Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla 1.2.1 Released

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the lather-rinse-repeat dept.

I shouldn't be allowed to work before coffee- I posted this at like 8:20 and must've forgotten to click that all important 'Save' button. Hey, Everyone's favorite web browser besides Chimera has released version 1.2.1. The fix includes security patches so it probably wouldn't hurt to snag it if you're running it.

59 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. I found the problem... by mschoolbus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I posted this at like 8:20 and must've forgotten to click that all important 'Save' button.

    Well maybe that is the problem, editors keep accidently hitting the save button throughout the day... I am sure we will see this story yet again... =P

  2. Glad to see... by Smelly+Jeffrey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that mozilla is quick at fixing their software when problems arise. Too bad that the DHTML bug came up in the first place. But I say "good job moz" for their fast repairs.

    1. Re:Glad to see... by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Interesting
      that mozilla is quick at fixing their software when problems arise. Too bad that the DHTML bug came up in the first place. But I say "good job moz" for their fast repairs.

      Yeah, it almost seemed to big for them to miss. But when I was browsing the bug # referenced in Buzilla, it looks as if the patch for that issue and some other patches just didn't get committed for some reason.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:Glad to see... by greechneb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to agree. I've been using the nightly builds of 1.3a for about 3 weeks or so, and they are as reliable as IE6 SP1 is. I won't make any comments about what that implies though...

      anyway, good job mozilla team, and keep up the great work!

  3. DHTML Patch by rherbert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the story didn't mention it, the only difference between 1.2 and 1.2.1 is the fix for the DHTML bug (#182500).

  4. security fixes? not really by aromanos · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the release notes: "The only difference between the two releases [1.2 vs 1.2.1] is the fix for this bug (Bug 182500)." And it was a DHTML bug, not a security bug. -- Andrés

    1. Re:security fixes? not really by jilles · · Score: 5, Funny

      I installed 1.2 as soon as it was released. I appreciate the quick update but must say I didn't notice anything wrong with the pages I visited. Apparently, this bug mostly affected some advertisements on some sites (cnn amongst others). You'd almost consider it a feature because of this.

      --

      Jilles
  5. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    BTW, that FP was posted using Mozilla 1.2.1 which proves its simply the fastest.

  6. What I dont understand... by gamorck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is why a revision point release of a browser is all that big of a deal. I understand this is /. and open source is pretty much the life blood around here - but is it that slow of a news day that the editors are digging for App BLAH has released Version ?.?.x ...? Perhaps /. should do a story on the European Online hate speech ban or be so kind as to give us /. readers an update on the DMCA FatWallet scandal (which has become a lot more interesting IMHO)

    Anyway I guess my point here is to say that I think that instead of relying 100% on submitted news items that /. editors may want to start doing a bit of poking around on their own (beyond the woefully overhyped Anime DVD releases that Taco raves on about). I think that the content of slashdot could be improved a great deal with very little effort on the part of the staff.

    Afterall, isn't there more to "journalism" than reguritating content back to the viewers who told you about it in the first place? That seems logical enough to me. If you want a better browsing experience I suggest you take a trip to http://www.arstechnica.com - while they may not post as many stories - they are far more carefully choosen and presented in such a way that doesn't alienate 50% of viewers by the second sentence (Hint: Check out any Anti MS story here and then check out the browsing statistics for this site)

    Thanks for your time,

    J

    --
    I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    1. Re:What I dont understand... by Julius+X · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason that this is "that big of a deal" on /. is because the full release of 1.2 was pulled last week because of a DHTML bug.

      This is essentially the full release of 1.2, just patched and with an added .1 on it =)

      Cheers.

      --

      -Julius X
      remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
  7. This is a fix release. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the post said... this is a fix release. If you got to sites that use DHTML, or couldn't get Mozilla 1.2 installed (It had a nasty permissions bug on UNIX, which kept it from being run by a normal user). Basically, get this release, but dont expect any cool features... it's just a bug fix release.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:This is a fix release. by pointym5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was no "permissions bug" on Unix. It worked just fine for my non-root user ID.

    2. Re:This is a fix release. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, there was a permissions bug. Bug 163524 would mess up the permissions in the components directory if a earlier version had been installed. This would cause any non-root user to not be able to run mozilla, at all. Most distributions come standard with mozilla, so it's very hard to get a installation without it... making the release a hurdle for practically everyone.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    3. Re:This is a fix release. by mfago · · Score: 3, Informative

      There _still_ is a permissions bug. Hasn't been fixed (for me anyhow) in 1.2.1.

      Should be simple to fix?! Why isn't it?

  8. Work before coffee! by Chester+K · · Score: 5, Funny

    shouldn't be allowed to work before coffee- I posted this at like 8:20 and must've forgotten to click that all important 'Save' button.

    That's ok, I'm sure we'd have seen the story the next two times it's going to run on Slashdot.

    --

    NO CARRIER
  9. Re:DTML... by greechneb · · Score: 5, Informative

    dynamic HTML

    Dynamic HTML is a collective term for a combination of new Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) tags and options, that will let you create Web pages more animated and more responsive to user interaction than previous versions of HTML. Much of dynamic HTML is specified in HTML 4.0. Simple examples of dynamic HTML pages would include (1) having the color of a text heading change when a user passes a mouse over it or (2) allowing a user to "drag and drop" an image to another place on a Web page. Dynamic HTML can allow Web documents to look and act like desktop applications or multimedia productions.

    The features that constitute dynamic HTML are included in Netscape Communications' latest Web browser, Navigator 4.0 (part of Netscape's Communicator suite), and by Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer 4.0. While HTML 4.0 is supported by both Netscape and Microsoft browsers, some additional capabilities are supported by only one of the browsers. The biggest obstacle to the use of dynamic HTML is that, since many users are still using older browsers, a Web site must create two versions of each site and serve the pages appropriate to each user's browser version.
    The Concepts and Features in Dynamic HTML
    Both Netscape and Microsoft support:

    * An object-oriented view of a Web page and its elements
    * Cascading style sheets and the layering of content
    * Programming that can address all or most page elements
    * Dynamic fonts

  10. Re:DTML... by joycea · · Score: 5, Informative

    From one of the bug dependencies at bugzilla...

    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126
    Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126

    If an input filed with type set to hidden is not preceded by either the body
    open tag or text it will be displayed as a text field, but will not have it's
    default value set.

    Reproducible: Always

    Steps to Reproduce:
    1. Save the following in a file:
    <html>
    <form action="/listings/update.php" method=post>
    <input type=hidden name=test1 value=value1> :test1<br>
    test2: <input type=hidden name=test2 value=value2><br>
    </table>
    </form>
    </html>

    2. Load the file in Mozilla

    Actual Results:
    An empty text input field apears before the test ' :test1'

    Expected Results:
    the field should have been hidden and kept its value.

    Workarounds are trivial, the <body> tag or any text, even a period, prior to the
    hidden input will cause it to behave normaly.

  11. Why so much bigger than 1.2? by CodeWheeney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looking at the release notes shows that the only change from 1.2.1 to 1.2 is the fix for the DHTML bug, but the installation images (Win32) went from 10.81 MB (11,339,472 bytes) to 10.95 MB (11,491,024 bytes). Anyone know why it got so much bigger? Was the fix that involved?

    --
    C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
    1. Re:Why so much bigger than 1.2? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when is that much? Depending on the compiler, and how it optimizes, it is quite possible to *remove* code and end up getting a slightly bigger executable.

      And the word we are looking for here is indeed "slightly".

    2. Re:Why so much bigger than 1.2? by mst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Was the fix that involved?

      To my (faint) understanding: Maybe :-)

      Looking at the bug page of bug #182500 on bugzilla.mozilla.org (sorry, direct links blocked from slashdot), the list of associated bugs has 32 entries, and is a result of an incorrect backout of way too much code at some point just before the 1.2 release.

      Somebody closer to the mozilla project could surely give more detailed / accurate info on this though.

    3. Re:Why so much bigger than 1.2? by egoots · · Score: 3, Informative

      The 1.2 release also had a build problem where some of the changes checked into the branch did not get pulled for the build.

      Specifically, from an artical on www.mozillazine.org they say that "the 1.2 release tag was not complete so builds created from that tag may have additional problems"

      I suspect that the difference may be due to this

    4. Re:Why so much bigger than 1.2? by dbaron · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fix to bug 182500 was a single character. An 9 was changed to an 8. There was not a backout of way too much code.

      The problem was that a checkin that added a value to an array was incorrectly backed out. The size of the array was written explicitly instead of using sizeof and preprocessor magic, and the change to the size wasn't backed out along with the value added to the end of the array. The incorrect size caused whatever random data was stored after the end of the array to be read. (The array was in the HTML parser, containing a list of the types of things that are valid children of the HEAD element. Thus, I think the bugs can be traced to things that should have been in the BODY ending up in the HEAD.) Depending on the compiler, this caused different behavior, so the bug was worse on Windows (with MSVC 6.0) or on gcc 3.2 (on x86 Linux) than it was with egcs 1.1.2 (on x86 Linux).

      So, in other words, the size of the binaries shouldn't have changed. That's odd.

  12. Re:DTML... by cheezycrust · · Score: 4, Informative

    In this case, Mozilla ate the first characters of a print() function. Many ads are constructed using print() statements, and if the first characters are lost, you don't get to see the advertisement (which could be good), but you also end up with strange html (which is bad).

    --
    Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
  13. Keep missing that save button please! by a_timid_mouse · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was actually able to download *both* the Windows and Linux binaries in their entirety WITHOUT waiting several hours for the process to complete. I attribute this feat entirely to the slashdot editor who forgot to press "Save". THANK YOU! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

  14. Re:Odd? by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was a screwup. Plain and simple, a bug slipped into the 1.2 release candidate. It happens, and the whole Mozilla project has a better record than most at creating stable releases which actually are. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first release they've ever pulled. Any idea how many firmware and kernel patches Sun and HP have pulled on their OS?

    Give them a break, and if you want stability, never download ANYTHING in the first week.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  15. A few solutions by ultor · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the new release appears to cause problems, be sure to remove/move your profile directory. This is one of the things I always forget to do when installing a new release because most of the time it doesn't make a difference. Also, although the source tarballs aren't posted, I was able to steal one out of the Redhat SRPMS that appears to be authentic (using rpm2tgz/rpm2targz and there's another tarball inside). Now why couldn't they just post the tarball first?

  16. 1.2.1 does have better security than 1.1 or 1.0.1 by asa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the headline isn't completely wrong, Mozilla 1.2.1 only contains the "can't write to dynamically created elements" fix that was breaking some DHTML and page layout. Mozilla 1.2.1 also contains everything that the 1.2 release contained when it was released and then unreleased last week. That included new features, improved performance, better stability and security fixes. So if you're using _any_ oler Mozilla releases you really should upgrade to get all the new 1.2.1 goodness, including improved security.

    For the folks that just downloaded Mozilla 1.2 last week, if you're not having any problems (and it seems like the DHTML issue is a lot less visible on linux) then there's no pressing "security" reason to upgrade to 1.2.1 but you might as well get it for this DHTML fix which is likely to eventually cause you some pain at some site somewhere.

    --Asa

  17. Hmmm ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since over half the slashdot crowd uses IE, should there not be stories out when MS releases new versions of it?

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Hmmm ... by NineNine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, except that you forget... IE is evil, and Mozilla should be worshipped. This is completely arbitrary, and isn't at all based on quality of the programs, bloat, features, bugs, rendering capability, or usage statistics. Damn, man! Remember where you are! This is Slashdot, where facts and objectivity are meaningless!

    2. Re:Hmmm ... by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Since over half the slashdot crowd uses IE, should there not be stories out when MS releases new versions of it?

      Sure - but when was the last release? Way back in September. Have there been any bugs reported since then?

      Do you follow the progress of IE? What are they working on now? Are you able to download beta code? Report bugs that get fixed in a timely manner?

      That is the difference between a community and proprietary software. Maybe you can do these things with IE, I don't really know. I only use it when I am forced to, and more and more that is less often.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    3. Re:Hmmm ... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      " Since over half the slashdot crowd uses IE, should there not be stories out when MS releases new versions of it?"

      Because MSIE is not a community project. There are many, many slashdot readers who contribute to mozilla in terms of code, bug reports, add-ons and so on. There's a whole community of people surrounding this project and many of them also congregate here.

      You can't say that about IE. There is no development community. It's all privately developed by a corporation.

      The mozilla updates are announced so much more than MSIE because they are important because they are developed and perpetuated by members of this community.

  18. Threaded e-mail, wouldn't that be handy? by abischof · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mozilla is a threaded e-mail client, eh? So far, so good. However, it doesn't actually remember the Expand All Threads state.

    So, suppose that you turn on threading and tell Mozilla to Expand All Threads. You now have a nice tree-like view of mail threads :). But, next time you load Mozilla, it'll be back to compressed view again (but still sorted by threads). If threaded mail sounds useful to you, you may want to vote for the bug (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

    --

    Alex Bischoff
    HTML/CSS coder for hire

  19. Re:Chimera?! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I run Chimera at work and Phoenix at home, and I have never been happier with two browsers! Tabbed browsing at home and work that uses the same commands? Rules. Speed? way over Mozilla and IE.

    Now if I could just download OS X for x86.

  20. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just grab the Talkback-enabled ZIP file, skip the installer altogether.

  21. Annoyance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I get really annoyed every time I install a new version of mozilla. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong somehow, but every time I upgrade all my plugins disappear. The first page I have to visit after an upgrade is optimoz.mozdev.org to get my mouse gestures back.

    Is there some way to preserve these plugins that I don't know about?

    And why oh why do I have to be root to install mouse-gestures under linux?

    1. Re:Annoyance by Spacelem · · Score: 3, Informative

      Simply go to your old Mozilla plugins folder and copy all the plugins except npnul32.dll and put them into your new Mozilla plugins folder. Unless the plugins are broken with the new version, this should just work, even if Mozilla is still running.

    2. Re:Annoyance by billbaggins · · Score: 5, Informative
      Is there some way to preserve these plugins that I don't know about?
      Install to a new directory each time. What I do is install to /usr/local/mozilla-$version and then symlink /usr/local/mozilla to that. Then, once you've installed, copy the plugins directory from the old version to the new one (though you'd probably better leave libnullplugin.so alone; easy way to do this is 'cp -iR mozilla-old/plugins mozilla-new/plugins' and say 'no' to the overwrite request. (And remember to change the symlink!)
      And why oh why do I have to be root to install mouse-gestures under linux?
      Well, were you root when you installed mozilla? If not, I don't know... but if you were, then there's the problem! I think there's some sort of script thingy you can do that might help with that though. Check with someone who knows more than I do.

      The problem that I'm running into here is that the installer segfaults while it's trying to install the EN-US language pack. Anyone else have any idea what's going on here?

      --
      "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
      --Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Annoyance by felipeal · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think someone posted a hint about that here on slashdot sometime ago. I took note of it, but haven't tried yet. Anyway, here it is:

      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!

    4. Re:Annoyance by The+J+Kid · · Score: 3, Funny

      even if Mozilla is still running.

      Noooooooo! DON'T!!!!

      I speak from experience..... :(

      --
      Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
  22. Re:Solaris? HA! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
    Try waiting for the Beos version.

    Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick.....

  23. Ack my Themes! by blonde+rser · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Themes are Mozilla version-dependent; thus, themes created for Mozilla version 1.x will not install on Mozilla version 1.2, and above. The same is true with using version 1.2 Mozilla themes on earlier versions of Mozilla."


    has this always been true or is this new to 1.2... I don't remember my themes not working before but it may just be my memory that's not working
    1. Re:Ack my Themes! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For Version numbers (1.0 1.2, etc) I think this has always been true.

      This time the upgrade really sucked... I was running Mozilla 1.0.1, upgraded to 1.2 and everything worked.

      Then I installed 1.2.1, and couldn't get mozilla to load. Uninstalled, deleted the c:\program files\mozilla.org, reinstalled, but Moz still frezes on install...

      By reading other comments, it's probably still the themes that freeze Mozilla upon load. I need to find and remove some registry setting somewhere...

      Now I'm back to 1.0.1, and it all seems to work just fine. Think I'll hold off on 1.2.1 for a bit...

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  24. So if there's just been one bug fix... by yoz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... how come I now can't have both my mail and browser windows open at the same time? Worked fine in 1.2 final. Now the mozilla process won't even die when I close all the windows (well, all one of the windows, since now, in an obvious bid to Highlander fans, there can be only one).

    Let me demonstrate where I am with Mozilla:

    start of tether [----------------|--] end of tether

    Don't tell me to bug it, I've already filed loads of bugs (very few of which have even been looked at, let alone fixed), and I haven't the time. 1.1 kept crashing on me, the 1.2 beta was worse, and you can forget about using the nightlies if you don't want to hit completely random regressions every other minute.

    No, I know I'm not paying for it, and I know it's a community effort, whatever. Let me just have five minutes of rage. (Actually, let me have the original 1.2 final installer back, because at least that one seemed to work, and minor DHTML bugs are something I'll put up with if they let me read the web and my mail at the same time)

    -- Yoz

    1. Re:So if there's just been one bug fix... by asa · · Score: 4, Informative

      (Actually, let me have the original 1.2 final installer back, because at least that one seemed to work, and minor DHTML bugs are something I'll put up with if they let me read the web and my mail at the same time)

      No one ever took it from you. If you deleted it after the install just go back to ftp and download it again. I'd recommend that you do an uninstall and remove any traces of the Mozilla install directory then try a reinstall of 1.2.1. There should be no problems with a clean install. If that doesn't work then try creating a new profile and see if that works (you can copy your old profile data over to the new profile if necessary). I'm surprised you're having this difficulty and hope that one of the steps I suggested would fix it. The chances of 1.2.1 introducing a problem that didn't exist for you in 1.2 are about zero so I suspect that some other problem is at work here, possibly cruft left over from a beta install. Like I suggested above, removing the entire beta install directory should clear up any problems if it was a beta build problem that's manifesting in the final release. Good luck.

      --Asa

    2. Re:So if there's just been one bug fix... by themassiah · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's funny. My current fortune on slashdot is as follows:

      "The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure."

      --
      - Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
    3. Re:So if there's just been one bug fix... by yoz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks for the advice! I did a complete uninstall and reinstall, no luck. Then I moved my profile dir elsewhere, and then it worked fine.

      So now, being faced with having to rebuild my profile from scratch, I wasn't entirely happy, so I took a different route: Backed up my profile and thought about what I could delete that would solve the problem fastest while still keeping the majority of my data and preferences.

      Most obvious was registry.dat, but it's over a meg and I probably have lots of important stuff in there. So after some looking around, I killed chrome/chrome.rdf.

      Bingo! Works fine now.

      How odd.

      Still not entirely happy about the experience, but, as you suggested, I've been trying nightlies so that may have introduced the cruft. (I've a sneaky feeling it may have been the Orbit skin, though, in which case that's a nasty bug)

      -- Yoz

  25. Re:Solaris? by asa · · Score: 5, Informative

    How come the solaris releases are always days or even weeks behind?

    mozilla.org makes binaries for Mac9, OSX, Linux, and Windows. All other builds (sometimes as many as a dozen or so platforms) are contributed builds.We release when we've got the four major platforms done and then the Solaris and FreeBSD and OS/2 and BeOS and all the other builds arrive later.

    --Asa

  26. Minor release patches? by beeblebrox87 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why must Mozilla always release only the full version, even for minor fix releases like this one. I am on a satellite connection, so it took me hours to download 1.2, and now I will have to download almost the exact same thing all over again. Can't they release both a full version and a patch for the previous version?

    1. Re:Minor release patches? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree, but for a different reason.

      Every time I get a new Mozilla, I have to uninstall and reinstall the entire thing. Trying to install on top inevitably leads to problems (not that I don't try to make it work.) For instance, this time, the Bookmark Sidebar couldn't load my bookmarks. When I uninstalled (and eliminated the resources) and reinstalled, they worked again.

      Of course, this is under Windows. I never had problems like this undir Linux.

      Anyway, I think that a Windows patch would probably leave enough alone that I'd be able to go along my merry way without this much hassle.

  27. Re:Where's the tarball?!? by asa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With most projects, the tgz'd (or bz2'd) source file is in plain site, but I can never seem to find the one for Mozilla.

    Mozilla source tarballs are _always_ a day or two later than the release binaries. We only have so many people working on this and so many machines to make this all happen. We release when we've got the four primary platforms built and a release tag created. That's usually late at night and when it's done we go home and the next day get to work on creating the source tarball. If you can't wait a day or two then pull MOZILLA_1_2_1_RELEASE from cvs.

    --Asa

  28. From the horse's mouth by aWalrus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From CmdrTaco's journal:


    Icing on the mornings cake: I got up on time, drove to work, posted a story, and then forgot to press *save* on the goddamn web form. So for hte next 2 hours I keep deleting submission after submission about Mozilla 1.2.1 thinking "geezus, are people blind?" and not realizing that no, I am in fact stupid. Of course, why so many people submit a bug fix release of a web browser is beyond me. Some stories I'd rather not post, but sheer volume of submissions really makes it impractical to ignore them
    --

    --
    Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
  29. What a difference a character makes by endico · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You'll be amused to know that Mozilla 1.2.1 differs from Mozilla 1.2 by one character.

    Ok, not exactly. It actually differs by 34 characters. The bug fix itself was a one character change (changed a '9' to an '8'). Changing the version string in various places from "1.2" to "1.2.1" took 33 characters.

  30. Re:Potential feature? by alistair · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is an excellent browser toolbar for mozilla which emulates the googlebar at;

    http://googlebar.mozdev.org/

    This seems to be having problems with the Linux build at present but two other projects linked from this page are Mycroft which has plug ins to allow you to search over 170 different search engines (check it out) and Easysearch which allows you to search google and others.

    While exploring the mozdev site, check out Mouse Gestures, Pie Menus (both under Optimoz) and the Multizilla toolbar. These, for me, have made browsing fun and efficient once again.

    If you are keen, there is an easy to follow tutorial on building your own toolbars at;
    Building a toolbar for Netscape 7 (applies to Mozilla too). I used this to write a toolbar to search our Corporate Directory, Intranet and Google, It took me three days to write from scratch but is now quite widely used.

  31. Re:Potential feature? by Malc · · Score: 3, Informative

    I haven't tried under 1.2.1, but GVdP's instructions worked for me under 1.2 on both Win2K and WinXP.

  32. Re:DTML... by C14L · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or for short:

    DHTML = HTML + CSS + JavaScript

    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    ??? I am not using "so many caps", I am using abreviation! What the heck...

  33. Re:No source yet? by sconest · · Score: 3, Informative

    As usual, source tarballs will be released some days after.
    In the meanwhile, get the source from CVS (The tag is MOZILLA_1_2_1_RELEASE)

    --
    Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
  34. My 2 big gripes about Mozilla by vasqzr · · Score: 3, Interesting


    1 - Tabbed browsing is cool, but you should get a confirmation that you'd like to close the main browser window when you have 23 tabs open

    2 - CTRL-SHIFT-L to open a web address. Make it CTRL-O.

  35. Use the Net Installer for smaller downloads by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I see your point about just getting a patch, but you should also know that you can just install using the Net Installer, which gives you a 200KB program to select the exact configuration you want to install, and THEN it downlaods and installs.

    http://www.mozilla.org/releases/

    Scroll down looking for "Net Installer" .

    --
    One simple rule for its versus it's
  36. Re:font smoothing in KDE? by silvaran · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mozilla.org now has xft RPMs available for RH8. Check a mirror (mozilla.org is slow right now), but in any case it should be around /mozilla/releases/mozilla1.2.1/Red_Hat_8x_RPMS/xft /RPMS/i386

    You can replace "xft" with "vanilla" if you want (to get the non-xft support), and RPMS with SRPMS if you want to build RPMS from source (perhaps for a different arch, remove the i386).

    Note that Mozilla isn't exactly dependent directly on KDE. To get smoothing, you actually use XFT, with is unrelated to KDE (KDE uses it through QT, but neither are a part of each other).

    Another poster mentioned the xft support is experimental. He's probably right, so ymmv. I've been running the RPMS I mentioned above for a few hours with 0 problems on RH8, and it looks absolutely gorgeous.