Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 1.6 Beta Released
Sick Boy writes "As reported on Mozillazine, the Mozilla Foundation today released Mozilla 1.6 Beta. This latest milestone adds support for NTLM authentication on all platforms and improves the implementation on Windows. The automatic page translation feature has been restored (now powered by Google Language Tools) and a new version of ChatZilla, 0.9.48, is now included. In addition, several security and crash bugs have been fixed during the beta release cycle. Builds can be downloaded from the Mozilla Releases page or directly from the mozilla1.6b directory on ftp.mozilla.org. The Mozilla 1.6 Beta Release Notes have more detailed information about what's new and known issues to watch out for."
Not that I doubt they can take the load, but why make 'em?
"[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
I was getting a bit of Deja-vu reading the NTLM stuff since I was sure they had announced it earlier.
NTLM support on all platforms was announced on the 18th of Nov and has been available in CVS since then.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
there is no stable 1.6 release yet. The latest stable was 1.5.1 I believe
Alpha-> Beta-> Final
It's nothing to do with copyright.
Since it's undocumented and the implementors have (presumably) never seen the MS code, there can be no copyright problems or IP leakage.
The only problem may be if MS has a patent on something fundamental in the NTLM system...
I don't think they are merging it, they will keep working on the Mozilla core but not release any more Seamonkey (Mozilla Application Suite) milestones.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
FB is hardly that much faster - it uses exactly the same rendering engine and set of libraries under the hood, so there is just a tiny speedup from the GUI that is unnoticable on modern fast computers. It does NOT support W3 better or worse, since it uses exactly the same Gecko engine. And it lacks many features of Mozilla that need to be brought back through extensions. And inflationary extensions can eventually cause severe security problems.
a year ago, mozilla was slow, ugly, and somehow much buggy. I use 1.5 and it is fine, so - on the whole - (there was a problem with font-sizes when printing) was 1.4.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Dead as a doornail. IIRC it began around the time of Milestone 9 or something, and nothing was ever released in public.
Besides, why do you ask on Slashdot?
Try a more specific site like ANN.lu or amiga.org.
(Or if you want to be fed with lies and hear everything's A-OK and you should send more money to "Amiga, Inc." in order to "support the community", then head over to AmigaIncOtherworldly.nuts)
There are many users who prefer MozillaSuite for many good reasons (more features, several components nicely integrated, no need to download countless extensions, ...). Apart from that, FB/TB are still "technology previews" with many problems.
because your statement is false. I work at a company which develops applications for web browsers, so there is a lot of Javascript/DOM/DHTML etc involved. The current browser generation is not nearly as difficult to handle as it was in the bad old times of Netscape4/IE4. We have a neat little js-framework that handles the differences between IE and Mozilla and most code works on both browsers without heavy modification.
Am I the only one in here that do not type out my web pages in a text editor? I happen to prefer the WYSIWYG web editing of Mozilla, which is missing from the Firebird releases. I, for one will be very unhappy to see the main branch of Mozilla discontinued just because of this.
Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana.
You must have used Egg a long time ago, as I was using Mozilla 1.5 quite happily with it a couple of days ago, with no rendering quirks at all, and no insistence that I use Internet Explorer.
Actually both IE and Mozilla/Gecko (don't know about Opera) have this quirks rendering mode.
They use DOCTYPE - the first line of the source - sniffing to determine which (X)HTML version the web page is written for. If the page indicates the use of a strict version of (X)HTML, these browsers will render the page in a strict standards compliant mode. Everything will be rendered according to the strict standards as proposed by The WWW Consortium. Your pages will look the same both in IE and Mozilla, however don't be fooled by IE's relaxed attitude towards block/inline content - do read up on this in the specs. If you preview your pages in Mozilla first you will save a lot of time, because it's not as forgiving when you make mistakes.
In quirks mode you can use all the dirty tricks from the old days. Everything will look horrible accros different browsers, and the source will be next to unmaintainable!
The quirks/strict standards modes are triggered by these doctypes respectively:
Quiks mode:
HTML 3.2
HTML 4.01 Transitional
HTML 4.01 Frameset
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
XHTML 1.0 Frameset
Strict standards mode:
HTML 4.01 Strict
XHTML 1.0 Strict
XHTML 1.1
I'd advise everyone to write (X)HTML to the strict versions and make the www a better place to be for all of us.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
It's pretty simple to understand... Just look at the checkin list for the relevant timeframe (http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsqueryform.cgi).
;)
Lots of under-the-hood stuff that you may not see, but 1.6 is about 10% faster than 1.5 at rendering web pages.
Just a quick comment for those stuck with NTLM at work. I run a local NTLM proxy server so I can run whatever browser or HTTP tool I like on whatever OS I need. I just point my browser at the proxy and it just works.
...
The proxy I use is written in Python, is small, and is really easy to install. NTLM Authorization Proxy Server.
Since you are authenticating with your user name and password, from your machine, and you are still actually going through the company web proxy just like IE would, there's absolutely no logical reason for the local "preventers of information services" to complain. At least, in my case, they haven't been able come up with an actual reason yet that hasn't been easy to dismiss. Not for want of trying, though
Well, if you need to know how far away, you could check out http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/ for a nice summary of the 'nightly' activity. If you want to see 'who changed what in what file and when' in any release, just check http://bonsai.mozilla.org/. Not as easy to summarize that yourself, but when I was into the nightlies, I loved watching that. The rate of progress is phenomenal.
--- March, milde, march!
At the end of the day, I cannot think of a single website that uses IE specific DHTML in a way that makes me yearn for support for it in Moz.
I agree 100%. I've been using Mozilla and Firebird as my primary browsers for several years... never do I hit sites that make me "need" Internet Explorer.
Occaisionally I'll hit a site with DHTML menus that render a little funky in Mozilla because they weren't coded right, but I never hit any sites that "need" IE.
If the "compatibility" thing is what's holding anybody back from trying Mozilla or Firebird, then... by all means... you're really not missing anything, guys!
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Rot13? Try http://www.pinkroom.biz/owl/minirot13/
Why this hasn't been added to the codebase, I have no idea.
of course I meant that Mozilla still suppoerts W3C standards better ... though there are some CSS things that work better in IE. MS is finally slowly catching up.
Elsewhere on MozillaZine, somebody (sounding authoritative) said that the transition would occur in the first half of 2004. Nobody really knows. I would guess that it will be at least two more versions after 1.6, but I am not a Mozilla developer.
I already have Mozilla, Firebird and Opera installed. I end up using Opera about 90% of the time though
1.5.1 exists only for Mac OS X. The latest stable version for all other platforms is 1.5.
I personally would set people up with firebird. It's a slick looking browser and that will impress a lot of people. If you sit them down and gently guide them through tabbed browsing it will all make sense. Popup blocking can be demonstrated by challenging them to find a website with a popup (if they like to look at porn they will notice a huge improvement).
(don't know about Opera)
:)
Here is Opera's rendering mode "strategy."
Having recently made an excursion into the world of XHTML 1.1 web design, I have to say, it demands so much of your code, you'll never look at tag soup the same way again. But it's worth it. It took a while, I adjusted, and will never give an (X)HTML document that doesn't validate* to the browsing public again. I strongly urge all of you to put forth the effort to check your pages and read up about web standards (here) as well.
If only there were some way to get the same from the 8,419,528,073 animated GIF-loaded, Frontpage Express, Geocities-hosted messes elsewhere on the web.
*: Don't forget to check your CSS for validity as well.
Unfortunatly the kitchensink patch isn't in the mainstream mozilla yet (see bugzilla.mozilla.org, bug 122411)
/ kitchensink.xml
However you can view it in all it's glory here: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/samples
"Everything will be rendered according to the strict standards as proposed by The WWW Consortium [w3.org]. Your pages will look the same both in IE and Mozilla" Not quite true, that is what the strict or standards modes are intended to do (and partially do) but realistically certain things are going to be treated differently even by browsers in standards mode. For example floats are treated much differently by IE then in Mozilla even if both are in rendering an XHTML 1.1 page (personal experience with my own site).
vampirical
Backward compatibilty with skins doesn't seem like the biggest issue to me. I worry that developers get too caught up in supporting what was and that limits what can be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for open source developers to do a Word format thing where they keep changing the format to get everyone to upgrade, but neither do I want a system whereby every legacy app is supported in the new version and thus, everything is clunky.
I'm not saying this as well as I had hoped. But what I guess I'm talking about is that I was very impressed when the Mozilla team made the decision to jettison the old Netscape code even though that meant a longer development cycle, backlash from lots of sources, and a host of other PR problems. By starting from scratch, they produced a product that is incredible, far better than if they had stayed with the old code.
So, if a few skins don't work, for me, that's not a big deal.
Then again, I'm just one user.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
That's probably because IE's CSS implementation is a wee bit lacking. I've run into that float problem myself, but I got around it.
There are ways around other IE CSS lackings as well, e.g. IE 5 had problems the w3c's _recommended_ way of centering text by specifying both left and right margins as 'auto'. It's fixed in IE 6, but I believe you could put in extra (well, redundant) rules in your style sheet to satisfy IE 5. However it's a bit ugly and unfortunate that you have to do it.
If you check out W3c's pages, even they will sometimes present different style sheets depending on your browser. The CSS page itself is a good example. Try IE and Mozilla with this one.
In any case, these lackings on IE's part will hopefully be fixed in the future, which means if you follow the standard IE will ultimately have to follow you.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
You can see screenshots of what the patched Mozilla is capable of here. It can do basic drawing of shapes. However, without filters (eg. embossing, shadows, etc) or animation (eg. smoothly interpolate a color or shape from one state to another), much of the really sexy parts of SVG aren't available. And if you have a stock browser, none of SVG will be available until the code's good enough to bring in.
Actually you should check this great page which provides performance data for a few DOM operations. http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html
--
The world is divided in two categories:
those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
It's because SVG sucks ass and designers (myself included) are the ones who bring you vector graphics over the web. They decide. Simple as that. FlashMX is THE standard for vector design - not to mention a complete development environment to make all those nice applications and games.
SVG appears to be far superior to Flash for Vector graphics, especially the way it's so easy for a scripting language to modify it on the fly. FlashMX isn't the standard for vector design, it's a tiny niche market for web designers like yourself. The vector graphic designers include everybody on the face of the planet that uses an application such as Adobe Illustrator.
When SVG becomes de facto, we will see small web design firms become far more productive:
* designer fires up Illustrator (or whatever) and knocks up a pretty design
* designer points out that his texts COMPANY_NAME_HERE and SLOGAN_HERE need to be dynamic
* client-side programmer takes 10 seconds writing a script that reads in the file, does a str_replace() with the company details in the database, and spits it out
Thankfully all the menu buttons can be done this way, which wastes a lot of our designers time and soaks up bandwidth for no practical purpose. The alternative of Flash for buttons is not good as it cuts out those without the plug-in, and people losing or not sending the source means we have maintenance troubles.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Add in a few nifty settings (force tabs to open in the background, and middle click opens in a new tab) a great mod and a daily reading list and the amount one can quickly & effeciently surf is truly astounding.
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
the "non-open Flash format" argument is so old is not funny anymore.
/. is an anti-Flash crowd, but as a technology Flash is no more evil than animated gifs. Both are abused by advertisers but both have legitimate uses.
The Flash IDE is proprietary. The Flash file format is open and documented. You can write your own program to create or read flash files like so many have.
SVG may be nice but with 98% market penetration I don't see Flash disappearing anytime soon. Also, considering its graphics+animation+sound+video (sorenson based) capabilities, coupled with a pretty good language (based on ECMAScript 4), Flash is a very powerful tool.
I realize that
> Sorry guys, but IMHO Firebird is what mozilla ...
... maybe in an alternative universe where c 10m/s
> should habe been : nice look, 'speed-o-light'
> fast, IE killer
Yeah, 'speed-o-light'
I have Firebird 0.7 installed here. To start it up (from an initial zero-window state) on this 550MHz Pentium III, I have to wait something like ten and a half seconds.
Mozilla 1.5 has this nice feature that lets you preload the application. Because of this, I can start from the same zero-window state and get a new browser window open in two seconds.
Until Firebird has this functionality, I can't use it.
For that matter, while I use a modified Qute skin (that's what Firebird uses) for Opera, I vastly prefer using the Walnut skin for Mozilla, since it looks a ton better. I don't think that I can use this skin with Firebird. I will check, though.
--
-JC
no... what he was saying was just that there's no central authority deciding who works on what - whether something's "more important" is irrelevant to how many people are working on it.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
The DMCA does no apply to this. While it can be argued that this is reverse engineering an access control mechanism, that it is for interoperability, which is protected under the DMCA, cannot really be argued.
and still no yEnc support.
9 64
if you can vote for the support
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119
PS : Yes, I know it is evil, but it does ont change the fact that is used.
Mozilla is free too, and in addition to what others have said, it has tabs. IE is a little faster but for my personal browsing habits tabs outweigh sheer speed.
Opera is a pretty fast browser too but there's security wholes and that pesky adbar is really lame.