mozilla is IMHO, the best available.

    --
    "The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
  20. Re:Mozilla to win this war by ragnar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Mozilla's being standard complaint is good, however on the net lots of articles are written for IE, because of the historical reasons as we know it. So Mozilla should allow the users to make a nicer transition by enabling certain non-standard IE-only features as much as possible.

    I would prefer to see more articles describing how to avoid proprietary IE methodologies, like document.all in favor of w3c standards. In most cases there is a standard-compliant way of doing things. If IE has some worthwhile proprietary features maybe we should be encouraging w3c to adopt them, but it is a slippery slope to conform to IE-only features.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
  21. File a bug report! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Informative

    That doesn't seem like proper behavior, you're right. File a bug at bugzilla.mozillla.org. That's the best way to get things changed in most open source projects (besides fixing it yourself)

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  22. WARNING - online banking likely to fail by bjornte · · Score: 4, Informative
    Due to this bug:

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172097

    online secure banking that works in Mozilla 1.1 may not work in Mozilla 1.2. It seems that Moz 1.2 does not send cookies to HTTPS sites, thus preventing some kinds of authentication.

    Until this problem is fixed, people who use online banking etc. should stick to Moz 1.1.

    1. Re:WARNING - online banking likely to fail by tcoady · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not a bug! I reported it originally but have changed it to WFM. This was my comment:

      OK *now* it WFM! I had to change Edit Preferences Advanced, Scripts and Plugins to allow javascript to change, create AND read cookies before it worked though.

  23. Toolbars non-collapsable by madprof · · Score: 3, Informative

    I downloaded a toolbar that lets me turn graphics, colours and cookies on and off at the click of a button.
    This no longer has the little thing at teh side that lets me shrink it down - this was mentioned in the Release Notes.
    What I'm puzzling over is why they removed that. Is there any way to make the toolbar shrink up and free screen space now it has gone?

  24. Re:content related difference by NineNine · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's on your porn site I presume?

    Yup... There aren't a whole lot of other types of sites that get that kind of traffic. Besides, I think that porn is one of those truly universal web apps that has a good cross-section from all parts of society. Very representative. My sites by OS:

    Windows 98 49.78%
    Windows NT 39.13%
    Windows 95 4.29%
    Macintosh PPC 2.45%
    Unknown 1.97%
    Windows 3.1x 1.55%
    LINUX 0.79%
    BSD UNIX 0.02%
    SUN OS 0.01%
    Macintosh 0.00%
    Amiga 0.00%
    OS/2 0.00%
    HP-UNIX 0.00%

  25. Prefetching by mnot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm extremely wary about the new prefetching feature in Mozilla. The Web caching community has tried this from about every angle, but the general consensus of professionals (with one notable exception) is that prefetching is a bad approach.

    For one thing, it assumes free bandwidth; not such a hot idea in a lot of places (e.g., Australia, where you pay per Mb).

    I've also had network and server administrators calling me in a panic because they're being flooded with requests from a single machine - whoops.

    Prefetching is generally pretty antisocial; it says "my browsing experience is so important, damn your network, damn your servers, I'm getting it all!"

    This doesn't mean that it isn't of great interest to the research community, of course; go to any caching-related conference and you'll see earnest proposals for prefetching (along with yet more hyper-optimised replacement algorithms... *sigh*).

    Specifically, I'm concerned that the Mozilla implementation won't fare any better; in one way, it's better that it uses explicit prefetching hints (rather than some "optimized" algortithm... I hate heuristics), but OTOH it's horrible; this is ripe for abuse by over-zealous webmasters. I wonder how long it'll be before we see a demo of a DOS attack based on this...

    Also, not providing a preference UI to control this isn't so bright; Mozilla has matured past the "world is my debugger" stage, at least in this respect. There are legitimate reasons for turning this off; in fact, I think there's a strong argument for turning this off by default.

  26. Multiple Mozilla Launches by Alethes · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ever since 1.0, I believe, Mozilla now has had the @lock file in your personal mozilla directory that prevents multiple instances of Mozilla from being running. The way to work with this is to use something like this Mozilla Starter Script, which you use to replace your existing mozilla starter script (the one called "mozilla" that sets the MOZILLA__FIVE_HOME and executes mozilla-bin). This script allows you to specify whether a new window opens for each new instance or just have it open the URLs in a new tab. I've been using it for a while and I find it very handy.

  27. RedHat 8.0 XFT builds now up by AmunRa · · Score: 4, Informative

    As subject, if you look under the Red_Hat_8x_RPMS folder in the mozilla-1.2 directory, there is now two folders: vanilla and xft , with pre-built RPMs! Get them now from a mirror...

    Now if only I'd waited a couple of hours ;-)

    --
    " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
  28. Re:Still no UPGRADE path! by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have had MultiZilla installed since 1.1b, and all I've had to do to upgrade is dowload the full file and install in the same directory as before. I've never had to mess around with preferences (except when new features come out, which I generally enable, and all the new options MultiZilla has gained since the time of Mozilla 1.1b) and I've never had to reinstall plugins.

    Oh, and I upgrade nearly every day, though I'll keep 1.2 for about a week before upgrading--it'll be different to use an extremely stable release in place of a relatively stable (compared to IE) nightly build.

  29. Wish I could build it... by koreth · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This'll probably get modded -1, Pathetic, but so far I've been completely unable to get a working Mozilla binary to build under Windows. Builds and runs fine under Linux. I've uninstalled and reinstalled all the required tools a bunch of times, checked and rechecked my environment against the build docs, etc. Here's a web page with more details. If some kind soul could tell me what I'm doing wrong, you'd have my undying admiration!

    (Yes, I've tried posting to the Mozilla newsgroups, but this is exactly the kind of request that gets ignored by everyone there.)