Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla, Gecko, Netscape, And Their Future At AOL
bluephone writes "I've been lucky enough to receive some interesting information from within the Netscape/AOLTW firewall, although in light of AOL's recent massive losses, poor outlook, and high profile execs resigning their positions, I'm not sure if these battle plans are still intact. As it stands, Netscape 7.x has one major release left for the forseeable future, but Gecko will soon overshadow everything, becoming the core platform for all of AOL's Internet content distribution. For all the details and much more, read it here."
woohoo!
It will finally force web authors to support standards not monopolies.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
wow.
I was led to this place, a place I can't understand. A place that demands my belief just as strongly as my disbelie
I think this bubble is getting ready to burst. The only thing preventing it previously was its massive size. Too bad for Time-Warner! They really dicked over their company. Im sure the execs promoting the merger got gobs of cash, tho.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Gecko will save you 30% or more on Internet browsers... wait... Did i get that wrong?
Good deal, AOL is doomed for one reason- people learned how to use the internet. It was the intermediary, but no longer with the advent of popular broadband.
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
Every now & again we get another "leaked" memo/whatever from AOL hinting that they're going to drop IE.
And every time, AOL are just about to go into negotiation with Microsoft & want a bargaining chip to reduce licensing costs.
I, for one, am grateful that the Mozilla project has remained somewhat separate from AOL. Sure, it's got some high profile Netscape people working on it, but in a traditional business sense it's not connected to AOL at all.
AOL are up to numerous shenanigans right now. They're banning legitimate e-mail from TONS of servers. Their support for side projects is waning. Subscribers are leaving. It's a mass exodus, and all because they won't get with the times.
I have clients who haven't been getting enquiries from their Web site, simply because a whole batch of Web host IPs got banned from sending mail to AOL.
I used to be semi-pro AOL. I knew most Internet geeks didn't like their service, but I recommended them to newbies, since they do have a good 'get running quickly' service that's easy to understand. No more. My clients complain they receive TONS of spam now, despite AOL's OTT screening and banning.
AOL is getting everything it deserves. Let's hope this sealed off network dies a death. Even Bill Gates had the insight to ditch his plans to have MSN as a sealed off network. It's time for AOL to do the same.
Mozilla will live on regardless.
mogorific carpentry experiments
So now, if someone says their ISP is "Netscape", you're not sure if they're clueless or really telling the truth.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Mozilla, Gecko, Netscape has a future at YOU!
Who'da thunk that AOL would become a heavyweight in the battle for standardization on the internet against Microsoft? Strange days indeed!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Every time I see an AOL commercial on TV, I think "man, their advertising department needs to be shot."
If I wasn't so entrenched in my current e-mail, I'd consdier getting AOL on top of my RoadRunner account. For the same price as RR, I'd get a whole slew of content et al that isn't out on the web at large.
I remember how AOL used to be, back in the days before my parents bailed and got a local ISP. It was fast, volomious, and the "custom AOL" bits were far slicker than anything i've seen before or since.
Forget about the ISP bit--let the market have that crowd. AOL should go after folks who have an internet connection, by promoting what they can do that the rest of the 'net can't.
If their only pitch is that they're easy to use, then they're going to get taken off just like any other set of training wheels.
If AOL wants to pay less for IE, they could show that someone somewhere is making it a free download.
On an unrelated note, Wonder why Phoenix developement seems to have slowed down. Their 0.5 release was two mohts ago.
How about "YES, I'm a Slashdot reader... and an AOL user."
I was a victim of the mentioned "Black Wednesday" and from the view I got from the inside, forward thinking like this is quickly brought down, and back in line with the corporate philosophy that "we can do no wrong". I don't know how many times I worked hard to make a positive change within the company just to end up suffering for it, ultimately losing my job. (Posted AC for obvious reasons)
This wouldn't have happenned if they had supported FreeBSD instead of linux. All companies which support linux have been dying by the dozens.
I can't wait till they die. Or at least sell off their "non-core assets" as they split apart.
AOL took a look at the Braves (which they now own, along with the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers), and decided that what the Series contender needed was:
A) to trade Kevin Millwood, best pitcher in the NL last year, to the Phillies for basically nothing in return.
B) let Cy Young winner Tom Glavine go to the Mets (both divison rivals, to boot)
and of course C) raise ticket prices.
We here in Atlanta are glad to reap the benefits of AOL's committment to quality. Paging Ted Turner.......
The real question is: does AOL have a future?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I have cracked the hidden code of your name!
i -> i
j -> f
m -> u
n -> l
p -> e
s -> r
t -> a
YOU FAIL IT!
YES, I'm a Christian... and a RPG gamer.
Urmmm, and? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?
You all suck.
Not exactly on topic, but Mozilla 1.3b is out. I don't think anyone has pointed that out yet... but don't shoot me if I'm wrong!
Some new stuff, including image "auto-sizing" which is kinda nifty.
At least in some areas. Want to do web design? Then you have to learn X, Y and Z. Learning M and N because you feel like it won't always cut it!
AOL is a terrible ISP. I used it for years and years, since it was v2.0. 1994, i believe. It was great, then was terrible then now is just adequate, but below par.
Alot of the "content" they have is because of the investment of other companies... People are pulling away because their "ease of use" ideals are shot.
AOL also screws up alot of different connections; takes proprietary controls in network settings and such. It's hard to network with AOL as your ISP or even resident on a system, and i think thats one of the reasons they are slowly dying.
The one thing i adore about AOL is their Mail service. The amount of spam I recieve on my XXXXX@aol.com account is actually quite limited and it's relatively secure... *Cough*Outlook Worms*Cough*
If they pull out of ISP-ing and just become an Uber-Browser/Mail Client for maybe 5 or 10$ a month and offer some of the great features- they could turn over their ISP Tech to hosting for example and become a huge webhosting mecca, for users and such- it'd be a big turn-around for them, in my opinion.
We'll see what they do with themselves now, i suppose...
...Kill Netscape, make Mozilla the only browser you offer.
...try to make products with a purpose, not just because you have programmers and have to keep them busy. :)
Take Mozilla, and separate the Mail, Composer, and Instant messaging aspects of the program and build them into separate downloads...get rid of all the other bloat..
Kill ICQ and AIM, and come up with one Instant messenger, that uses both ICQ numbers and AIM nicknames.
...and lastly try to be profitable.
Granted, I think AOL sucks. I wouldn't use it. But no one (including anyone in Soviet Russia) is forced to use it.
What about Xbox Live users in areas where Time Warner Cable is the only cable company and the telephone company does not provide DSL service? In their case, the only residential-priced high-speed Internet access option is through a company owned by AOL.
Will I retire or break 10K?
YOU do... and that's great. Actually a very valid point you have. The problem is will little tiny companies such as, oh, CITIBANK that have a "few" customers! What is a shame is the fact that they have to use IE to bank. I've tried Citibank for Business online, and Safari fails. KDE fails. Mozilla works, but only with the prefs bar plugin to change the id string to IE on WinXP. Otherwise Citibank fails. The problem is not the sites you design, but the corporate sites that millions of people would like to use to shop, bank, etc to make their lives a little easier. And needing IE to use these sites makes life easier, but a lot less secure.
I've had e-mail exchanged with Citibank on this topic, and they only test for IE and, to quote, "most of the time Netscape too". MOST OF THE TIME? Great.
If 32,000,000+ people are using Gecho engine (assuming AOL makes the switch), this will be great because it could very well force companies to do what you do! USe their frontpage but with the propper settings so HTML is clean and pure and written as per the standards. This can only be DoublePlusGood(TM) for IE, Netscape, Gecho, Moz, KDE, Safari et. al.
I have used AOL quite a bit (3 of my 4 computers bought at different times came with free 6 months of AOL each).
3
With most AOL versions, I noticed that AOL browser was really using IE behind the scenes(albeit few extra bugs and inferior performance).
They didn't even put Netscape on their own product!! I hope that browser wars continue and Mozilla/Gecko/Konquerer/Opera etc become better...
AOL is fading out because it was based on premise that most users are dumb/untrained enough to figure out the web themselves. But as users are catching on, they are noticing that they can get better value for money with broadband... AOL just didn't adapt well assuming that there will always be plethora of people who want the simplicity and will pay $23.90 per month for that.
Also, check out this hilarious MP3 - http://www.trashtalkerdoll.com/sounds/indian_5.mp
So pay $x per month for their access-AOL-from-another-ISP service (yes it does exist).
The dangerous hypothetical case here deals with those ISPs who offer exclusive content but do not offer a reduced-price "bring your own access" plan like AOL does.
Will I retire or break 10K?
By the way, netscape is already based on Gecko... so... that blurb is stupid.
This whole system of "have the ignorant moron who sends us the link write the intro paragraph" is highly flawed.
Ah DO NOT get it!! What the fuck is my man Shrub Jr a-waitin' for? Let's try to see his reasons:
1. For Saddam to begin developin' them nukear weapons of mass distraction?? After all, all that talk about scary Saddam and his weapons of mass distractions is sure distracting ME from thinkin' 'bout that bad US economy that's already slippin' back into recession. No wait, Ah GOT it! For so he can rake in da profits?!! Mebbe he is a-waitin' for them gas stations to raise their prices to 2 dollars a gallon? Uh, mebbe not. Ok, let's try another reason then.
2. Mebbe he be awaitin' for them wimpy countries in UN such as them wine drinkin' an' cheese eatin' French and grumpy Germans to tell him, NO, You CANNOT attack Iraq by passin' a second resolution for UN inspectors to continue "inspectin'"? We all know them inspections are a sham. Iraqis are lyin' and everyone knows it! How do Ah know this? well, reason
3. Powell told us so! He even used drawings to prove it to us, and Ah for one am 110% convinced US gotto attack Iraq 'cuz Ah'm SO scared them Iraqis and that crazy Saddam are thinkin' of killin' me. It doesn't really matter when western journalists went to visit the site of the alleged "camp" where al Queda are making "poisonous gas" it turns out there is NOTHING there but Kurds?. It doesn't really matter the British report turned out to be a
plagiarizing job from the essays of some 29 years old student! After all, Powell cannot lie, can he????
Or mebbe Shrub Jr is a-waitin'
4. for the hundreds of thousand people around the world to come out on Feb 15 and tell him and that lap dog Blair "NO WAR IN OUR NAME!" so he can laugh at them? Hmm...Ah think ahm finally gettin' warm! After all,
5. Shrub Jr is obviously refusing to listen to Blix when The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell made. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. gee, now I am SO confused! Who to believe, who to believe?? Mr Powell, who obviously says what he is told to say or Mr Hans Blix?? In fact, Mr Blix contradicted just about EVERY evidence Mr Powell presented-from the drawings of the "mobile chemical labs" to the claims the Iraqis knew in advance which sites the UN would inspectors would visit. In short, Mr Blix blew a hole through ALL of Mr Powell evidence, reducing it to smithereens. Ah doant think ah like Mr. Blix no more...;-(
6. Mebbe Shrub Jr still feels he hasn't made his case and hasn't been able to prove to the world Saddam is a manace? Well, y'all know what ah say to that? Screw the fucken world! Shrub Jr is in da house is he be takin' charge! So what if the majority of da fucken world still thinks Shrub Jr just a-wants the oo'l? Let them stop him if they can! Bwa-hahahha ah say! Y'all think this is the end? Hey, this be only the beggining! After Iraq, Arafat is a-gonna be eliminated. Them noddles eatin' North Koreans better stop be a-jumpin' up and daon, 'cuz they be next on da list! After them is Iran! After Iran is Saudi Arabia and so on!
Damn, ah STILL havent figured out WHY Shrib Jr is a-waitin'...But he be a smart an' educated man, so he must have a good reason, right? RIGHT!! Ah fooly trust him, for he shuree knows what he be doin'!
http://www.ebmb.org/mbs/mbs.php4?num=1044870015
Are they completely different codebases?
Ninnleninnleninnleninnle
BATMAN!
Mozilla: Destroy all Browsers
no thats never been done before....
Knoppix
List of Mirrors
or has it?
--meh--
I have netscape 6.something (one of those that netscape released before Mozilla was at 1.0) under win2k on my laptop. Hotmail gave me a connection refused error when my wife tried to use it to access her hotmail account the other day. Netscape 4.7 under Linux works just fine with hotmail. In this case, since netscape 6 was so buggy anyway, I am inclined to give hotmail the benefit of the doubt. But still, any program remotely pretending to be anything close to a browser should be able to at least fetch the html that a site serves up even if it can't render it exactly the way the page designer expected.
FreeSpeech.org
There was a time in the not too-distant past when this might have mattered. "AOL's adoption of Netscape and Gecko will force websites to comply ... blah, blah, blah." But it's hard for me to believe now, that in their weakened state, AOL carries more than a faint wisp of the influence they might have wielded. How many balls can you drop before the audience yawns and goes home?
Wouldn't web design be so much easier if everyone just used Word? Forms, macros, print preview.
This is what I tell people who design only for IE.
Who cares about standards? Obviously idiots don't.
I think the biggest problem AOL faces right now is conservatism. They're big, so they have alot to lose, so they "play it safe".
Yet if they don't bet the farm on something meaningful pretty much right away, there won't be a farm to bet.
Yes, they'd be hideously stupid not to sell a "baby AOL" branded thru Lindows/Mandrake and Wal-mart. They could/should also provide a similar, rebrandable offering through computer shops and other vendors, not just Wal-mart! I know that alot of vendors would start selling it immediately if they could get a buck or two per month + some setup.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
From the article:
Any references?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
AOL lost no money in 2002. In fact they made $7 billion. These "news reports" are journalists misleading their readers again because having a headline "AOL looses $100 billion" sounds cool and sells copy. In fact, the "loss" refers to the fact that AOL Time Warner is worth less than when they were valued at the time of the merger. Amazing news! Imagine a company worth less now than at the peak of the dot-com bubble!
That's Gecko, not GEICO.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Is Gecko actually a good thing? When Apple were looking for a browser core to use for Safari, they chose khtml over gecko, because it's cleaner. In reply to this one of the Mozilla guys (I think it was jwz, but don't quote me on that) basically said 'Fair point, our API is really bad in a lot of places and our code is bloated and ugly' (I paraphrase). I use Mozilla, and its memory usage when I last looked (yesterday) was 81MB. In contrast Opera was sitting at 10MB, rendering pages faster and supporting CSS better (Moz still doesn't support CSS counters, so I can't number headings automatically, for example.) If AOL, or anyone, are thinking of using Gecko then they need to atack the source code with a chainsaw first. 81MB may not be a lot to the average /. reader, but there are a lot of AOL customers out there with only 128MB of ram (or even less, you can run Windows 95 quite happily in 32MB, and I'm sure a lot of their customers still do).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There is no way you want AOL to die right now. With the economy down the crapper all this country needs is another company going belly up. Although I do not like them personally, I realize that they are a pretty big employer. As long as AOL can pay its employees they should try and reorganize/review their business, but not go out of it. During the past fiscal year we had enough Enrons. Let's not make it a habit :)
My only concern is that AOLTW continues to pay their development team - contrary to what some people think, Mozilla isn't all coded by like-minded geeks scattered throughout the Internet; a hell of a lot of it was bashed out by salaried Netscape employees. But if AOL want Gecko, I guess they'll have to keep coughing up.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Uhhmmm... No, it's not.
If he's got this wrong, what else has he got wrong?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Uhhmmm.... yes it is.
He means the Mac OS X AOL Client, which definitely uses Gecko. You are talking about Safari, an Apple product which has nothing to do with AOL.
Gerv
AOL lost no money in 2002. In fact they made $7 billion.
Have you actually looked at their financial statements? Apparently not. AOL had $2,291,000,000 in revenue in 2002. AOL/TW had $9,424,000,000 in revenue in 2002. (note that is revenues, not profits) They had a net loss of $54,244,000,000. And in fact they incurred this huge loss in 2002 due to writing off $80 Billion in goodwill. Goodwill is essentially how much they overpaid for their purchase of Time Warner. If you pay more than you can afford, you take a loss. What bit of that is "accounting bullshit"?
you're arguing a different point. The parent was defening FrontPage 2002. Citibank may be written exclusively for IE, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Frontpage. In fact, I would say that anyone who bothers to do a browser check is a bit too advanced to use FP to do anything other than draw tables.
I am not defending IE-only sites and neither was the parent. He was defending FrontPage 2002.
But, in response to your point, we need to keep hounding anyone who produces www sites that require a certain browser. About 2 years ago, most comples sites had to ignore Netscape 4.x (or do twice as much work) because it was such a piece of crap. After a couple years of that mindset, you can't expect everyone to reverse that in a couple months. I am lucky enough to have been able to test my sites on Netscape 6.1 enough to be able to code once for Netscape and IE and have it work, but that is only because I put in the time to "unlearn" much of what I was doing in the years 2000 and 2001.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
how do you get your backgrounds to work correctly in table cells in IE? IE puts the top of the image at the top of the cell when it's supposed to be at the top of the page. Netscape and Safari (the only other browsers I've tested on) handle table cell backgrounds correctly. This causes a bit of disruption for my pages, but I can work around it.
How do you handle it?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
No offence to the author of the article, but is there any basis to it besides I've been lucky enough to receive some interesting information from within the Netscape/AOLTW firewall?
It may be true -- don't know -- but I need a reason to believe it's not merely rumor. How do we know your source is reliable or well-informed?
When Time-Warner and AOL merged everybody said the media world had changed forever. Turns out they were wrong. In the high flying days of the stock market boom any merger seemed like a good idea. I am willing to bet all the people involved in the TW/AOL merger think it was a big mistake now. What were they thinking anyway? "In the future the Internet will only consist dial-up connections through AOL servers and we can give them Time-Warner content". People move on and sometimes technology does not. I am not saying that AOL will cease to exist, there will always be a place for them in the Internet world, but to believe that they would be a dominant player because they are right now is ludicrous. I predict TW/AOL will eventually become two separate companies again, the writing is on the wall.
Now people seriously considering Khtml for their embedded browser efforts. Including us ,we longer need to wait mozilla to start fixing up the core Gecko(it still stinks, if you expect something more than NN4). We are taking Apple's example and have constrated our efforts on Khtml instead of messing with a Gozilla huge source tree. Khtml really is written and designed clean cut.
AOL did something good!
Now, all we have to do is rid them of all their evilness, the moneychasing and all and we'll be happy! Yay!
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
Every story submission on slashdot amounts to nothing more than plagerism. All they do is copy the first paragraph of the story they link to. It makes it look like the submitter wrote the text, when in fact the text has been stolen.
Write your own damned words!
It's worked with Mozilla as long as I can remember.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.