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."

97 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. What's that other Internet Explorer thing again? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Funny
    "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: .

  2. I'm a Mozilla user, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I'm a Mozilla user, but... by ATAMAH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Considering that people who get the release candidates use them and report bugs so that they are fixed in next releases - yes, it is necessary to anounce every release candidate.

    2. Re:I'm a Mozilla user, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      No, it's not necessary, but I think it's good to shamelessly promote an alternative browser to Micro$oft's advertisement-laden thing. Where else would Mozilla get the free publicity. It doesn't have $20 billion in the bank and a stranglehold on the computer industry, so isn't Mozilla at least allowed to dominate our little Slashdot?

  3. hey hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Mozilla on Windows now has support for NTLM authentication. This enables Mozilla to talk to MS web and proxy servers that are configured to use "windows integrated security".

    Excellent. This was the only reason I kept a copy of explorer around. Now to see if it works. :)

    1. Re:hey hey by r0xah · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never even thought about moving over from IE to Mozilla or any open source browsers after previously using Netscape 4 and lower versions a few years ago, but with how well done these browsers are and their customability you really can't beat them. They have something for everybody and once you install one it is as easy to use as IE and less prone to crashing. Also it does not have hidden files it saves of everything you do on the internet that it does not tell you about and you can't delete from a menu in the options.

      --
      those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -isaac asimov
    2. Re:hey hey by unsinged+int · · Score: 5, Funny

      "windows integrated security"

      Neat trick. I thought those two were divergent.

      That's a math joke.

      Ummm...nevermind.

    3. Re:hey hey by lewp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also it does not have hidden files it saves of everything you do on the internet that it does not tell you about and you can't delete from a menu in the options.

      Mozilla drone #325432 to Fearless Leader:
      Have infiltrated r0xah's computer. My hidden files have not been found. What a trusting fool he is. Hahahaha!

      *end transmission*

      --
      Game... blouses.
  4. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    even though everyone isn't a computer scientist, we can all still do our part in making a terrific program

    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
  5. Moz 2.0 by foo+fighter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Moz 2.0 by Adam9 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, to catch up with RedHat, Mandrake, and everyone else I think it should be Mozilla 9!

    2. Re:Moz 2.0 by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering it's a complete redesign of the UI, a breaking of the suite into seperate components that are not interlinking, and the fact that third party code works completely differently I would say a move to a 2.0 version would be completely justified.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Moz 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Firebird 6.0" might be appropriate.. that's about where Internet Exploiter is at the moment?

    4. Re:Moz 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The next release won't be 2.0. Although the front end is changing to the new toolkit, and the all-in-one suite is being abandoned, the code at the core will (the Gecko layout engine, necko networking library and so on) still be the same and, in particular will not represent a big break in backward compatibility from 1.0.

      However, in the 1.5 and 1.6 cycles, it is anticipated that there will be some big backend changes (code simplifcation, rearchitecture work) that will break API compatibility with 1.0. There is also a move to distribute the core librarys seperatley in a form called the Gecko Runtime Environment, which will make it easier for other products to utilise part of Mozilla without needing to distribute the whole suite in their application. All of this means that 2.0 isn't a sutiable name for a few release cycles yet. In addition, it is quite possible that the version numbers of the front end and the back end will no longer be the same (for example the next release might be Firebird 0.7 with Mozilla 1.5)

    5. 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.

  6. woohoo! by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  7. 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

  8. Re:Firebird by pompousjerk · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, they're hoping to do that in Mozilla 1.5.

  9. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've never even used the Web, you insensitive clod!

    Ahem.

  10. IRIX version information? by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Bah by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Funny
    Mozilla, shmozilla.

    Safari > *
    Safari != crossplatform && Mac != everyone's favorite OS. Therefore, Safari < Mozilla.

    But Safari > MSIE ;)
    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  12. Unfortunately by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. 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.
    2. Re:Unfortunately by falsification · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not so fast.

      If MS changes the Windows dll, do you think there's a small chance they will also change how that dll is accessed, thus cutting Mozilla out? Ya think?

      Then, once Mozilla has its own cross-platform, built-in NTLM, MS will really change NTLM, but at the server level, so that Mozilla has to start all over again.

      And still someone will say, "not an abuse of a monopoly." Har har.

    3. Re:Unfortunately by samael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if they change it, all thos corporate customers who are running older versions of IE/Windows will get very upset at not being able to use their clients on their servers.....

    4. Re:Unfortunately by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think you are confused.

      As somebody who has witnessed the horrors of ever-changing SMB dialects (that computer can't see that other computer for some strange reason, everything changes after service-pack and update) and the mysterious incompatibilities between Word versions (sometimes even within the same version depending on installed printer drivers etc.) I have learned something about Windows users:

      Most will suck it down like anything else.

      Thankfully, Europe is waking up and starting to implement big Linux-based installations and Microsoft's "designed for incompatibility" strategy will actually start to hurt them in Europe.

    5. Re:Unfortunately by fr0dicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my experience people aren't switching as such, but they're not upgrading either, and just sticking with what they have and taking the pain of newer things being difficult to integrate. At some point it just doesn't become economical to keep rolling out windows for precious little needed extra functionality.

    6. Re:Unfortunately by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If MS changes the Windows dll, do you think there's a small chance they will also change how that dll is accessed, thus cutting Mozilla out?

      No, I don't think there's a chance of that. MS would not change the public API. Not only would it break products that depend on it, changing the API would also break other versions of IE (not to mention other Internet-aware applications). MS has changed the unpublished API before, resulting in broken applications that relied on it. Wah...that's why one shouldn't use those calls.

      Then, once Mozilla has its own cross-platform, built-in NTLM, MS will really change NTLM, but at the server level, so that Mozilla has to start all over again.

      This assumes that MS has magic powers to instantaneously retrofit all of its software throughout the world to comply with the new format. I don't think anyone, even on slashdot (except maybe you), holds this view.

  13. 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.
    1. Re:NTLM Again by RoLi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Considering even Microsoft isn't supporting Windows 98 in its latest Office suite, I don't think Mozilla developers should worry about it.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong!!

      Win98 is still used by a lot of people. If you can offer a product that relieves them from upgrading to Win2K, they will love it.

      Actually, I found out that the best argument in favour of OpenOffice is the fact that it runs on all Windows versions and will do so for the forseeable future.

      If Mozilla can become a problem-free product (installs on everything, can connect to everything) it will be great for their marketshare.

  14. 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.
  15. Oh great it's a virus installer by akbkhome · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the release notes:
    "Launch file" after downloading has been enabled for .exe files


    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
    1. Re:Oh great it's a virus installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't this taking IE emulation a bit too far!

      Don't give your question marks viagra.

      and IMO this feature should be disabled by default. If you don't know how to enable it, you probably wouldn't know why you shouldn't.

  16. Lemme get this straight . . . by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Lemme get this straight . . . by mu_wtfo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since we're getting things straight...
      XPFE *IS* XUL. The Phirebird folks also use XUL, only they use it differently and, some would argue, better. The XUL that describes the XPFE UI is rather monolithic, having been around for quite a while, and hacked on heavily for all that time. The Firebird XUL tends to be much leaner - due, in large part, to the componentization (I think I just made that word up) which is at the core of the new Mozilla roadmap.

      --
      If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  17. 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?

    1. Re:It's fast by minnkota · · Score: 2, Informative

      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? 1.4 will be replacing 1.02 as the stable version of Mozilla. The team would like as many people as possible to pound away on this build to look for any remaining showstopper bugs before the final release of 1.4 is pushed out.

  18. Re:Firebird by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

    you mean, "Mozilla Firebird"? According to The Mozilla Branding Strategy: When referring to Thunderbird or Firebird before or during the 1.4 release cycle, make sure to use the project name with Mozilla pre-pended as "Mozilla Thunderbird" or "Mozilla Firebird" instead of Mozilla alone or Firebird/Thunderbird alone.

    and then Use the names "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" to describe the Firebird and Thunderbird projects after the 1.4 release.

    Which I guess makes the old, Firebird-DB problem kind of moot, since after 1.4 there really will be no "Firebird" Browser, just "Mozilla Browser"

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  19. It's very fast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. :)

  20. Junk Mail Controls? by Traderdot · · Score: 2, Informative
    Been using Mozilla Mail as my primary mail client since 1.3 (now using 1.3.1). Bayesian filter is great. However, I've had a problem where the junk mail is recognized as junk but is not automatically moved to the junk mail folder. Can't seem to fix this no matter what settings I change.

    I looked at the latest release notes and didn't see anything about this being fixed. Anyone else experience this problem/have a solution?

  21. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought mozilla was a database.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  22. Re:Redundant? by Adam9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just another reason to metamod.

  23. Re:Ahh, great. by amorsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please hurry and download the release candidate so the rest of us can have the final 1.4 tomorrow. Thank you for your cooperation.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  24. 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).

  25. THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? by Com2Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • Mac OS and Windows: Using ATI video drivers will lead to random crashes on many sites.


    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. . .

    • Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.


    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. . . .)

    • Dialog Boxes and Windows

    • 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!)

    • The attachments will not all be shown or you
    • may experience a crash when attempting to display them.


    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. ....)

    1. 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.

    2. Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ATI bug is a bug with ATI, not with Mozilla, so it's really not their problem. Badly behaving plugins really shouldn't crash the app, but hopefully that will be fixed before 1.4final (this is an RC as you pointed out). Mozilla is the most stable piece of software I think I have ever worked with, I use it 8-14 hours a day, 6-7 days a week and I haven't had a crash in like 6 months. Much better than IE even though I use IE maybe 2% of the time!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? by jesser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.

      That's bug 30841 and it was fixed a year and a half ago. It's still in the release notes because the wrong bug number was listed in the release notes, and the semiautomatic check for fixed bugs (which I believe involves Asa using the "collect buglinks" bookmarklet on the release notes and scanning for fixed bugs) didn't catch it.

      Please don't judge Mozilla's stability based on the release notes. Instead, judge Mozilla's stability based on how often it crashes when you use it. (Some Mozilla developers have access to MTBF statistics from Talkback, but that's most useful for determining the relative stability of different Mozilla releases.)

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? by Frogg · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> Maybe it's been fixed by the latest driver upgrade.

      Yeah, the new drivers can detect if Mozilla is running, and if so run different code......

  26. 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.
  27. Re:IE by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Mozilla has tabbed browsing, more control over what I want to see, deals with cache and history better, and has a better cookie manager (it doesn't force you to confirm whether or not you want to accept each and every cookie when trying to be "secure", instead Moz has a sophisticated system of dealing with cookies without annoying popup boxes asking for approval every time - unless I want it too).

    It also isn't tied into many other aspects of my OS - upgrading or changing certain parts of Mozilla never makes me worry about how it might cripple something in my OS (like IE does). Mozilla doesn't have libraries that are integral to other applications. Mozilla doesn't have hidden code and obscure "features" that may or may not send my info to a particular vendor.

    IE is "better"? Dream on.

  28. 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...

  29. 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

    1. Re:small bug by fishbert42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An easy fix to the bug would be to not change filenames at all when transferring them from server to client. I know the Mozilla team really, really wants to tell a file what type of file it is based on what the server's MIME stuff says (because MIME info is never wrong, and we all know that the world would come crashing to an abrupt end if Mozilla didn't rename half the files it downloads); but I strongly feel this behavior does more harm than good in the user-friendliness department.

      I'm a big boy now -- if I want a downloaded file to have a different extension, I can change it myself. Really, I can... I've been studying up on it and practicing endlessly. Seriously, though; at the very least, the user should be able to select whether or not they want Mozilla to assign file extensions based on MIME info. I don't see how one could argue against letting the user decide.

      This isn't a pet peeve of mine... no.... not at all... [twitch]

  30. Re:Buggy by mu_wtfo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that the main cause of the percieved speed difference (apart from the removal of Mail, IRC, and whatnot) is that the Phirebirdnix developers learned lessons from Mozilla's use of XUL, and wrote much cleaner code. That's what I've heard, anyway. :)

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  31. Re:Any hope for ATI - Graphic cards? by falsification · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Try the older, stable driver offered by ATI. Still won't fix the problem completely. Might make it better.

    Alternatively, buy one of the developers one of those cards, a case of beer, and promise him another case if he fixes it.

  32. While I'm excited about this, by Sevn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  33. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Funny
    I thought mozilla was a database.

    You were wrong. It's an application platform ... apparently.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  34. Re:Mozilla "Classic" isn't dead yet / other commen by rgsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  35. Re:Any word on how the new AOL deal impacts Mozill by Squarewav · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  36. Re:IE by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IE6 is actually faster, you just have to know how to tweak it, after turning off all the fade effects, eye candy, etc Windows XP runs quite a bit faster than 2k pro thanks to being built with a higher compiler optimization (P2 vs Pentium, makes a huge difference on an Athlon). It's also got like 100 fewer crash bugs, check the MSKB if you doubt it. I still say IE sucks compared to Mozilla and I only use it for those increasingly rare sites that require IE and even then I have to use crazybrowser to make it barable (it adds tab support and popup blocking by wrapping the IE rendering engine inside itself)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  37. Re:IE by crunchywelch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if by pulling up front you mean has totally blown away i'd concur....

    It's interesting that there have been no significant innovations from IE in several versions... I wonder if the codebase for IE is so confused that even a standard like tabbed browsing is too difficult to implement at this point without totally toppling an otherwise shaky product?

    <input type crash> anyone?

    --
    1400x1250 in a 640x480 world...
  38. Re:NIghtly build is 1.5a by Aanallein · · Score: 3, Informative
    I installed a nightly build two days ago and it is named 1.5a, not 1.4 somethng.

    Anyone know why?
    Because the 1.4 development has been split off on a branch, and meanwhile on the trunk development has already started for 1.5 alpha. (See the image in the roadmap for a visualization.) Although it won't be 1.5a for quite a while, it already has the version number for it.
    If potentially getting absolutely buggy and alpha builds doesn't appeal to you, you won't want to download builds from latest/ - you'll want to download from latest-1.4/
  39. Better than IE since before XP was even released by Seeker5528 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  40. Silly me... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    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:
    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.
    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
    1. Re:Silly me... by McDutchie · · Score: 2, 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.
      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.

      Indeed - and not only on Linux, either. Furthermore, in spite of their "not for end users" legal disclaimer, they have a dedicated page promoting the reasons why end users should be using Mozilla. So their legal disclaimer is really just that.

  41. copy/pasting rtl data by Tony+Laszlo,+Tokyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  42. Hopefully Mozilla Mail POP3 bug is fixed by SuckyDucky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  43. Re:Small rant by SuckyDucky · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is hardly incremental. The inclusion of NTLM is a monumental advance. It means I no longer need to use IE on my intranet which uses NTLM for everything.

  44. This is disgraceful... by AtomicX · · Score: 3, Funny

    What! - No MP3 player? I'm shocked.

  45. Re:Small rant by dracocat · · Score: 2

    I don't know. Considering we have an entire category dedicated to Mozilla, it seems like we should be following the project through to its completion or death.

  46. Unfortunately unusable on OS X with slashdot by redwoodtree · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  47. IMAP is not good enough by fluor2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:IMAP is not good enough by David+McBride · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two things:

      1) There is an internal Mozilla preference to tell Mozilla to check *all* IMAP mailboxes, rather than just your INBOX. Enter ``about:config`` in the address bar and create the following boolean pref:

      mail.check_all_imap_folders_for_new

      and set it to ``true``.

      2) IMAP is not client-side check only -- the protocol allows for server-side checking and notification. Have a look at the new GPL IMAP server called Dovecot which has support for this.

      Although it's not been released as stable yet, it's current version number is 0.99.9.1 (sound familiar? :) Once we're happy that the last bugs are squished, it will most likely replace wu-imapd on our site IMAP servers.

      Cheers,

      David

    2. Re:IMAP is not good enough by egrinake · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've been using Evolution as an IMAP/SSL client for a couple of years now, and I haven't had any problems with it at all. Give it a try.

  48. Re:FEATURE REQUEST by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does BITTORRENT functionality finally let Mozilla support the evil bit?

  49. Re:Ahh, great. by Katalyzt · · Score: 3, Informative

    before you dl next time check out the roadmap table near end of page to see the estimated dates for the next release.

    --
    version 0.0002
  50. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by mccalli · · Score: 3, Insightful
    He actually explained to us what Mozilla is on Slashdot. Priceless. =)

    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

  51. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Mozilla is an open-source Web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability."

    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
  52. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. I thought mozilla was a database.

    (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

  53. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  54. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by mystran · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  55. Mozilla Firebird by Ramze · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The cool thing about Mozilla Firebird is that you can add extensions to the browser that you want. I'm sure someone could add an extention for bittorrent & then only those that want it could install it. I have almost a dozen extensions (or are they called plugins? I forget) in my Firebird 0.6 that do all sorts of things like block flash ads unless I click on them & filters to block ads and other files from specific domains and subdomains

    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.

  56. "Always show this dialog before handling files..." by bunratty · · Score: 2, Informative
    If anyone keeps getting that dialog asking what helper application to use every time you download an MPEG or other type of audio file, please go to Bug 48948 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48948 and report what OS you are using and anything else that would help Mozilla developers fix the problem. It's driving some of us bonkers, but the developers cannot reproduce the problem!

    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.
  57. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  58. Oh man, will there be no OS9 builds, ever? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My computer at work is running OS9.2 and I can't go in and upgrade it to OSX. (Not only would I have to pay for it, but our tech support wouldn't be able to work on it.)

    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?

    1. Re:Oh man, will there be no OS9 builds, ever? by BZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Would it really be that hard to merge in all the
      > improvements that have been made since then and
      > release 1.4 for OS9?

      In a word, yes. We spent months looking for someone or some group willing to maintain the OS9 version with its separate build system and such, and no one was up to doing it.

      It'd take a few weeks of work for someone who really knows what he's doing to merge in the changes at this point and then fix up all the resulting build system issues.

  59. Re:Ahh, great. by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    before you dl next time check out the roadmap table near end of page to see the estimated dates for the next release.

    Considering AOL and MS have smoked the peace pipe, I'm not any too certain that roadmap is going to be valid much longer. If AOL is going to be using IE as the basis of their userland software, goodbye funding for Mozilla.

  60. Mozilla is great, BUT... by norite · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I wish they'd sort out the Composer side of things, it's totally bug ridden, and it needs some serious updating. They are really little, silly, dumb bugs, that totally wind me up, and these are by no means consistent bugs; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. here they are, and they are by no means the full list:

    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
  61. Re:Bah by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  62. Mozilla 1.2.1 mailboxes don't migrate? by truth_revealed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  63. Re:Lose2003 Report by BZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can get selection ranges out of a text control with a 1.4 rc1 build...

  64. Password Manager Question by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  65. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by TheGuruMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  66. Nvidia driver problems in 1.4b by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have an Nvidia GeForce 2 Ti, am running Windows 2000 Advanced Server, and upgraded to 1.4b when it came out (around 2003/05/08). I changed nothing else on my system, and all of a sudden the video started acting screwy. StarCraft wouldn't start up until I exited Mozilla; right-click on the desktop and select Properties, then the Settings tab and it showed the screen dimensions at 9999x9999; DOS Prompts couldn't go full-screen; some icons/screen elements wouldn't repaint properly.

    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.
  67. Re:What's that other Internet Explorer thing again by axxackall · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Speaking about SVG. Any news when by default it will be on and stable?

    Another question: any news about XForms support?

    --

    Less is more !