Slashdot Mirror


Run For Cover; It's Mozilla 1.4 Alpha

asa writes "Mozilla 1.4 Alpha is out. This release features dynamic image and table resizing in Composer, smooth scrolling (see release notes for enabling this feature,) and usability improvements to spam filtering. In addition to these feature improvements, 1.4a also contains fixes for performance, stability, standards support and website compatibility. This is an alpha release so expect bugs, and don't use it unless you are willing to live with the risks inherent in such a release (ie. crashes, data loss, etc.). More information is available in the release notes."

12 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Smooth scrolling not on by default? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not on by default? What's up with this? Those less technical users who value eye candy like this are the ones that don't know how to turn this thing on and they wouldn't know that such a thing exists, either...

    1. Re:Smooth scrolling not on by default? by Sam+the+Nemesis · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I am with Mozilla developers on this decision. In my opinion, this is just an eye candy. But when it comes to usability, it is a real irritating stuff.

      Have you been through the frustrating experience of scrolling in IE with this smooth scrolling on?

    2. Re:Smooth scrolling not on by default? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they don't know what "alpha" or "beta" means.

      Believe me, those peope *do* exist.

    3. Re:Smooth scrolling not on by default? by RoLi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why do so many people believe that "less technical users [are those] who value eye candy"?

      Is there even something, I'm not even asking for proof, just a hint or some study that supports the hypothesis that less technical users want eye-candy?

      I have several hard facts that are supporting the theory that less technical users don't give a shit about eye candy:

      • Less technical users used MS DOS for over half a decade when Apple and others were available as alternative
      • In the late 90's, Enlightment was sure one of the most - if not the most - eyecandy infested Windowmanager. Yet it was only used by geeks, less technical users didn't care.
      • The first search-engines like Yahoo put more and more eyecande (and advertisments) on their sites - and Google wiped the floor with them by providing the simplest search engine interface possible with absolutely no eye-candy, just a white page.

      I also tried MacOSX. In the first 15 minutes, you are really blown away. It's smooth, everything is animated, everything looks good. After about 20 minutes, you get used to the effects, after an hour they just slow you down and go on your nerves. I could only choose between 2 different types of animation for minimize, so you can't even get rid of some of it.

      If eye-candy gets into the way, it should be off by default, IMO and smooth-scrolling is a prime example.

    4. Re:Smooth scrolling not on by default? by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there even something, I'm not even asking for proof, just a hint or some study that supports the hypothesis that less technical users want eye-candy?

      It seems to me that it's based off of the assumption that a lot of tech people consider "non tech" people to be stupid because they don't know how to use a computer, and thus have this belief that they must be easily amused by dancing spinning things. I think many tech people liking the CLI, vs regular people liking the GUI has probably contributed towards this.

      I've seen it go both ways, but in all honesty I think users can appreciate something that works and is intuitive. Just because it's cute doesn't make it at all useable - and I've seen plenty of pretty looking programs that are horrific in the terms of usability and ease of use. It's probably somewhat true at the GUI vs CLI level. I mean I've seen people who are absolutely terrified at typing commands at a computer, but are more than happy to use programs where you have to sift through a million menu's a dialog boxes to get anything - or even worse as in MS Office: menus that change.

    5. Re:Smooth scrolling not on by default? by Jondor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Why do so many people believe that "less technical users [are those] who value eye candy"?

      Personaly I don't. Less technical people use what their boss tells them to use. They don't have the time, energy and mostly interrest to fiddle around with settings and toys.
      (and if they had the interrest, they wouldn't stay "less technical" very long..;)

      --
      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
  2. Re:NTLM on Windows! by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm confused as to why you didn't do an incremental deployment or a test deployment. Seems like either would of easily caught this, with even the most modest of testing.

  3. OS X eye candy by alexhmit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For 15 minutes, it blows you away. After 30 minutes, it fades into the background. After an hour, someone convinces you that they slow you down. After two weeks, you realize that they provide you with visual clues that make you faster, because you know what is going on without thinking, because that "eye candry" is a useful part of the UI...

    Alex

  4. Re:Export Restrictions by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "p.s. Taliban controlled areas? I thought the Taliban had been defeated."

    What made you think that? So far they've failed to even achieve their primary reason for attacking Afghanistan: capturing Osama bin Laden.

  5. Re:NTLM on Windows! by weave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I agree. But as with most things in life, there's more to the story than appears.

    It all began in January of 2002, when the decision was made here to move from NT on desktops and NT 4 domain controler to XP on desktops and 2000 server and Active Directory on servers. The plan was to test the environment in vmware machines and get bugs worked out between January-April of that time period, change the servers to AD between semesters in May, then deploy XP desktop to some end users during the slow summer months, then do the deployment in August.

    We had used Netscape 4.7 for web and mail client during the NT days and had some nifty logon scripts to edit and install prefs.js and a netscape profile so users didn't have to configure squat. The profile locaton was changable by a simple registry change. It worked very well, the masses were happy.

    As anyone in academia is aware, it's a chaotic environment and crap kept being thrown on my team left and right, keeping them from working on this project. You have to understand that most faculty are primma donnas. Getting them to understand that a project of this scope requires a bunch of techs to basically disappear for months and not available to handle their pet projects, grants, and last minute crisis, escapes them. "We are here for the students" is the common mantra (which is true, but often they are best served by, ah like, decent planning).

    My pleas for understanding went on deaf ears. "We just signed a contract to provide xxx training and need this lab up in two weeks" for example. "Drop everything and do it."

    Now, understand, I'm a manager, not an administrator. I don't get to ask too many questions, I'm here to implement upper decisions and to take the blame when things fail.

    So, come May, we're not ready to move to Active Directory. I announce that we won't meet the August changeover date. I get my ass reamed. "Textbooks for XP have been ordered, syllabi changed, we can't go back now."

    So, panic kicks in and a lot was done with little testing. We also had hoped to roll out Netscape 7 but it didn't come out until the first week of classes, so we went with Mozilla 1.0.1 instead.

    Overall, the deployment was quite a success except for the Mozilla issue. I got lucky in a lot of areas. But people only see the things that fail.

    So yeah, in an ideal world, I could have avoided it through proper planning. And I got shafted due to decisions and situations beyond my control. Can you realize how frustrating it is to see decisions being made that will doom your project to failure, have no one care, and then when they do fail as you predict, you are the one who gets the blame? There is a reason why Dilbert is such a popular comic strip.

    And if you think CYA memos would have helped, they don't. I do them all the time, remind people of my dire warnings, and you just come off like a whining bitch.

    But I am the manager, and it's my job to take one for the team, so thanks for reminding me of my place...

    (Note to self: Never post to slashdot hoping to share real-life knowledge again. Everytime I do, I regret it. Just like I'll regret this one since it'll get picked apart and criticized further. It's like being in an abusive relationship. I know I should leave this place, but keep coming back for more abuse for some reason...)

  6. SPELLCHECKER ... ADD IT DAMN-IT!!! by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is it going to take to get them to add the spellchecker from mozdev to the main Mozilla CVS. Smooth scrolling, great fantastic but where's the spellchecker?!?. I'm getting really tired of the "oh ... next release" promises. Stop adding menial improvements and get this moved to the main!!! Even Slashdot is a perfect example, imagine ... right click, check spelling your posts. It's certainly a hell of alot more important than "oh look, the redraw is somewhat less jerky when you scroll", wow, fantastic. Come on, somebody with a say get this moved in PLEASE!

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  7. Not really so surprising by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's interesting/annoying that since version 1.2, Mozilla only supports Mac OSX, especially given that a large portion of the Apple community is unwilling to move to the new system.

    This shouldn't really be so surprising. With OSX replacing MacOS, there really are just two major operating system platforms out there, Windows and unix, of which OSX is one of the many varieties of the latter. It's unix underpinnings make OSX much easier for developers to port their projects to.

    MacOS for all its good features is a very unique and hence more difficult to support operating system, at least from the standpoint of cross platform compatibility. Impossible? Obviously not. But since MacOS is no longer under active development, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it isn't really worthwhile for the "official" project to continue to develop for it. There are only a finite amount of development resources out there so it makes sense to develop for the platforms with the best prospects moving forward, namely Windows and unix.

    I'm half sure that someone will probably take up the banner and try to port the more recent versions to MacOS. And that's one of the great things about open source. But there is a cost to remaining with older code bases. You take the risk of being left behind. That is among the reasons I no longer run OS/2, Windows 3.1, MacOS and a few other operating systems I've used heavily over the years. Eventually the costs of not switching become tooh great. Apparently for many Mac owners they aren't at that point yet. But they will be sooner or later. It's inevitable. The maintainers of the mozilla project simply recognize this fact and chose to deal with it now rather than later.