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: .
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
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.
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'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?
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.
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.
I thought mozilla was a database.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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?
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).
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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'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...
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.
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.
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.
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