Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
Mister.de writes "Mozilla 1.4 RC 1 is out. We've added lots of features and fixed lots of bugs since Mozilla 1.3. Help us shake it down in preparation for Mozilla 1.4 final. More information is available in the release notes. Mozilla is an open-source Web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability."
He actually explained to us what Mozilla is on Slashdot. Priceless. =)
In any event, I'll do my part in bug testing since I am not smart enough to contribute useful code myself. I love the open source model: even though everyone isn't a computer scientist, we can all still do our part in making a terrific program.
PS: .
I really don't think it's necessary to announce every release cnadidate when there will likely be a couple. Alpha/beta/final? Great. RC's? Eh.
I downloaded and started using the previous version of Mozilla the day just before RC1 was released. I hate when it happens :/
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
So is this the version that mozilla moves to a firebird type of functionality.
I do security
Excellent. This was the only reason I kept a copy of explorer around. Now to see if it works. :)
He actually explained to us what open source is on Slashdot. Priceless. =)
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
If the next release is to be based on Firebird and Thunderbird, that is separate components instead of the suite, call the thing 2.0.
It's a huge change in the code base, it's a huge change in the user interface, just call a spade a spade and release it as 2.0.
What is the rational for calling it 1.5? That'd be more confusing, in my opinion, than letting everyone know "Hey, big changes here. Check it out."
Do everyone a favor and call the release after 1.4 2.0.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
This gets rid of the major bug that prevented me from installing 1.4beta on my windows box. Good to see all the bug fixes and feature improvements. Unfortunatly the 1.4final release is likely to be one of the last for the Mozilla suite. I know a lot of the devs like the more componentized Firebird series but as an end user I love the suite. Guess I'll just have to suck it up and get used to it =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Some links:2 1639.html
h tml?tag=nl
"Does Netscape Deal Mean 'Game over' for Open-Source Browsers?"
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/
Microsoft pays AOL 750Mil for killing Netscape. Gives 7 year license to use Microsoft Internet Explorer:
http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1011296.
I've never even used the Web, you insensitive clod!
Ahem.
Perhaps someone from the Mozilla project will read this...
I notice that there's an IRIX version of Mozilla available from the nightly build collection, yet there is no IRIX version on the offical releases page. I know SGI maintains a port of IRIX on their OSS and freeware sites, but these are usually out of date. I think it would be nice to see an IRIX download of the final releases on the actual Mozilla site. If the hardware already exists to build the nightlies, I wouldn't imagine it would take much time or effort to build and tar up the final versions for download as well.
Or at the very least, how about add the links to SGI's two download sites to the Mozilla release notes. OpenVMS is even listed!
Just my $0.02. I've been using the nightlies for a few weeks now and am very happy with the progress that has been made since Mozilla 1.0.
But Safari > MSIE
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Unfortunately Microsoft will change how NTLM authentication works soon because of this, and the Mozilla team will be forced to change Mozilla to meet these changes, and the process will repeat, just like with aspects concerning samba, and then I might change myself to support the ability to convey my thoughts without run-on sentences.
NTLM works, but not on 98. Works fine in NT and 2k. So to say it works is a little disingenuous. And yes, I did post this to bugzilla.
m.kelley
life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
Probably the coolest change of all in this release, is the ability to build Mozilla for Windows using only GCC! Whoo hoo! No more VC++ crap! Can we get a build for Cygwin/XFree86 next? That way those of us forced to use Mickeysoft can go all Unix software!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
From the release notes: .exe files
"Launch file" after downloading has been enabled for
Isn't this taking IE emulation a bit too far!
Taking PHP to the next level: phpmole, php codedoc, php-gtk pear installer, DataObjects for php, ldap schema viewer and
I might have to read over the Mozilla Roadmap again, but 1.4 will be the last release based on the XPFE-based Navigator, and will replace 1.0 as the stable release. And starting with 1.5 it will be based on Firebird, which is XUL-based browsr?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I'm posting with my fresh and shiny 1.4 RC1, and I have to say that the subjective speed is increased significantly over 1.4 beta.
It feels on par with opera now...
Congrats to the mozilla team
Btw... why is RC1 announced on slashdot? wouldn't it make more sense to kick their ftp servers in the nuts when 1.4 is finalised?
so they're developing this and Mozilla Firebird? *scratches head*
"Launch file" after downloading has been enabled for .exe files
Is this a feature that just encourages more viruses?
Typical Microsoft poducts often having similar functionality and the mom-and-pop crowd ends up messing their computer!
Oh! I forget the mom-and-pop crowd does not use Mozilla.
I'm one of those unhappy Rage 128 owners who have Mozilla 1.4 crashing on them after about half an hour of usage, RC1 too. Is there any way for Mozilla to work around the bugs in ATIs drivers?
Wow.. although there is a problem when you upgrade it from previous version, but it's quite good.
:)
:)
The feeling of bulky and heavy program is gone.
It's very fast when it is being launched and it loads HTML pages.
Well... probably Apple's decsion of choosing KHTML over Mozilla affect this thing. Before the Apple's decision, Mozilla was bulky and slow. Mozilla people may noticed their problem and don't want to lose its anti-MS user base.
You are going to love this browser.
Work with various HTML pages better than the Safari also.
ANYTHING > MSIE ;)
Well, I'm glad they are going good at Mozilla, but Firebird needs the work guys... It crashes for me on certain common dialogs pretty often (like the drop down menu, but that's probably because nobody can code selects correctly). But that's off-topic. The question is when are they going to take the browser component of Mozilla Firebird and put it with the rest of the stuff that makes the old mozilla cool (Chatzilla namely)? If I had a browser like that, I'de never go back. Firebird is phenominally faster than Mozilla, I think it's time to switch the engines......
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
You know its been a couple of years since IE6 and mozilla is finally with 1.4 ahead of IE... well guess who is going to come out with a browser which will knock the stuffing out of Moz? Then it'll spend another 2 years catching up by which time Longhorn will render all non-ms apps useless. Of course by that time Linux will be finally usable so that should be all right. For those who think Moz bas been better than IE for a while now they are wrong just try using both on WinXP. although 1.4 seems to be pulling up front now.
I looked at the latest release notes and didn't see anything about this being fixed. Anyone else experience this problem/have a solution?
Thoughts on stocks, markets and trading
I thought mozilla was a database.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Just another reason to metamod.
God, why are you dorks so obsessed with anime?
I ha the same issue at home (Linux) but not at work (Windows).
Use Opera
How the heck are RANDOM CRASHES an acceptable release time bug? Especialy with the many MANY users out there who have integrated ATI chips?
ah yes, and here is another good one. .
Err, I am NOT using 1.4 RC1 any time soon, I have OCD and I compulsivly click on white space on a website while reading it. (no, seriously. . .
If Mozilla is locked up but doesn't seem to have crashed, make sure there are no dialog boxes still open.
Ah, oh well, IE still has this one (thanks to Acrobat Reader "checking" for updates, which can be hard to spot behind ten gazzilion different IE windows open!)
Noooo comment. . .
Seriously, people, say it with me, s-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.
Oh well, it is RC1 for a reason. . . . hopefuly the final RC doesn't have any KNOWN crash bugs. . . . heh. . . . hopefuly. . . . (I really hate it when a software's suggested fix for a crash is "not to do that". Excuse me, but unless I hit the computer with a hammer, I expect it to WORK.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
i thought firebird was a bios.
I can't even tell Mozilla to start up with my own HTML link file. Why should I choose a browser that can't do a simple thing like that? It defaults to Mozilla web page.
There's been a lot of discussion about how Mozilla 1.4 will the be the last version in it's current form, as Mozilla 1.5/2.0 will be based on Firebird... Keep in mind that one of the goals for 1.4 is to replace 1.0.x (currently 1.0.2) as the stable distribution version. So while future versions will have drastic changes to the GUI framework, 1.4 will live on with small fixes for those that aren't needing or wanting the very cutting edge. Just as there are many current unix and linux distributors shipping 1.0.2 today, there will be many shipping 1.4.x a year from now. As for the version number discussion, my vote is to call the next version 1.5... I think the version 2.0 title should be reserved for a refined, heavily tested version of Firebird. Much like the extensive testing that went into the current flavor of Mozilla before 1.0 was released. Maybe I just don't like version number bloat...
one small bug with mozilla 1.4x and win xp is that when you try to save a file mozilla will add stuff to the file name, for example file.mpg will be saved as file.mpg.mpeg. that by itself isnt a problem but when you run across a file like file.avi.torrent mozilla insted of launching bittorrent will try to save the file as file.avi.torrent.avi which is a pain in the ass
Mac != everyone's favorite OS
I've yet to find someone that wouldn't trade their box for my Mac in an instant.
That said, I use Safari despite being a Chimera/Camino since a near its inital usable release. Say what you want, but when Apple puts its mind to it they produce damn fine softwarel
I'm absolutely thrilled with Firebird at the
moment. I've replaced IE on family member's
machines with it, and have the binary version
running on Gentoo. I have had 0 problems so far
with stability or website compatability. I only
wish some kind gent would role the ebuild for
the source so I can emerge it into Gentoo from
portage. I'm entirely too lazy to do such a thing
what with RTCW Enemy Territory taking up my free
time.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Anyone know why?
Help fight continental drift.
You were wrong. It's an application platform ... apparently.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
So, does that mean Mozilla is like Mosaic?
I've been using Moz on several boxes with Rage128 chips w/ no problems whatsoever....
So, whats the problem here? Mozilla? Or someone's proprietary software backend that is impossible to make good drivers for?
Just askin'
-;)
1400x1250 in a 640x480 world...
Mozilla is living proof that Eric Raymond's fundamental premise about Open Source being higher quality because more eyes are inspecting it. In fact, Netscape has had a horrendous time getting anyone other than its paid employees to look at the Mozilla source and improve it. The same thing applies to Linux, where it is known as the Alan Cox Effect: a thousand users waiting around for Alan Cox to fix a driver.
Whats Internet Explorer? what is a Computer? Why is my typewriter looking back at me? What year is this?
I thought I was writing to Dear Abby.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I completely concur that using 1.4 as the latest 'stable' makes sense, until the 1.5/2.0 version becomes tried and accepted as stable.
Release version numbering should follow major changes in the base code. The specifics listed thus far in this discussion reflect that this will be the case with Mozilla in it's next release (*Disclaimer* - I didn't spend time researching them myself, so I'm basing this comment on earlier comments in this discussion and understanding of Mozilla's development in general).
A classic example is Redhat, of course. With versions 6 and 7, the *.0 release was widely considered stable and tested enough for the typical end-user, but not for 'enterprise level' deployment, esp. on the server side. I have read many comments (and agree) that most businesses waited for a version *.1, *.2, or *.3 before migrating, giving the time necessary to fix any unforseen issues that didn't appear in normal testing.
I concur that a move to a version number of 2.0 is warranted when the change is made to Firebird. The 'refined, heavily tested' version cannot be made available until after the initial release (into production environments - testing will NEVER be able to account for all possible situations).
The key differences are:
(1) the front end is different
(2) XPFE will be abandoned (thus we have an API difference)
(3) Running a new Gecko for session will be abandoned in favour of a single instance of the Gecko Runtime Environment (GRE). Thus, architecturally, things have changed.
If this isn't enough to increase the version numbers, I don't know what is.
It will only effect netscape 7+, while mozilla is somewhat sponserd by aol (many netscape programmers put a lot of work into mozilla). even if aol pulled support for mozilla the oss community would just take on the project. A prime example of how opensource can actualy work
Please add integrated BITTORRENT functionality into mozilla, including a torrent download manager with TorrentSpy functionality ASAP!! That will be the killer-app feature that gets people switching!
I've yet to find someone that wouldn't trade their box for my Mac in an instant.
:)
You must not have been looking very hard. I know plenty of people who have time or money or both invested in x86 platforms of various sorts and aren't interested in losing that investment just to get an unfamiliar new system, no matter how eye-candy-encrusted. And as for me, I'd just have to rip out the OS and install Debian, and I'd lose the ability to play my Loki/Tribsoft games, so I think I'd probably pass too.
In my opinion, an operating system is a tool for booting Emacs. If it also runs Mozilla, then it's more than enough for me.
I tawt firebird was a peese o chit car redneckers drove to da flee mawket on sonday to get pork rines!
Heh, nope!
Mozilla isn't the database, Firebird is.
No, wait.. that's the wrong URL -- this is the right one.
Mozilla was my preferred browser on Windows longer than XP has even been released up until the early incarnations of Mozilla Phoenix started being released, but opinions are subjective.
I never cared much if it took an extra few seconds for the browser to start and I put more weight on being able to read what I want from a web page and move on than on total rendering time.
In addition to tabs which have been around for a while, what really puts Mozilla browsers higher on my list than IE these days are:
1. When you remove cookies you have the option for them not to be accepted in the future.
2. The option to block all pop ups except for sites you have put in the list of accepted sites.
I don't see MS putting features like these in IE in the forseable future and when/if they do these features will probably be over engineered.
Later, Seeker
Silly me, I'll just crawl back into the server rack now. Unlike the kernel, it *is* an end-user product. The Mozilla team can go "it's just for testing" all they want, but it's not the truth. It is being deployed on Linux machines as the end-user browser.
If you remember the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto, you'll see that one of the most important point of that release is: Personally, I would consider the separate browser and mail spin-offs as a completely unforseen development since 1.0, and that this would have been an excellent policy if they had continued on a unified tree.
However, what they are doing is changing Mozilla drastically, both in terms of structure, as well as the changes that have been made to the browser and mail components, and this is not a natural successor to the 1.4 release, rather a separate branch since 1.0 (or whenever these spin-offs started, haven't kept track).
To me, that suggest that the browser should have version 2.0. It would far more accurately describe it to the end-users you claim do not exist. Nothing would be easier than to specifically state that the XUL 1.0 API has *not* changed, and that all things working in 1.0 will continue to work perfectly in 2.0. The people that need to know (developers and whatnot) would care enough to find out that "nothing" has changed, while the people actually using Mozilla will be made aware that there's been a huge change.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I've yet to find someone that wouldn't trade their box for my Mac in an instant.
*raises his hand*
I honestly prefer my Gentoo box and my FreeBSD 5.0 boxes to the Mac OS X based Macs.
Part of it is that I don't have to use Aqua on either of those boxes. The other is that they're Free OSes.
Don't get me wrong, Aqua looks nice, and I hear it's quite easy on the hands and eyes, but I don't like the idea of being forced to use any interfacet, even if it does look nice.
I also don't do any work that the Mac is specially suited for. The image editing I do is easy to accoplish with GIMP, my browsing is handled in Dillo or (on the sites it has troubles) Mozilla, I code and write in Vim, and I can watch videos with Mplayer. If I were doing Audio editing, I'd consider a Mac, or heavy video editing, assuming I could not find a open and free software alternative, but otherwise I don't understand the big draw to it.
Not meant to be a arguement, but I'll take browsing with Dillo, listening on Xmms, and coding in vim on my FreeBSD box running PekWM, not because I have to, but because I want to, anyday.
This bug is particularly troublesome. It looks like the latest version of Mozilla hasn't addressed the problem. Any plans to make it possible to copy/paste data from the many Arabic and Hebrew sites?
I'm hoping the next version of Mozilla mail fixes the POP3 bug, where it's impossible to log on to certain POP3 servers that require the account name to be "@". Mozilla always sends just "" to the server and its impossible to tell it otherwise. The attitude of the developer in a bug report I saw was ridiculous. He sounded outraged that POP3 servers exist which require the domain name. There are many web hosting sites that require it. I hope they fix it...
Apparently you are some kind of egomaniac who feeds his ego by presuming the superiority of the corporation at whose teat he sucks not realizing it is not one.
I really wish Slashdot would stop covering incremental releases of software. While I'm not a Mozilla user, I'm guessing that Mozilla will go through at least two more release candidates before 1.4 final is out, which I do think should be covered. It's a bit silly to follow any project through all the release candidates.
What! - No MP3 player? I'm shocked.
When OS X came out, I was really excited and a year ago decided to give it a serious try. A year later, both my iMac and my iBook are running Linux--OS X just didn't cut it: too slow, too limited, not enough software. And, frankly, the UI wasn't all that hot either. I wouldn't buy another Mac.
wait and see. pile of crap.
I'm talking about Firebird aka MozillaFirebird aka
Phoenix 0.6. If you HAD bothered to read the post,
you wouldn't feel dumb right now.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
ni hao, mao is a fuc*ing cheater. fist posting all the time and +5 funny? This is fuc*ing unfair. I guess mao needs to get a life, Ok, I AM Jalous.
Installs fine.
Visibly faster than Id Est 6.0.379.0--Redmond: heed!
Too bad my project requires some IE-only extensions, via JScript, that let the browser grab a range in a text control. Last time I looked at coding with Moz, it wouldn't support that.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
There's a bug that prevents awfully long slashdot pages from loading without making the browser freeze (especially when browsing -1). This makes mozilla pretty much unuseable for me since I spent a lot of time around these here parts.
I've switched to netscape 7, I hate to say, and it works great. Safari is still the leader for Java functionality, amazingly, outperforming IE and Moz and Netscape. For example, I can play yahoo games in Safari without my powerbook cpu fans firing up and load remains relatively low. With the others, cpu goes wild in java apps.
Anyway, the 'slashdot' bug with Moz sucks. I'll try 1.4 RC1 and report back. But I don't see the bug as fixed in bugzilla.
Btw... why is RC1 announced on slashdot? wouldn't it make more sense to kick their ftp servers in the nuts when 1.4 is finalised? ...stuff like 2.5.x kernel releases show up sometimes. It's the part of slashdot better referred to as "Slashdot: News nobody but nerds would care about." Just part of being slashdot, but with a userid of 230k I'd think you knew that already :)
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The bugs in 1.3 were pissing me off severely. Sending the focus to a form control when I'm trying to type in an address, text disappearing from input controls, unable to copy and paste text from form controls in weird situations, trying to select text in a form control with the mouse scrolling the page all the way down to timbuktu...bleah.
In windows all I have to do is run the setup again, but if I get the tarball it just extracts itself and I have two versions of mozilla on the system. Is there a way to update my copy of moz 1.3 on Mandrake 9.1?
(Waiting for the ad-hom attacks against me for disputing the godlikeness of MacOSX. Yes I've tried it. Yes it's nice and animated and good looking in the first 20 minutes. No, I didn't like it. Anything with only one desktop is a joke.)
So now that it is in Mozilla, when is NTLM going to appear in Firebird? That's the major blocking factor stopping me from using nothing but Firebird at work
Thank God I'm not the only one who does this. I almost feel like we need a support group.
What I really miss in this open-source community is an IMAP/SSL alternative. I run this IMAP/SSL stuff at work, and I do have to say that its VERY slow. Sometimes connections times out and stuff like that. But the most irritating problem is that the IMAP standard is only Client Side new-messages-checking, thus the client have to check each IMAP folder for new messages (I right click on them in Mozilla and check "check this folder for messages"). This is so sick, coz my users create new folders almost every day, and they have computers both at home and work.
:(
When some computer at home gets the new messages (using IMAP/SSL) they run filters on that message instantly, and moves them around. Thus I have to check EVERY folder at work if both computers are on-line at the same time. I hate it I hate it I hate it
So bring me some IMAP/SSL alternative, and a more server-side program like exchange.
Not Linux, but you can get KDE 3.1 for it, and run it at the same time as Aqua. The Fink project has the relevant ports.
Cheers,
Ian
(awaiting the arrival of his recently ordered Mac...)
So the plans to use Netscaoe as the core for AOL are now officially dead? Be afraid, be very afraid. Microsoft has just gotten one step closer to world domination.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
You know, these days I need it explained to me what Mozilla is. Are they talking about the full Mozilla suite with the chat/mail/news thingy, or are they talking about just the browser?
I realise 'just the browser' is referred to as Firebird, but the website says the long term aim is to name it 'Mozilla browser'. Which no-one will use, and which will be immediately shortened to simply 'Mozilla'.
I appreciate that you were making a joke, so I don't want this to come across as a missing-the-humour post, but I just thought it was worth mentioning that name 'Mozilla' on its own is getting increasingly confusing these days.
Cheers,
Ian
Hmm. It may be designed for these goals, but does it actually meet any of them? It's fairly portable, but I wouldn't like to have to defend the other two claims...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
(rolls eyes) Geez, Mozilla is just like Cisco -- you know...the stuff you bake with!?!
--Anna Lyst
Ziff Davis True Microsoft Direct Active Solutions Partner, IP Promotions and Pre-emptive Marketing Advocacy Division, PC Magazine
No. Mozilla is not an end user product. Distributions can distribute it and let the end user use it, but Mozilla is offically not an end user product! The authors decide what it is, not the users. The authors say it isn't an end user product, so it isn't, regardless of whether end users really use it. If I wrote a book about science fiction and love and I say it's a science fiction story, then it IS a science fiction story, not matter how many readers may think it's a love story. The author decides what their product is!
Could you point me to where in the EULA it says I can't use what I downloaded off mozilla.org as an end-user?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Please don't discourage him. The editors could learn something from him. I'm sick of articles of the sort: "Foobar gets AutoFrotzing" where Foobar is an obscure kernel module or some video game and frotzing is something you would only have heard of if you had been following that module or video game yourself.
I won't buy Mozilla until it supports Ogg Vorbis, the free, better-than-mp3-quality, audio codec.
Oh, and a linux version would be nice.
(This was a joke. As in ha-ha.)
nope, an OS, just like emacs, only prettier, and with uglier system language
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
ex: block all from http://www.whatever.com/ads/* so that I can still get everything from that server except whatever is in the ads directory ;-)
Mozilla Firebird will be like a "build your own" browser where you can choose from a lot of add ons without adding bloat to the core browser for everyone.
While I might like to add bittorrent, I don't see any reason for my neighbor, grandma, mom, dad, cousin, uncle, aunt, etc etc... to have that included in their browser be default. Bittorrent is hardly a widely accepted standard on the web at this point, where as FTP is used regularly on websites for downloads (such as Cnet, ZDNet -- okay so Cnet and ZDnet are owned by the same people... lol-- and most other sites w/ files for download
In fact, I hope they strip most components that are unneccessary for normal browsing out of the browser and offer them as add-ons instead.
To see if you experience this bug, click on this link, uncheck the "Always show this dialog..." checkbox, then click the link again. If the dialog pops up again, you're seeing it.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well, I don't know about you, but for me personally, mozilla does indeed live up to the claims of compliance, performance and portability, in the form of firebird. Firebird is so fast that if you set nglayout.initialpaint.delay to 0 in about:config (type in the url bar) it will actually seem faster than IE (by mimicking the IE behaviour of displaying the page as soon as data comes flowing in over the wire). Ofcourse, setting that to 0 will increase actual page load times on a lot of machines due to redundant painting activity, but that's a tiny detail.
By far the best browser on OS9 is Mozilla 1.21, but a lot of things were broken on 1.21, especially Mail. Would it really be that hard to merge in all the improvements that have been made since then and release 1.4 for OS9? I'm sure I'm not the only person in this position, forced to run OS9 on my office computer. In fact, I'm almost sure there are more people in this boat than there are HP-UX users... so what gives?
Oh, um, but thanks for the heads up. (downloads)
It's an application platform
I thought that was an OS
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Don't give them any ideas it's bloated enough already!
Writing some HTML/javascript, then hitting to save button, only to find it hasn't worked - because it didn't save it!!!
Copy and pasting. Sometimes that doesn't work at all!!
If you have a large space in between text paragraphs, not being able to delete the spaces
Not being able to change the font sizes
The table editing form has taken to "jumping" whenever I select an option, or save/cancel the edits
OK I know that Mozilla is primarily a browser, and composer is essentially a bolt on extra, but it's handy for knocking together some web pages quickly and being able to preview the results. at the minute i'm having to use something like notepad to make sure the code is saved and those spaces are deleted. Sometimes I'm even forced to open up frontpage (shiver!) just to get that pesky table deleted or resized...yes I know I can look at the code, but if you've got several tables nestled inside each other, or a 4 column, 20 row table, visually it's quicker...
Does anyone else have similar hassles with composer? The Mozilla team are doing a great job, Mozilla is by far (in my opinion) the best browser on the block, but if any of the Mozilla team are reading this, can you please sort out composer?
-- Fuck Beta
This is driving me crazy and I can't seem to find an answer anywhere.
When I try to use one of the latest releases (including this 1.4 RC), I lose the mail/news/composer icons along the bottom and Window options for same. It's like I'm using Firebird. But I can still get to e-mail by running Mozilla with the '-mail' option.
I downaload and install via their Zip file (not the full installer).
Anyone know how to fix this?
w2k
The application, mozilla.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 05/31/2003 @ 10:26:31.516 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 610F0769 (NS_NewGenericFactory)
But Safari > MSIE ;)
Well duh. Even Contiki > MSIE. :)
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
I've tried and failed twice to migrate to versions of Mozilla above 1.2.1 without success. None of the new versions seem to like the older mailbox format. I never had trouble migrating the mozilla mailboxes prior to 1.2.1 - going from Mozilla 1.0.x to 1.1.x to 1.2.x went without a hitch. Anyone have any suggestions?
Please God - tell me why! I have tried everything known to man to educate Mozilla about extensions and helper programs and nothing works. This is the most serious bug in Mozilla in my opinion. Nevermind the constant renaming of .tar.gz files by Mozilla to .tar.gz.gz - blech. Surely some common sense filename filter could be employed if the MIME type does not match the file extension. IE does this, afterall.
Cowboy Neal codes my browser.
--
...a floor wax and an ice cream topping!
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I tried this as askslashdot, but was spurned. Is there any way to get my passwords out of Mozilla in a plaintext visable state? I have so many saved usernames/pw that I am feeling very uncomfortable that one day a file is corrupted and they are lost. It seems, though I'm not entirely sure, that simply backing up the data file is not a guaranty of resuablility on a clean install. Can sombody somebody who knows whats what with how pw manager works either point to a document or shed some light on this? Thanks
What's so hard about defending the claim for standards-compliance? Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence. Internet Explorer has not-too-bad CSS and DOM support, but can't claim to support either as well as Mozilla does. There's also all the standards that IE doesn't even try to do right -- MathML, which is hugely important for those of us who use it, PNG, which IE only sort-of supports, XHTML, and SVG, even though it's off by default. These and many other open standards are supported natively by Mozilla, something that no other browser can claim to do (not even Opera or Konqueror/Safari).
As for performance ... Mozilla is actually very fast, in some ways. The Gecko HTML engine is one of the fastest around, and handles super-complex CSS positioning with ease. (Yes, KHTML and Opera can be faster, but this is partly because they don't support many of the more complex aspects of CSS).
Also, although the Mozilla integrated suite takes forever to start up, Firebird/Phoenix is a good deal faster, and Gecko front-ends like Epiphany for GNOME and K-Meleon for Windows start up fast enough that if you blink, you'll miss it.
And finally: "fairly" portable? C'mon, there is no other browser that's available for as many systems as Mozilla is. Ever tried to use IE or Opera on BeOS, Irix, OS/2, or OpenVMS?
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
when you discuss the release number of software...
Stop talking facts, disparaging popular open source projects is the shiznit now, not defending them. So get it straight, Mozilla sucks, [insert niche or closed source browser here] is much better.
This is so true and some guy just did it again: WTF is WASTE?
The scary thing is that there probably are a lot of C*O's / PHB's out there saying "Well, if we're going to run Oracle 9 on Linux, we had better use RedHat 9 as well."
This Like That - fun with words!
I guess some people are unable to participate in a discussion where an opposiing point of view is espoused. Poor, sensitive moderators.
Are you sure? On windows with the autostart, it pops onto the screen faster than Opera 7 for me.
... and don't you forget it.
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Help us shake it down in preparation for Mozilla 1.4 final.
I'd love to help, but I'm not going to touch it without a frikkin' RPM.
At least in the 1.4 beta, if you clicked on the "user has 1 new message" popup in the bottom right of the screen, the mail window would come up with no way to be maximized or minimized (the buttons weren't there). Anybody know if that's fixed?
The bug that annoys me the most, that's been there since at least 1.2 and still hasn't been fixed (it's fine in Phoenix) is that clicking on something to download it takes a second or two to open up the Save As dialog, and then easily four or five seconds to pop up the file transfer dialog, and then when it's done, takes another few seconds to return control to me. There's no reason why downloading files should take so long and virtually lock up the system. Anybody else experiencing this problem? (It's almost enough to make me relearn C++ and try to understand the mozilla codebase and hunt it down myself!)
I discussed this with the Mozilla developers and they said they had never seen the issue, and that it must be something else on my machine.
So I downgraded to 1.3, and the problem went away. It's most definitely something to do with Mozilla 1.4b.
Has anyone else experienced this problem? And if so, does 1.4 RC1 have it?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Mozilla is and always has been a development platform. Within that platform several browsers, a mail/news client, a chat client and hordes of other tools have been written.
The thing most people think of as mozilla is actually called seamonkey, and its replacements are called firebird and thunderbird.
Granted, it would be a lot clearer if the mozilla developers actually used the naming their own roadmaps indicate.
Yeah, but he was talking about startup times, not window-open times. The one lone windows install I have left starts up WAY faster ever since I replaced mozilla with firebird (which despite not preloading launches just as fast as mozilla with preloading enabled).
Works fine on Linux, crashes on Windows (XPCOM.DLL error right at the beggining, doesn't create a talkback error).
Well, that's the good thing about compiling from sources, isn't it? :)
Less is more !
Another question: any news about XForms support?
Less is more !
Describing briefly what Mozilla is, is just an attempt at good journalism on Michael's part. Now I know we are not use to seeing that here on Slashdot but we should be tolerant whenever we see it...
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
A prime example of how opensource can actualy work
A prime example that Open-Source software is immortal.
"It feels on par with opera now.."
-1 Smoking Crack
Totally agree - you named the 3 reasons I use Mozilla 1.3. I really like it - especially with the IE skin installed...
:^)
I still use IE for a few applications that don't seem to work 100% under Mozilla, like my banking site, my company's HR-related site, and windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
--Philip
"It's amazing how our industry is strewn with beautiful, dead technology and bitter engineers." --M. Huyck
the verb you thought you were using is 'affect'. The word 'effect' is a noun. Somebody who died 400 years ago may know why this is so. I sure don't know why, but it is, in fact, so.
Grammar is the set of rules that you learn in elementary school. Among these rules is the one that says "it's" means "it is" or "it has". Among these rules is another one that says "its" is the possessive form of "it". Just imagine how dumb you wouldn't look if you knew these two rules.
And I thought Phoenix was a BIOS! Oh wait.
Is the only main difference between Moz and Firebird is that firebird has a smaller footprint? On my box mozilla loads in around 1 second. Of course, on the slower computers that I've used I can see why you would want a lighter browser, but Mozilla's size doesn't bother me.
SIGFAULT
And I'll bet you the new release still won't print any font other than Times under Linux...
He actually explained to us what Slashdot editors are like on Slashdot. Priceless. =)
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
C'mon, there is no other browser that's available for as many systems as Mozilla is.
ELinks, Links or Lynx maybe.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Call me crazy, but I switched from Mozilla's mail client to the separate Thunderbird, the most recent alpha build. At first, I just intended to "try it out", and carefully backed up my mail and settings.
Sure, as an alpha product, I did have to read and carefully follow the directions to hand-import my Mozilla mail settings and my e-mail. But it all came across cleanly, including all my auto-sorting filters and mailbox structure. I didn't lose a thing.
After trying it for a few days, and finding it easier to use and a prettier interface, I deleted my old Mozilla install. I now exclusively use Firebird and Thunderbird. I haven't lost ANY features, and both are ROCK SOLID. All this in an alpha build. That's what I call quality.
The only drawback of Thunderbird, is the setting for enabling/disabling remote loading of images in HTML messages isn't implemented, even though the options configuration shows it. That's it.
For those who prefer a "suite" like Mozilla's traditional suite, just install both and you won't miss a thing. They integrate nicely together. And if there ever IS a bug that crashes one, the other won't die too. Also, when a boatload of new mail is being sorted and my HD is thrashing away (it's a slow laptop drive), I can still browse in Firebird while Thunderbird runs slowly. When I used to use the Mozilla suite, slowness in one application made using the other painful.
I don't trust 100% in that. If you see the number of outside programmers you will see that mozilla still depends of a "corporate" funding.
.2 cents anyway.
I think that if aol stops, perhaps IBM or another vendor would "take over".
my
The autofrotzing was defined in a tag, you probably just have forgotten to turn off your defrogger.
No, it's a giant Japanese lizard made out of pizza cheese.
I've used Opera 3.62 on BeOS.
Don't knock Opera's portability, they are (as Netscape was) willing to port to platforms if they're given some help or support (technical or financial).
I can't remember if I actually used Opera on OS/2, but 5.12 exists (I used N4.61 on OS/2, and IBM Web Browser [gecko] but mostly Mozilla).
Opera also exists for QNX (yes, I've used it) and some cell phone platforms among other things. Opera really isn't a bad company, but it is a company.
Or best as in, I Actually Want To Surf The Web. From page to page. No glitches, no weirdness. Nobody looking over my shoulder, taking note if my browser is cool.
I've tried them all, I have given my heart to Netscape and Moz and Opera and even little putt-putt iCab (what a strange little outfit) . . .hoping to become a devotee of anything, anything but Microsoft. (Which I believe is two medical conditions in one, is it not?)
And I think that people who extoll Mozilla are, currently, full of shit.
Lemme know when Open Source is fixed. A real download link would also be nice.
And Opera is available for BeOS and OS/2 actually.
Clever signature text goes here.
I've used Opera 3.62 on BeOS.
As have I. FWIW, I much prefer Mozilla, if only because more present-day sites work in it. And Mozilla for BeOS is a current version, not a two-year-old version that the creators have dumped support for.
Don't knock Opera's portability, they are (as Netscape was) willing to port to platforms if they're given some help or support (technical or financial).
I'll agree that Opera is much better than most (indeed, almost all) companies when it comes to portability. But the point is, the parent was knocking Mozilla's portability, which is, as I tried to point out, second to none.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
"by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence"? Sorry, but this is not entirely true. While it might support more standards, it does not actually have vastly better standards support compared to Opera when it comes so standards they both support.
How often do you try to write standards-compliant Web pages? Until version 7, Opera's support for the DOM sucked a lot. To this day it fails on a number of CSS test suites that Mozilla handles with aplomb.
And not supporting more standards is not as small a thing as you seem to think. As an example, ever tried making a mathematical or scientific page with MathML, then tried doing it without MathML? Opera not supporting this really does suck, for those of us to whom it's important. The fact that Mozilla does have support makes it more than a little bit better, in my view at least.
And Opera is available for BeOS and OS/2 actually.
You didn't read what I said -- ever tried using these? The latest Opera for BeOS is version 3, and the company has dropped support for the operating system. Mozilla for BeOS is a current version, and there are pseudo-nightly builds available. The story is similar for OS/2.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
You do realize that Mozilla has bugs as well? And that Opera nicely renders testcases that show off bugs in Mozilla's CSS implementation? The reason it works in Opera and not Mozilla is that the test was done to show bugs in Mozilla, not in Opera. It's the same with your Opera tests.
It is really pointless to argue which browser has the better CSS support since results seem to vary, but this well known test site shows Opera as the current leader. Not that it proves anything apart from the fact that things may not be so clear in Mozilla's favor as you seem to think.
My point is just that claiming that Mozilla somehow is vastly superior to other browsers, or at least Opera, when it comes to standards that are actually in wide use (HTML, CSS, DOM - MathML is hardly widely used on the web today) is simply incorrect. Which one has better CSS support of Opera and Mozilla? No idea. I don't really care. But anyone who claims that Mozilla has supperior CSS support compared to Opera or vice versa should be corrected.
It still proves that Opera is quite portable too. Version 7 even more so. But money speaks, and BeOS and OS/2 probably aren't viable markets.Clever signature text goes here.
To find out, you could always check the newsgroups, or a site like MozillaZine.
I think the answer in both cases is "when it's done" (isn't that always the case?). XForms comes with the added caveat that it's not a formal recommendation yet, only a draft. SVG apparently has too many bugs to enable as yet (and in Linux at least, depends on libart, which most people don't have AFAIK).
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Are you sure? On windows with the autostart, it pops onto the screen faster than Opera 7 for me.
Well, as the AC pointed out I was referring to not using the pre-loader. For me, at least, the pre-loader itself takes almost as long to start up as Mozilla does without it.
That said, sure, with autostart it's faster than even IE on some systems ... but I think that's cheating just a bit (even though IE does the same!).
In any case, start-up time has been improving in recent versions, and should improve even more with the move to the compenent-based design.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Well .. they weren't an "Awesome Foursome" were they?
... the developers got all your post in the Talkback "Describe what you were doing" part!
More's the pity they weren't even a "coxless four".
Replaying the mpeg after d/l'ing crashed mine (Moz v1.3 Gecko/20030312) and the dialog box didn't pop up as per this bug, but
Even my enemies want happiness
First you go on about how previous versions of Opera didn't have full DOM support and then you pick out pages created specifically to list bugs in Opera to prove that it has worse CSS support?
I was trying to point out that Opera has not had good support for standards like CSS and DOM until recently, whereas Mozilla has had that support for upwards of four years. Opera continues to have problems, such as in those CSS examples and some areas of the DOM. Also, unlike Mozilla, it isn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) moving to implement DOM3 and CSS3 support. My apologies for being ambiguous.
It is really pointless to argue which browser has the better CSS support since results seem to vary, but this well known test site shows Opera as the current leader. Not that it proves anything apart from the fact that things may not be so clear in Mozilla's favor as you seem to think.
Okay, I'll agree with you that comparing the quality of CSS2 support between Opera and Mozilla is mostly pointless and unclear. (BTW, of course Mozilla has CSS bugs, but have you ever read the reports on Bugzilla? Most are about small, esoteric details buried deep within standards documents.)
My point is just that claiming that Mozilla somehow is vastly superior to other browsers, or at least Opera, when it comes to standards that are actually in wide use (HTML, CSS, DOM - MathML is hardly widely used on the web today) is simply incorrect.
But I was not referring to "standards that are actually in wide use"; I was talking about standards in general. While plenty of the things that Mozilla supports aren't used widely, plenty of others are, or seem to be headed that way (like XSL and XSLT, which many developers love, but aren't supported by Opera).
The bottom line is: yes, when it comes to widely-used standards, there's no difference between Opera and Mozilla ("widely-used" is a fragile term though, 99% of sites don't pass validator.w3.org). But ultimately, Mozilla is more standards-compliant, if only because it supports so many of the newer and cooler standards that Opera doesn't. In other words, without support for things like SVG and XSLT, Opera can't claim to have very good standards support like Mozilla can. After all, you need the newer, more advanced aspects of the standards to do awesome things like cross-platform desktop interfaces.
It still proves that Opera is quite portable too. Version 7 even more so. But money speaks, and BeOS and OS/2 probably aren't viable markets.
I agree wholeheartedly, Opera is more portable than the vast majority of commercial software. But the original point, that Mozilla is much more cross-platform than anything else, still stands. Perhaps BeOS and OS/2 were bad choices; try replacing them with AIX or HP-UX.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Yes, Mozilla might support more standards, but Opera can still claim to have very good standards support. It can because it does. But on the other hand, don't forget that Opera supports standards that Mozilla might not support. It supports SVG Tiny, XHTML Mobile Profile, WML (1.3 and 2.0), WAP CSS, and maybe more. It also includes support for VoiceXML and is ready for CSS 2.1.
As for CSS, Opera has supported CSS for years and years. I think it was first introduced in Opera 3, years before Mozilla was even though about. CSS support has always been one of Opera's strong points. CSS support in Opera 3 can probably even hold up to a lot of the competition even today.
Clever signature text goes here.
Yes, Mozilla might support more standards, but Opera can still claim to have very good standards support.
Then we are (in principle, at least) in agreement. I never said Opera had bad standards support overall, just that Mozilla's is better.
It supports SVG Tiny, XHTML Mobile Profile, WML (1.3 and 2.0), WAP CSS ...
Do note that these standards are intended for mobile phones and PDAs, a market that Opera is trying hard to get into but that Mozilla isn't really designed for. Certainly, it's a separate arena to the "normal" full-size PC browser world -- if nothing else, the standards are simpler.
This illustrates my point nicely. CSS 2.1 is a revised edition of CSS 2 with only a few changes. By contrast, CSS3 introduces a number of very significant changes. Both are still in the Working Draft stage at the W3C. Mozilla is the only browser to have started implementing the changes of CSS3 -- which is an example of why its standards support, moreso than that of other browsers, can be considered to be very good.
As for CSS, Opera has supported CSS for years and years.
Yes, but the question is of how well. Opera 3 (for BeOS, at least -- the only copy I still have) doesn't even understand CSS positioning, which is easily one of the most widely used parts of CSS.
As for being able to "hold up to a lot of the competition even today": no, this is not correct. Certainly, Opera 3's CSS support is better than Netscape 4 and IE 3, but those browsers really sucked (although NS4 at least understood a little bit of positioning). Looking through charts of what it supports shows that it is nowhere near the quality of current-generation browsers.
And finally, note that the Mozilla project was started in April 1998, switched to the current codebase after a few months, and released their first builds later that year. Opera 3 was released sometime in the first half of 1998, IIRC. This is hardly "years before Mozilla was even thought about".
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
If you'll try XUL examples on xulplanet and SVG examples on crockzilla you'll find about the same chance to meet a bug. XUL is enabled, SVG is not. I don't understand it.
libart is free (if I remember - LGPL). So, its license is not the problem, right? So why "most of people don't have" it? Is it its quality?
Less is more !
Ergh. I have to admit to still being pissed off a bit about the 'Firebird' name. See, we use the Firebird DB at work, and the Mozilla browser as a front-end.
Getting an email along the lines "Firebird has a problem" is going to be painful...
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Also note that Mozilla was rewritten over four years (it took that time to reach the stable 1.0 platform), while Opera 7 was a complete rewrite of the browser core and GUI, and was done in about a year and a half, according to articles in the media. You could read about it just before the first beta of Opera 7.0 for Windows.
Clever signature text goes here.
Now if they only fixed "talkback" with NTLM support i could tell the things that went wrong with NTLM.
There was already a bug open about proxy support for talkback so i voted for that one.
They are still standards. But hey, I could easily say similar things about MathML - it is a very specialized standard. The same with SVG - it is hardly in use at all on "mainstream" sites. And so on. So Mozilla implements standards for specialized use, just like Opera does.
No. You are confusing "being made for a specialised use" with "being made for a specialised platform". WAP pages aren't meant to be read on desktop PCs, so Mozilla (which is fundamentally a desktop browser) doesn't support it or the related technologies. MathML is meant to be read on normal PCs, even if not everyone uses it everyday, so Mozilla supports it. A clearer comparison: nether Opera nor Mozilla support Microsoft CHM (made for a special platform) but both support Chinese Big5 text encoding (made for a specialised use).
In any case, SVG is most definitely not special-purpose in any way. If you know anything about it, you'll know that it's a very general standard for vector graphics and animation, similar in some ways to Macromedia Flash. It has potential applications on almost any Web site with graphics; just because it isn't in widespread use doesn't mean that it isn't general in design.
The other standard I was using as an example -- XSL/XSLT -- is also very much non-specialist. It is, for instance, of immense potential use on any site larger than a hundred pages, if only because it allows for infinitely better content management (among many other things).
Actually, Opera 7 also has "experimental" support for CSS3.
I didn't know this, my apologies. This is, indeed, a sign of very good CSS support, because it shows that the makers are willing to go beyond what they need to do to just claim ordinary standards-compliance (i.e. support existing recommendations), and are taking the extra effort to position themselves ready for big new standards. In overall standards support, though (particularly with the XML-based standards), Opera is still not at the forefront.
I would argue that Opera 3 is actually better than even MSIE 6 in some situations since it has a more correct implementation. MSIE can't even get its box model right.
Then you seem intent on backing an unwinnable position, unless you intend to go to such a fine level of detail as to be irrelevant. Yes, IE's implementation of CSS is more than a little bit dodgy, but it is of decent completeness with respect to both CSS1 and CSS2 (maybe 80% - 90%, but I'm guessing). Yes, there are points where IE gets stuff wrong but old Opera or Mozilla versions get it right, but as you pointed out earlier there are plenty of examples where Opera 7 gets it wrong and IE 4 or Mozilla 0.8 get it right.
I think Opera 3 had just about complete support for CSS1.
No, this is wrong again. Maybe you missed what I wrote: if you consult the link I gave you, or try using Opera 3 for yourself, you'll see that its support for CSS1 is much less than complete, with positioning and inline element properties (like borders) being the glaring examples. Selectors like :hover are also noticeably absent.
True, but there was no release considered to be of even alpha quality until some time in 2000. That was M13.
You are redefining your terms after a claim; this is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You had claimed that Opera was supporting CSS years before Mozilla was, which is patently false. It doesn't matter that nobody knew about Mozilla or that the browser had bugs aplenty -- the point is, the support was there.
Also note that Mozilla was rewritten over four years, while Opera 7 was a complete rewrite of the browser core and GUI, and was done in about a year and a half.
Yes, I know, but
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Erm ... sorry, I can't claim to be an expert here :-) ...
Perhaps it isn't to do with bugs, and is more to do with libart. Sorry, but I don't know enough to tell you
As for libart itself, yes, it's LGPL, and it's distributed as an optional (?) GNOME component. Hence almost all Windows or Mac users, most KDE users, and many GNOME users, are without it. I think. Maybe.
I'll stop now before I confuse you any more ...
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Clever signature text goes here.
That isn't really relevant. The fact is that Opera supports these standards, and Mozilla doesn't. As Mozilla supports standards Opera doesn't. A standard is a standard.
Is it? So Mozilla is better than Opera because it supports the "standard" <MARQUEE> tag, or the "standard" <BLINK> tag? Not all standards are the same; different standards made for different goals do not apply in discussions of one particular goal. For instance, would you like Mozilla or Opera to start supporting the AutoCAD data format, or Rich Text Format?
The point is: Mozilla is a desktop Web browser. It supports desktop Web browser standards very well. Opera is a desktop Web browser, which also comes in a mobile version. It supports desktop Web browser standards to a good but lesser degree, and also supports mobile browsing standards. Therefore, as far as support for relevant standards goes, in a comparison between the Opera and Mozilla desktop browsers, Mozilla is better. When comparing them as mobile browsers, Opera is better.
(For the record, I think BLINK and MARQUEE are abominations, but that's another story.)
No, but it is not in very wide use today. If you can claim that WML and such are "irrelevant, because...", I can make the same claim about SVG and XSL/XSLT. They are not in wide use today - you will hardly ever see them used. Maybe on specialized sites, but not on the mainstream web.
Again, you are redefining your terms. You had argued that SVG was less important because it was specialised, and now you are claiming that it is less important because it isn't widely used. The former is false, but the is correct to some extent (although do not forget that no one will ever use a standard unless there are programs supporting it). In addition, claiming a standard which comes from a recognised standards body is irrelevant simply because it's not hugely popular is very different to claiming that something is irrelevant because it's designed for a different problem set on a different type of machine under different conditions.
Anyone can create a minimal browser and just support the bold tag, then claim that it supports HTML. But I think It takes a bit more than that to claim support.
Your analogy is valid but irrelevant. In fact, Mozilla had not-bad support for basic standards like CSS at a very early point in its development. The quality of its CSS support passed that of Opera probably no later than 2000. This is not a large number of years after the release of Opera 3, as you were trying to claim.
In other words: you said "I think [CSS] was first introduced in Opera 3, years before Mozilla was even thought about". This is, as I am so desperately trying to point out, false.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
However, one thing has been kind of irking me lately: Is there any way I can get the "Open New Tab" button to appear in Firebird? I know I can just CTRL+T, but sometimes that's more awkward, especially if I already have my hand on the mouse.
OK, well, sorry for trying to get some cheap tech support here... heh. This article is pretty old, so I doubt anyone will read this anyway. But I would be really thankful for any help. :)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
And the desktop and embedded versions of Opera actually use the exact same core. If desktop supports it, so does embedded, and vice versa.
And lastly, I am not redefining my terms, I am clarifying them. If you can claim that WML is irrelevant because it is "embedded only", then I can say that SVG is irrelevant because it is not used by anyone anyway. It is only used in special cases. SVG might be intended to be widespread and used everywhere, but the fact is that it isn't.
Clever signature text goes here.
Links 2 has a graphic mode, but I am not sure how portable it is.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
BLINK and MARQUEE are non-standard extensions. You cannot compare WML, a proper standard, to these.
But you were trying to claim that "a standard is a standard", which I was trying to demonstrate to be false. You are now claiming that BLINK, when seen as a "standard", is different to a "proper standard" like WML. I agree. In the same way, as I was trying to explain, WML is a "mobile" standard and so is different to HTML, a predominantly "desktop" standard.
And the desktop and embedded versions of Opera actually use the exact same core. If desktop supports it, so does embedded, and vice versa.
I know. But this does not make it fair to cite features intended for mobile use when comparing Opera and Mozilla, when the latter isn't intended for mobile use. When people compare Konqueror with Opera, the focus is on their respective features as Web browsers, not on Konqi's file management abilities.
[...] I can say that SVG is irrelevant because it is not used by anyone anyway. It is only used in special cases. SVG might be intended to be widespread and used everywhere, but the fact is that it isn't.
In case you haven't noticed, "special use" and "not used by lots of people" are different concepts; you initially claimed the first, then later claimed the second. WML is intended for a specific goal, and is only used for that. SVG is currently only used for special goals, but is intended for broad goals. They are therefore different. Since WML isn't intended for desktop use, it's okay if a desktop browser doesn't support it. Since SVG is intended for desktop use, a desktop browser which doesn't support it is less good than one which does.
Notwithstanding this, we appear to have reached somewhat of a tenable, if fragile, agreement. Thank you.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
WML is a proper standard and Opera supports it. Mozilla doesn't. Opera supports standards that Mozilla does not, which again means that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have "better standards support".
Whether or not the standard is for mobile use or not is irrelevant. It is a standard, and Opera supports it.
A "mobile" standard is not "less good" than other standards.
I think we can agree that both Opera and Mozilla have outstanding standards support compared to the competition (mostly MSIE, but also Konqueror/Safari and Mac browsers like OmniWeb).
Clever signature text goes here.
Whether or not the standard is for mobile use or not is irrelevant. It is a standard, and Opera supports it.
A "mobile" standard is not "less good" than other standards.
Did you read what I said? I did not say that a "mobile" standard is "less good" than other standards. I said that for a browser which is aimed at desktop users, support for "mobile" standards is less important than support for standards intended for general use.
In addition, in asserting that "Whether or not the standard is for mobile use or not is irrelevant" you are claiming that the general target audience of a standard is irrelevant when considering whether a program should support it. Hence, according to your claim, support for any standard, in any program, no matter what it is, is always a good thing. If this is true, I can therefore claim that Opera (or Mozilla) is not as good a Web browser as OpenOffice.org, which supports about 60 data formats (including HTML), many of which are published standards.
As well as this, did you even read what you have said? You are presently claiming that Opera's support of WML et al. 'again means that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have "better standards support"'. But when you first made mention of WML et al., you did not claim that this was an indication of better overall standards support. However, from your very first message, you conceded that Mozilla (at least "might") support more standards overall than Opera does, and you have not denied this. I contend that this, alone, is enough to show better standards support overall. Alternatively, if you prefer, I will withdraw this claim and instead claim that Mozilla has, overall, better support for relevant standards, i.e. those which are intended to be supported by Web browsers on desktop computers.
In any case, given that you are continuing to make claims which I have already argued against, in ignorance of that which you have already accepted, and without providing any new arguments to support them, I suspect that it is unreasonable of me to expect to continue this discussion in an intelligent manner.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup
Yes, I have said that Mozilla doesn't necessarily have better standards support if you take WML and others into account. I said that Mozilla might support more standards before I thought about those standards Opera supports but Mozilla doesn't.
If I conceded in my first message that Mozilla supports more standards overall, the new information presented later will show you that it isn't that clear anymore.
SVG is not a "relevant" standard despite its intended use. Why? Because it is hardly used at all, unless you visit special purpose sites.
It seems that you are going into aggressive mode now that I have thoroughly proven you wrong, so the discussion might as well end here.
Clever signature text goes here.
boo-hoo turd
"Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence."
I have proven you completely wrong on this. EOD.
Clever signature text goes here.
OOo is not a web browser.
Yes, I know (although it did, in the past, have a Web browser component). But the point is that my statement about OOo is a logical consequence of your claim that a standard's intent is irrelevant. In other words, if your irrelevance claim is true, then my OOo claim must be true. Therefore, if you do not accept the OOo claim, you cannot accept the irrelevance claim (unless you contest the deductive reasoning). This is an example of a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Notwithstanding this, if my words have come across as aggressive then you have my apologies. However, observe that I have attacked (at several places) your argument that Mozilla doesn't have superior standards support, and you have not presented counter-arguments to most of my responses, or any new reasons why your assertions are valid. They are therefore still in doubt, and hence you cannot claim to have "proven" your point.
Living in Perth, Australia? Come to our Slashdot Meetup