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
especially things like the NTLM authentication support on all platforms gives us a stick to beat the anti-opensource FUD spreaders with
see? it works!
What's the deal? It really looks like the new roadmap is "build in all the features people REALLY bitch about into XPFE Mozilla, then once Firebird/Thunderbird is more stable, we'll transition to those". I'm fine with that, but shouldn't they just come out and say it?
Ah, but when will they add SVG support to the standard build. I suspect we will always be tied to the non-open Flash format until someone steps up and makes SVG support in a browser standard.
There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
Yeah, u get free Internet Explorer on Windows so why not use it then, what will u lose anyway
Any news on how the port of mozilla to AmigaOS is going?
It's smaller, faster and supports the W3 far better than IE. It's also incredibly extensible - if you are a web designer you simply must try out the webtools bar. And I thought it was supposed to take Mozilla's place. Why haven't they killed off Mozilla yet?
From http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3 990
Microsoft's NTLM authentication protocol, popular on Windows-based corporate networks, is now supported by Mozilla on all platforms. Previously, NTLM authentication was only available to Windows Mozilla users, requiring the presence of the Windows SSPI API. Now, the SSPI code has been discarded and a cross-platform implementation has been checked in.
This makes me wonder if Microsoft will peruse legal action to block Mozilla from using a cross-platform, non MS implementation of an MS technology. Because NTLM is undocumented, I wonder what the legal ramifications of implementing it are? Do you own a copyright to an undocumented technology?
Because IE is insecure, does not have popup blocking, lacks many other features Mozilla does have and supports W3C standards better. Plus, it comes with a mail client that is more secure than outlook and has a well working spam filter built in.
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
When you optimize code or add new features, you also introduce new bugs that weren't there before. Out with the old, in with the new.
They obviously haven't spotted the new, so it's a beta.
...I'd think that getting Firebird & Thunderbird going, which seems to be a lot more plug-in oriented would make it easier than the "One tool to please them all" that they're trying to make Mozilla into.
Oh well, I won't complain, I'll just use Firebird in it's 0.x stage, it's more than stable enough for that anyway. Maybe they'll come in version 2.0 after all?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Sorry guys, but IMHO Firebird is what mozilla should habe been : nice look, 'speed-o-light' fast, IE killer ...
And last time i used mozilla (a year ago), it was slow, ugly, and somehow much buggy !
So my question is, when will they merge the two project ?
Do you own a copyright to an undocumented technology?
No, you can't own a copyright on a technology - only on an implementation. You can however, own a patent on a technology. However, you can not patent an API, though you can patent an algorithm used by the Windows implementation of that API, in which case you'd have to find another way to implement it. However, since it's undocumented, there's also no known patents to avoid.
Besides, it would probably fall under the legal protection of reverse engineering for interoperability anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Firebird is clearly the chosen one. I wish they would put a final stake through the heart of the old mozilla and pass the mantle to Firebird already.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
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.
Warning, this is semi offtopic.
As much as I love Mozilla as a regular user both in Windows and in Linux (using it now) I really wish they would fix backwards compatability with older skins. There's some really nice KDE skins out there (one in particular on KDElook that I love) that I wish I could use.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I often get customers coming up to me and asking what they can do to reduce or stop those annoying pop-up's. Sometimes I'll have to stop and think for a few seconds to understand/remember what they're talking about since Mozilla has spoiled me.
The first thing I always do is recommend that they download Mozilla and give that a try while explaining to them that I haven't seen a pop-up in over a year.
Unfortunately, though, most folks (~ 95%) will just tell me that they like/are happy with Internet Explorer, despite its bugs and holes. After another attempt at explaining to them the benefits of switching, I'll just tell them about products such as pop-up stopper and popup defender. It's sad, really, as they have no idea what they're missing out on.
Okay while I agree with everything you said, your post seems terribly manufactured. I mean come on, everyone on Slashdot that's been here for at least 6 months knows Mozilla and open source are DaShiet(tm) and surely as someone with a UID that much lower than mine you already knew all this stuff. So do you make these kinds of posts every time there's a Mozilla article? Cause this is the first one I've seen. ;)
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I was talking to a few members of the development team and asked them when they would implement a faster,better web page caching system like opera but the developers mentioned it would take thousands of lines of new DOM code. They also said if you want faster browsing then just open a new window . I think there is a lack of priorities by the top managers at mozilla. How could making an installer be more important than making the brower faster. Also the fast forward and rewind is a good idea . If you notice ,alot of these direction features are in ADOBE ACROBAT PDF viewers.
But why not concentrate on implementing IE's version of DHTML? Given, MS doesn't follow set "standards" in this department. But many developers prefer MS's approach and most users (willingly or ignorantly) use Internet Explorer. These two factors cause many sites to support IE exclusively. It is very expensive for companies to implement Mozzila compatible versions of their webpages for the minority of internet users who don't use IE. Why not save everyone a lot of time and money and support Microsoft's version of DHTML?
I only have a few computer nerd friends. All my other friends' eyes just glaze over when I try to explain the benefits of using Mozilla. So I don't even try any more.
:(
Hey, if they love popups (they aren't usually even aware of the Google Toolbar, for instance), and enjoy the occasional virus or homepage hijacking, they can help themselves.
How sad that most people just don't really seem to care.
/.: why the hell am I here?
http://www.openswf.org/
There are lots of third-party apps that generate Flash files.
/. is irrelevant.
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.
They should fix the abysmal DOM performance some time. Simple DHTML applications or even plain document.write() hacks can bring Mozilla to its knees as it labors to add nodes to the document.
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!
Does anybody else find it frightening that we have web browsers with automatic language translation? I mean, its awesome! But... where the hell was I when the world got all Star Trek?
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.
1.5.1 exists only for Mac OS X. The latest stable version for all other platforms is 1.5.
Does "beta" mean bug-free? No.
Does "stable" mean bug-free? No.
These labels have nothing to do with optimizations or improvements; they are reflections of a team's comfort level with a products' defects and limitations.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Wow ! And after years of development, playing a .wav file if new mail arrives, still doesn't work.
But besides that, Mozilla is by far the best piece of software on my computer(s). - I've been using it since the early milestone releases (on Linux) and will be very sad once the Mozilla suite will be discontinued...
To error is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the OS.
Do IE and Mozilla treat the box model in the same way? (Example : try setting a fixed width box with a border, then adding some padding to it - it will currently look different under each browser)
If it does, then cool, but I'd be surprised.
I hope they develop firebird into a PIM suite
I dunno... I a bit sceptical about developing a web browser into a PIM suite. Surely that'll mean massive work underneath the hood.
On a more serious note, I see what you mean. Thunderbird would be amazing if it got task, scheduling, and contact support.
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
I for one welcome our new Mozilla 1.6 Beta overlords.
There were several unfortunate bugs that crept in with 1.5, and as far as I'm aware haven't been fixed yet, e.g.,
These are annoyances more than critical faults, but bring down the general quality. Given that the functionality used to work until 1.3 or 1.4 in each case, they're also regressions, which suggest weaknesses in the code introduced inadvertently and best fixed before building on it further for Thunder/Firebird.
It could also be the issue of profile migration. AFAIK, there are still no solid tools available to move a profile from Moz to the next generation alternatives, nor any easy way to move back if you don't like the change. The Thunderbird download pages are covered in warnings about this. If you're relying on Moz for more than toy use, for example if you have thousands of e-mails filed away that you want to keep, that alone might be enough to prevent you considering an upgrade, and thus to justify continued development of the original Mozilla tools in parallel with the new work.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And all those clean looking blank pages saying just "skip intro".
Because it's a pointless thing that is only relevant to the 0.01% of the population that a) have Mozilla and b) read that newsgroup.
Far better for it to be in a module. Then if you want it, you can install it, rather than bloating out the main application with something that the majority of people won't ever use or even understand the need for.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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.
In order to check out the SVG support, I build my own image of Moz from the mainline CVS branch a couple of weeks ago.
The SVG isn't included for good reason - in its current state it is next to useless. Moz natively supports SVG right now as much as Microsoft natively supports the POSIX API - just enough to claim it, not enough to be useful.
However, IF you have the machine and the connection to do so, I suggest building your own - they have greatly improved the build process. Compiling moz with "-Os -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse,376" has greatly improved the speed of Moz on my machine - but YMMV.
www.eFax.com are spammers
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
I don't understand why Mozilla has ANY form of disk caching built in in the first place - that is not the way of Unix.
Let a seperate program do the disk caching (e.g. Squid). Let Moz and any other program use that program. Thus, everybody benefits from the cache.
Just like in the latest released of libresolve (the DNS library for *nix systems) now has the "lightweight resolver" which is a small caching resolver library, so that applications that stupidly keep asking to resolve the same address don't load down the nameservers.
The way of Unix - "small, sharp tools" or "one job, one program" is not just for geeks - it makes for a more robust system as the programs can be optimized to do what they do VERY WELL.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Sorry, it is not superior. There are ambiguities, it relies on SMILE for it's animation and SMILE is badly specified and overly complex. The implementation issues and ambiguities mean that very simple animations produce different results on different browsers. The complexity means that there aren't a lot of very functional implementations because it's a big job to implement what should be a simple format.
The whole thing is a wasted opportunity.
My dad was having the same problem - I moved him to Moz, since setting up a (1)Pop-up Blocker and (2) Junk Mail filter, via him on the phone, was more involved than just having him download/install Moz. He loves it - it moved over all his settings from IE, no more problems and no tech calls.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
- FTP: upload is a part of the protocol, but Mozilla UI developers are ignoring it for the last 3 years;
- HTTP: WebDAV now is a part of the protocol, but Mozilla developers implemented it only in Composer (not in Browser, like IE);
Why Mozilla developers think that Calendar and Chatzilla (which has nothing to do with web-browsing at all, and by the way it's implemented anyway so badly that nobody use it) are more important for web-browsing than a complete implementation of core web-browsing protocols?Maybe at early 90s it was ok that that the web-browsing is a one-way communication when you only read and download the content. But it's not true anymore (perhaps since the dot-com bubble?). Today the web-browsing is almost always a two-way communication: people are answering web-forms and uploading files all the way.
I suggest Mozilla developers to wake-up, to free themselves from old AOL cultural traditions (remember? AOL still tinks that the internet access == dial-up 56K modems!), and to redistribute their resource accordingly to real priorities. Stop wasting your time on developing ChatZilla and Calendar (really useless components). Instead, devote those resources on FTP upload and HTTP WebDAV.
Less is more !
My dad was having the same problem at his work. I recommended he download Mozilla or Firebird.
The next day, he said, "So today I went through all my links and deleted the ones I never use. Now I don't get anywhere near as many popups."
I still don't know what he actually did.
"get binaries' checksums to match the old binaries' checksums (nigh on impossible, given how md5 hash works)"
It's so impossible that someone who could do it might win a Fields medal.