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."

12 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Any word on how the new AOL deal impacts Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some links:
    "Does Netscape Deal Mean 'Game over' for Open-Source Browsers?"
    http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/2 1639.html

    Microsoft pays AOL 750Mil for killing Netscape. Gives 7 year license to use Microsoft Internet Explorer:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1011296.h tml?tag=nl

  2. NTLM Again by mkelley · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. The MOST important change by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:The MOST important change by mu_wtfo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well...*mostly*. From the release notes:

      "# Due to the nature of C++ compilers, libraries built with GCC will likely be incompatible with libraries built with MSVC. For example, XPCOM plugins will not work. This includes the Java plugin.
      # Due to the use of MSVC-specific code in the tree and the relative immaturity of the w32api, certain functionality will not be available in the GCC build. The dependency tree for bug 203303 tracks the list of MinGW GCC-specific issues.
      "

      No Java, and other, unspecified, non-working bits. Hmm...I think I'll wait until it's a little older before I try to build on Win32.

      --
      If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  4. It's fast by YellowSubRoutine · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  5. Re:dazed and confused by rmsousa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firebird is NOT exactly a fork. According to the page (OK, I've read it somewhere, old phoenix's page, I think), to make a Firebird build they get the latest CVS Mozilla and patch only the interface code. This way, if some change in RC1 is deeper than interface, then it is automagically in the next Firebird. You can see this if you go to about:config in Firebird. You'll see (should I say legacy) options for about everything in Mozilla (mail/news, composer).

  6. Re:Buggy by mu_wtfo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mozilla and Firebird both use the exact same engine - Gecko. And since Firebird is built off of the same trunk as Mozilla, the version, and hence capabilities, of Gecko are the same. Almost all of the differences between the Mozilla Application Suite and Mozilla Firebird (to use the correct terms) are UI and removal of non-browser components.

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  7. Re:Unfortunately by SimplexO · · Score: 5, Informative
    Unfortunately Microsoft will change how NTLM authentication works soon because of this, and the Mozilla team will be forced to change.
    I know you got modded Funny, but if you are serious, you shouldn't be too worried about NTLM now on windows. Maybe in the future, when they get it under Linux, though.

    See, they just use the Windows dll, and if that gets updated, Mozilla should just be able to get things done.

    Good thought, bad example.
  8. Mozilla "Classic" isn't dead yet / other comments by minnkota · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  9. small bug by Squarewav · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  10. Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    How the heck are RANDOM CRASHES an acceptable release time bug?

    You're right, they're not. So I suggest that you complain to ATI that their graphics card driver is full of bugs and can lead to random crashes of applications that use graphics in a serious way. They already admit that the problem is at their end so you may as well let them know that you find it unacceptable.

    For what it's worth, I'm not sure if this particular crash is actually still happening. It's been in the release notes for ages, but I don't recall many reports of it happening recentley. Maybe it's been fixed by the latest driver upgrade.

  11. Re:Moz 2.0 by Aanallein · · Score: 4, Informative

    Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

    If you remember the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto, you'll see that one of the most important point of that release is:

    A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed (XUL 1.0 is an API), until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Mozilla 1.0 is a greenlight to hackers, corporations, and book authors to get busy building atop this stable base set of APIs.

    So unless and until we go break the APIs, or do other major work at that level of the program, there is not yet a reason to call it Mozilla 2.0. Because once again, it's not the occasional end-users which are Mozilla's customers, it's the people embedding Mozilla in various products, the people distributing releases based on Mozilla. And those don't care about some silly little front-end changes.