Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla's Year In Review For 2003

An anonymous reader writes "Like last year, MozillaZine has published a review of Mozilla's world in 2003. Obviously, the year was dominated by AOL's decision to murder Netscape (though various acts of 'brand necrophilia' will ensure that the Netscape name lives on in one form or another). This, combined with Mozilla Firebird's and Mozilla Thunderbird's steady progress towards replacing the Mozilla suite, made 2003 very much a transitional year for the open source project. Other memories to tell your grandchildren include mozilla.org's fifth birthday, the new roadmap, the Firebird name debate and a new chapter being added to The Book of Mozilla."

19 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Having just tried Firebird... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...I must say that I am looking forward to 2004! As time goes on, their products get better and better, and if being able to convince my cow orkers to use Mozilla is any indication, MS could learn a thing or two about what to put in a free browser. ;)

    1. Re:Having just tried Firebird... by blurfus · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...and if being able to convince my cow orkers to use Mozilla is any indication...

      It must be hard for all Cow orkers of the world to not have a choice of cow orking tool... ;)

      Happy New Year!

      P.S. Firebird Rocks...!

      --
      will work for Karma
  2. Although... by ChocolateCheeseCake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The person simoniker class the whole episode as "Netscape murdered by AOL", the fact remains that the sooner Mozilla moves away from AOL and towards being a non-profit organisation that is user centric rather than buzz word centric the better. The unfortunate thing is that there is now a lack of developers but hopefully with the new political structure, more developers can be encouraged to help out with the same vigor and determination ones sees in other projects, for example, FreeBSD or the Linux kernel. Firebird is a nice browser and hopefully they will start using native widgets rather than the ugly GTK like widgets being used now. With that being said, one could quesiton whether Mozilla has a relevance outside developing a rendering engine. GNOME has standardised on Epiphany for the browser and Evolution for the eMail/Contact manager, so where does the Mozilla foundation fit in. In some ways, this will be good. If they can instead concerntrate on the guts and gore and let the various projects like kmeleon, Epiphany and Camino concerntrate on the native front end, hopefully development will pick up and some of those really old render bugs in Mozilla's bugzilla are fixed.

    --

    Erotic uses a feather; Pornography uses the whole chicken

    1. Re:Although... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Informative

      > hopefully they will start using native widgets rather than the ugly GTK like widgets being used now.

      Then you lose cross-platform consistency and the ability to use themes with custom widgets. I like being able to use the same standards-compliant browser that looks and behaves the same on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

      Check out themes.mozdev.org, or -- if you know HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, then you can learn XUL and build your own.

      I like the browser/email combo, use Moz 1.5, and hope they'll continue to develop it. I'm not terribly interested in replacing one app with 4 (browser, email, HTML editor, IRC).

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Although... by macshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With that being said, one could quesiton whether Mozilla has a relevance outside developing a rendering engine. GNOME has standardised on Epiphany for the browser and Evolution for the eMail/Contact manager, so where does the Mozilla foundation.

      Keep in mind that `Gnome has standardized on' is not equivalent to `users will use.' I've used epiphany recently, and well, basically it sucks compared to firebird.

      I'm sure Gnome wants to have a `native' browser, just so there's something in the standard install, but really, epiphany has an incredibly long way to go before it's anywhere near as usable as firebird (and given the current religion at the Gnome project, they may never let it get there).

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:Although... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Currently, Firebird (And the Mozilla classic theme) use the native widget painting code where possible. On Windows, they use the theming API when available, otherwise the default is to look like the old/standard Win32 widget set. On Unix, they use Gtk's widget painting code, so it looks somewhat like a Gtk application. Unfortunately, it's not complete, menus don't look native, for example. On MacOS X, they do now use Carbon's widget painting API IIRC. They also use a skin tailored for the Mac to make Firebird obey the MacOS X UI guidelines better.

  3. Mozilla and /. (slightly OT) by GeckoFood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As much as I like Mozilla, Mozilla does a miserable job rendering ./'s site. It worked great for a very long time, doing a better job than MSIE, but now what I get is digital peanut butter when I come to ./ with Mozilla. Sometimes, it just skips the articles and leaves a bunch of little buttons all over everywhere. Other times, everything gets rendered to the same line. Anyone else have the same problem?

    I have not tried the new Firebird on /. yet, maybe that'll fix whatever's broke?

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
    1. Re:Mozilla and /. (slightly OT) by blurfus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am using Firebird and see no probs with /.
      Just for the record, Firebird is the browser I use 99% of the time and there is not many sites that it cannot handle.

      Generally, if a site 'requires' IE, switching the agent in Firebird (via the Agent Switcher plug-in) does the job (tricking the site into believing you are using IE and serving the content). Firebird then renders the page correctly.

      When this does not work, then I use IE (which is the remaining 1% percent of the time that I don't use Firebird), very rare though...

      --
      will work for Karma
    2. Re:Mozilla and /. (slightly OT) by spektr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Im using IE, and it renders all the pages just fine.

      Not my experience as creator of standards compliant websites.

      You nasty little troll.

  4. My thoughts on Firebird by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Switched completely to Linux a few months ago and Opera was the only killer app that I *HAD* to have through the switch. Mouse gestures, speed, well laid out keyboard shortcuts, etc. I'd go on but I'd be preaching to the choir.

    After reading a lot of Stallman's writings I decided to let go of even Opera and totally switch to Free software. I was very apprehensive because Opera was the second coming of Jesus as far as I was concerned.

    Went to Mozilla.org, Decided against getting the full fledged mozilla because I remembered it being bloated as all hell, got Firebird instead. Downloaded a ton of plugins, fixed everything to where it felt right.

    I'm a total convert. Firebird will kick oh so much ass by the time it hits 1.0. It's design is as simple as IE, which is the #1 reason people cite IE as their favorite browser. It's small, almost as fast as Opera, all the features that I loved in Opera are available through plugins, and all the features I didn't use aren't in Firebird because I didn't install them. I have since fallen in love with tabbed browsing. Used to think that browsing three or four sites at once was kinda stupid, but once I got used to tabs in Firebird I began to see myself doing the exact same thing. ;)

    The Mozilla project has come a VERY long ways since it first came to be. If you've tried Mozilla out earlier and were disappointed, get it now. Get Firebird. Get Thunderbird. Install plugins to your hearts content. You will be very well surprised.

    And hey, you'll be using Free software so that's a huge plus, in my eyes.

    1. Re:My thoughts on Firebird by thinkninja · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been using Firebird since 0.4 and I love it. However, no matter what I do or say I simply cannot get others to give it a try.

      They're quite prepared to install junk like bonzai buddy and various dancing things on their desktop but categorically refuse to try another browser. "I use Internet Explorer", they say and look at me like I just suggested they make love to the electric pencil sharpener.

      I've long since given up trying.

      --
      "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
    2. Re:My thoughts on Firebird by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Similarly, sure tabs are cool but if you never use them who cares? Personally I do a fair bit of research and I find no use for tabs. I can only read one screen at a time so I don't care for tabs.

      What, don't you have ADHD like the rest of us? *grin*

      Seriously, I find it to be too much of a PITA to browse without tabs anymore, but to each his own.

      How about security, though? You know, there are still huge gaping holes in IE that will allow "untrusted" software to install itself without user interaction. Heh, I witnessed it the other day, as I didn't believe it and had to see for myself.

      Watch your step... err... mouse. p /.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  5. Out of Curiosity by Joel+Carr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did the decision by AOL to 'murder' Netscape end up having a negative/positive/neutral affect on Mozilla or not? Was there a sharp loss of developers at all, or did it end up being more or less business as usual?

    ---

    --
    Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
  6. Re:It was a bad year for Mozilla. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > ...they failed completely to incoperate the rising new mark-up technologies like XML-Signature or WebCGM. If this development continues this year, Mozilla might lose it's technical lead to IE or Opera.

    Are you just pulling this stuff out of your arse, or what? Neither of these are new (WebCGM has been around since '99), both are fairly irrelevant, and WebCGM is a binary format in any case.

    Given the *cough* rapid pace of MSIE development *cough* these days, if Mozilla stood stockstill for the next two years, it wouldn't lose any ground to IE (which still doesn't support all of DOM Level 2), and Opera is also still playing catch-up, although it's farther along than MSIE.

    It would be nice if they'd start including SVG support in the standard releases, though. Especially since the Adobe SVG plugin for Moz/NS is broken and appears likely to stay that way for some time.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  7. Re:Thumbs Up, But... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Mozilla will be a thousand times more useful if it could offer an IE-compatibility mode (Javascript model, plugins) which works on Unix platforms.

    NoooOOOOoooOOooOoooOOO!!!!

    Then Microsoft wins and standards don't mean anything. The task which must be accomplished is to get site developers to code to standards, in which case 90% of the compatibility issues disappear (and the Web becomes about 75% safer due to the disappearance of ActiveWreX crap).

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Enable quickstart to have Mozilla in memory at all times and ready to go. This is what IE does, so there's not much point comparing until you level the playing field.

    Startup's instantaneous with quickstart. Even moreso than IE, which appears on-screen quickly but actually takes a moment to finish displaying and let you use your bookmarks/URL bar.

    If you want REALLY fast, use Firebird and put this in the URI bar:

    about:config

    Look/filter for "turbo" and set it to true. The developers didn't include this feature in the options UI, but I find it doesn't take much memory at all and makes Firebird very snappy.

  9. Microsoft broke IE in November by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My New Year's Resolution is to switch completely off MS products. After a month, MS still has not come up with a patch to fix the IE "double page scroll" bug (introduced in a critical security patch). Not being able to scroll down a page made reading /. a real pain in the ass.

    Yeah, I could replace the offending file myself, or use the PgUp/Dn keys, but really, a security patch for IE that breaks IE is too much.

    I've been using Mozilla Firebird about half the time, and IE the other half since it's just easier to keep using it after I've opened it to get to sites reqiring IE.

    But to hell with those sites. To hell with Microsoft. I'll be spending the rest of my holidays purging the last remnants of MS from my desktops and my laptop. I'd been straddling the fence for years... thanks Bill, you've made up my mind for me.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  10. I disagree. Firebird is great, but it's not Opera by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm in the same boat. I was a dedicated Opera user and decided to switch to firebird.

    Firebird is awesome, but there are still a lot of things that Opera did better.

    Most of them are minor, but they're things I used regularly and I miss greatly.

    For instance.
    1. When you browse forward and back the keyboard doesn't have the focus on a page, so if you use the page up/down keys you get nothing. If you hit control F to search the page, it pops up but doesn't search the page.
    2. I liked Opera's save session ability. Mozilla has this and it works pretty well, but not quite as well as Opera. For instance, I like having the ability to force my groups of pages load up in a new tabbed browser. Mozilla throws them into the current browser.
    3. I really really miss the ability to save the pages I was on when I close the browser and also to load those same pages up in the event the browser crashes. Mozilla *almost* has this setting. It has visit the last page on startup, but I want to visit the last tabbed group on startup.
    4. This one really bugs me. Maybe it's just a bug because it doesn't happen everytime, but when you jump forward and back through pages, sometimes the page doesn't go back to where you were scrolled, it goes back to the top of the page. Ugh! Makes it a pain to search ebay because you go to an item and then go back and you're at the top of the page, you hit page down or control F but the page doesn't have focus! argh!

    I think those are my top 4 pet peeves. As a developer there are a couple of css issues (margins and borders) that I don't like, but those are minor and generally workable.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  11. Even worse by axxackall · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's even worse:

    SVG development is still going nowhere, while Calendar development has just stopped. No need to mention that nobody in Mozilla development team understands the importance of MNG and XForms. In Bugzilla you can even find their comments saying that "HTML forms work, what the reason for Xforms?"!

    So, Mozilla becomes the best web browser accoridng to requirements of mid-90s. However, development teams of other browsers (read: IE and Opera, not sure about Apple) are more informed about web-browser requirements of mid-00s. No need to predict who will be a winner.

    I love Mozilla (both Suite and Firebird) and I love XUL, and that's why it's so sad to see that my favorite browser is a big loser.

    --

    Less is more !