Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla 1.7 to Become New Long-Lived Branch

iswm writes "MozillaZine has announced that the Mozilla 1.7 branch will become the new long-lived stable branch, replacing 1.4. The stable branch is intended to act as a baseline for developers building Mozilla-based products, with critical bugs fixed on the branch as well as the trunk. Mozilla Firefox 1.0, a new milestone of Mozilla Thunderbird, a new Camino release and several third party Mozilla based products will be based on Mozilla 1.7, so the Foundation is making efforts to ensure that it is high quality."

407 comments

  1. Oh glorious day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    News about a new firefox version, and it doesn't have a name change! There may be a hat trick yet, folks.

    1. Re:Oh glorious day! by zerochance · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, Firexxx 1.0 isn't out yet, so there's still time for them to get that last minute name change in to confuse and confound everyone.

    2. Re:Oh glorious day! by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      It's not really news about Firefox... the news is more about Mozilla, they just talked about the eventual Firefox 1.0, just like they talked about Firebird 1.0 and Phoenix 1.0

      I say wait a couple of weeks before popping the champagne ;-)

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    3. Re:Oh glorious day! by arvindn · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think the real reason they're changing the names every 2 months is that they can now assert their superior intellect and geekiness just by asking people what browser they're using!

      Just imagine this conversation in a bar (assume, for the sake of argument, that at the time of this conversation the current name is FireChameleon):

      Cool Moz Dude: Hi! So... what's your browser?

      Hot Chick: Uhh... firefox.

      Cool Moz Dude: What?? Have you been living under a cave? FireChameleon was released a whole week ago! All the l33t people have already switched!!

      Hot Chick is impressed by Cool Moz Dude's uber-geekiness and falls all over him.

      That's the intention anyway. In reality, of course, the reply would be at best "oh, that explorer thingy, same as everyone else" and at worst a glazed look of complete apathy ;^)

    4. Re:Oh glorious day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's the intention anyway. In reality, of course, the reply would be at best "oh, that explorer thingy, same as everyone else" and at worst a glazed look of complete apathy ;^)
      no, it would be more like...
      Cool Moz Dude: Hi! So... what's your browser?
      Hot Chick: Uhh... I don't hava browser, I pluck mine [eye brows, that is].

      The sad thing is for most people the Internet is the big blue "E", or whatever their homepage is set to use.

    5. Re:Oh glorious day! by deviantonline · · Score: 1
      so when is the new firefox due? its my fave browser!

      however, if konqueror could display pages as well as firefox/mozilla, i would probably switch to that as it seems faster.

    6. Re:Oh glorious day! by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      and it doesn't have a name change!

      If you get desperate for a name change 'fix' there's always Firesomething (as mentioned here only last week - I think)...

    7. Re:Oh glorious day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be really sad if you were discussing web browsers in a bar, especially with a hot chick. I usually discuss how I like my dick sucked when I'm talking to girls at bars. Then I let them try it out themselves.

    8. Re:Oh glorious day! by yerfatma · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sincerely, Leisure Suit Larry

    9. Re:Oh glorious day! by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suspect that it would actually go this way...

      Cool Moz Dude: Hi! So... what's your browser?

      Hot Chick: Get lost, Loser!.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    10. Re:Oh glorious day! by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're not going read the article, or the links, then at least read the entire post. This is not a release notice.

      They're just saying that Firefox 1.0, when it is released, will be based on Mozilla 1.7. They aren't saying Firefox 1.0 is available.

      Yeesh!

    11. Re:Oh glorious day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      msn.com, sadly...

      Anyone else think someone should write a virus, call it "Google.A", that every 10 days checks to see if a user's homepage is set to msn.com and, if so, changes it to www.google.com?!

    12. Re:Oh glorious day! by bn557 · · Score: 1

      however, if konqueror could display pages as well as firefox/mozilla, i would probably switch to that as it seems faster.

      have you ever considered that the fact that konq DOESN'T render pages like firezilla is the reason that it's faster?

      perhaps you should start using links/lynx ;)

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
    13. Re:Oh glorious day! by stev_mccrev · · Score: 1

      You could always install this extension.

      I am currently running Mozilla PowerMonkey.

    14. Re:Oh glorious day! by squaretorus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suspect that it would actually go this way...

      Cool Moz Dude: <thinks>I WISH I could ask that hot chick what browser she runs so I can improve her life in some small way by removing pop ups when she visits 'nerdylove.com' - maybe she has a penguin tattooed on her ass.</thinks>

      Hot Chick: Whats that fucking smell??? EEEeeeeeewwwww - get away from me FREAK!

  2. So What? by PRES_00 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How does this translate for consumers?

    1. Re:So What? by brejc8 · · Score: 1

      New versions of third party browsers (FireFox, Netscape, Galeon...)

    2. Re:So What? by NineNine · · Score: 4, Funny

      How does this translate for consumers?

      [Karma burn]

      What consumers?

  3. In a related story... by NeoTheOne · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mozilla development will continue with the releases of Mozilla Prime, Mozilla 2:This time its not Mozilla 1, and Mozilla: The Motion Picture.

    1. Re:In a related story... by Dopescuzz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What about Mozilla! The hit Broadway musical?

    2. Re:In a related story... by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You forgot Mozilla vs Redmond, and Mozilla destroys Tokyo.

    3. Re:In a related story... by Vargasan · · Score: 1

      Mozilla vs. Mechamozilla?

      --
      Putting the romance back into necromancer.
    4. Re:In a related story... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      They all have to be better than The Incredibly Strange Browsers Who Crashed and Became Bundled Microsoft Products!!?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
  4. in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as well by heymjo · · Score: 4, Informative

    it had to happen sooner or later : mozillazine

  5. 1.7 by Mithrandir_The_Wise · · Score: 4, Funny

    The odd number at the end looks so...odd :)

    I guess I've been too used to the Linux kernel "even is stable" noclamenture that a version number like "1.7" looks like a development branch.

    1. Re:1.7 by Fammy2000 · · Score: 1

      Mozilla seemed to have an "even is stable" mentality until this release. Firefox is close to a 1.0 release and I think the team(s) wanted a "stable" branch to base it on.

      --
      If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
    2. Re:1.7 by eclectro · · Score: 1

      The odd number at the end looks so...odd :)

      In this case, the "7" is a "lucky number".

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:1.7 by HungWeiLo · · Score: 5, Funny

      1.7 - the '33' in 1337 is silent.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    4. Re:1.7 by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      So is 54 in 5417 right?

  6. Wow! by Wavicle · · Score: 5, Funny

    So does this mean I can finally migrate off of Mosaic??

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You work for the government don't you?

    3. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lynx anyone?

    4. Re:Wow! by arvindn · · Score: 5, Funny

      No geek points for you! Real hackers telnet to port 80 and parse the html themselves :)

    5. Re:Wow! by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      You lazy fool, using a pre-built application.

      Real geeks open the socket directly and parse the raw packets. If you can't perform a CRC in your head, you shouldn't be surfing the 'Net. :)

    6. Re:Wow! by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you ever tried that, you would know most public HTTP-servers closes the connection almost instantly due to timeout. You need to write the request in advance and copy it to telnet using the middle mouse-button.

    7. Re:Wow! by ax_42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean parse the XML, right -- get with the times though.

      The math geeks of course connect to port 443 and decode the ssl in their heads.

    8. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a bit like Cello?

    9. Re:Wow! by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Funny

      telnet to port 80

      Ooooo. Sounds like some fancy-dancy user interface to me. That telnet's probably got escape sequences an everything.

      Us real trogs use netcat.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    10. Re:Wow! by NumbThumb · · Score: 3, Funny

      i actually do use netcat / telnet sometimes to hand-craft http-request in order to test security etc in scripts. It really *is* useful.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
    11. Re:Wow! by rsheridan6 · · Score: 1

      No, script kiddie, real hackers hook cat-5 cable directly to their nutsack and read the electron stream.

      --
      Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
    12. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot doesn't. In fact, I haven't seen that before. Would make sense though.

    13. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no they don't. Prove me wrong by giving an example of such server.

    14. Re:Wow! by Greg+W. · · Score: 1
      1) Proxy. You do use squid, right?

      2) Netcat.
      echo -e 'GET / HTTP/1.1\nHost: slashdot.org\n' |
      nc slashdot.org 80
      Forgive my bash-centrism, but this should work for at least 95% of Linux users....
    15. Re:Wow! by cperciva · · Score: 1

      If you can't perform a CRC in your head, you shouldn't be surfing the 'Net. :)

      TCP/IP doesn't use a CRC.

    16. Re:Wow! by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Eh, checksum, CRC, close enough. You get the gist of it, right. :)

    17. Re:Wow! by Pikhq · · Score: 2, Funny

      You lazy fool, using pre-built equipment! Real geeks imitate the modem sounds with a whistle and a telephone. If you can't even get 200 baud speeds, you shouldn't be doing a port 80 request to anywhere, anyways!

      --
      echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
    18. Re:Wow! by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      Is that what they're calling it these days?

      Chris

  7. IE by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1
    No matter how many splits, branches, and bugfixes....

    Mozilla will _always_ have the cooler logo.

    --

    Chris Knight is my hero.

    1. Re:IE by aberant · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am the only one at work that uses Mozilla. One day shortly after installing it, someone at my office said, "How do i get the cool looking dinosaur icon for my pictues too?" I've never had people jealous of my icons before.. 8)

  8. Happy birthday to me by Phisbut · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    This means moving the 1.7 final release date out 1 month from mid-April to mid-May.

    Right on time for my birthday :-). That is gonna be a sweet gift :-)

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
    1. Re:Happy birthday to me by stefpe · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah but they moved it AWAY from MY birthday you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Happy birthday to me by Gramie2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm curious: what makes you think that anyone would give even a microscopic particle of a damn when your birthday is?

      Oh wait. I just checked, and the universe does revolve around you.

      I didn't set out to be snarky when I got up this morning, but some comments really have no redeeming value.

  9. how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by victorvodka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you read the article, they go on and on about trying to fix bugs known to crash 1.7 before releasing it. I'm curious: what exactly does it tak e to crash Mozilla these days? I know it still has subtle memory leaks that crash it eventually, but what can a QA person do to crash it? It's at least as stable as any mainstream application I use, crashing much less often than Photoshop or Flash MX, which I use considerably less.

    --

    The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg

    1. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they read my Talkback dumps.

    2. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by DJayC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Firefox crashes quite a bit on linux from what I've noticed. I use the binaries supplied from mozilla.org, and every so often Firefox will just disappear. It's not consistent though.. for example, weather.com seems to do it a lot, but not everytime.

      Perhaps Mozilla 1.7 is vulnerable to the same type of random crashes Firefox is on Linux?

    3. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by IcePic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Buy an SMP machine and just surf and/or read mail a lot. Works every time for me.

      --
      -- I'm as unique as everyone else.
    4. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) Go to about:config.

      2) Select "Print Preview"

      3) Crash.

      On Firefox 0.8 on Windows 2000.

    5. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, it always seems to crash when I'm reading slashdot. Or maybe I just spend too much time reading slashdot.

    6. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Kingfox · · Score: 1

      Mozilla crashes for me more than any other application I use, and I use Photoshop and the Macromedia MX suite often. I've got poorly written legacy apps that are more stable than Mozilla.

      But that could have something to do with the hundreds of tabs I have open at any given time, I guess.

    7. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      1.7b sadly seems to have taken a step back from 1.6 in terms of stability - I've had half a dozen crashes during heavy use (opening 20 or so tabs at a time), whereas I never had similar problems with previous Beta versions.

    8. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by dcgaber · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn you, would I just believe you and be on my merry way??? No, and yes I can confirm, this does crash moz in XP as well.

    9. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by arvindn · · Score: 3, Funny
      Hi,

      You seem to be on windows, but on a linux box I can make it crash with (drum roll please):

      killall -SEGV mozilla

      Works every time :)

      Cheers

    10. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I crashes when I metamoderate or moderate here at slashdot. Its is no joke.
      And no, I dont remember my username and password right now, thats why I go AC.

    11. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by ewhac · · Score: 1

      I have an SMP machine (Asus P2B-D, dual 1GHz P3) running Win2K-SP4. Mozilla 1.6 crashes perhaps once every six weeks on me. Mind you, I keep Javascript turned off and visit a limited number of sites, none of them especially complex.

      Now if you want to talk sound drivers on SMP machines, then we can talk about gratuitous crashing...

      Schwab

    12. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easily brought down by bad plugins. This is pretty much inherent in the way the plugin architecture is designed, and a roadmap for migrating to a new plugin API is long overdue. A crashing plugin should not bring the host application down with it.

    13. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Innova · · Score: 1

      1) Go to about:config.

      2) Select "Print Preview"

      3) Crash.

      On Firefox 0.8 on Windows 2000.


      Hrm...I wonder if this will work on my machine.

      Open a new tab, type in about:config, click on Print Pr

    14. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by groomed · · Score: 1

      Now if you want to talk sound drivers on SMP machines, then we can talk about gratuitous crashing...

      Which drivers exactly?

    15. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and visit a limited number of sites
      The same here. I visit couple of sites (ok, one from the time this goatse is down) and slashdot never crashed my Netscape 2.0. Good job, boys!

    16. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      what exactly does it tak e to crash Mozilla these days?

      I crash both Mozilla and Firefox daily on _multiple computer + OS combinations_ with one simple thing:

      Ctrl + Shift + Tab'ing (browsing tabs from right to left) while loading multiple (the only requirement is that they are quite big) pages loading on at least three tabs concurrently.
    17. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I get for trying that :P

    18. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Click around on koreanair.com, especially "Sky Pass" and "Flight Schedule Display". After clicking a link, let the target page load and wait for at least 10 seconds. The browser should crash. I reported this bug a while ago, and it crashes Mozilla on Windows and Linux.

      From the email updates from the bug report, it looks like a collection of people have recreated the bug, created a patch, tested the patch, etc...

      So I guess it will be fixed by 1.7. They take crash bugs VERY seriously.

    19. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by FedeTXF · · Score: 1

      Confirmed on today's 1.7 mozilla suite.

    20. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by dcgaber · · Score: 1

      and how my post got modded to a 4 while the parent post with the actual information stays at a 1 is beyond me ;)

    21. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, since i switched to 1.7 it crashes quite often (several time each week) on Win2000. Each crash happened when i was closing the browser, but i couldn't figure out how to reproduce this exactly. Might have to with other applications as i usually close it when my current compile finishes and my own application starts up. I didn't have this problem with 1.6

    22. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by kavin · · Score: 1

      what exactly does it take to crash Mozilla these days?

      recommending mozilla as a more standards compliant browser can be tricky when it introduces it's own browser specific html elements: parsererror and sourcetext.

      either element crashes ALL version of mozilla 1.x

      see the source for yourself, or my previous post for the bugzilla reference.

      - p

    23. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've had this problem a lot on sites that use some of the more intense flash based ads.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    24. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buy an SMP machine and just surf and/or read mail a lot. Works every time for me.

      Y'know, I've never seen anyone else mention that, but I too have noticed it...

      In applications that make no attempt at all to use more than one CPU, numerous programs seem to crash on my dual that run rock-solid on a single CPU machine.

      Flash, for example, dies within about five minutes if I don't set the affinity to one CPU. Same with most classic console emulators (Snes9x, as one example).

      As an SE myself, I seriously question what these programs have done to make them so unstable with a second CPU. I can only make a guess, but I'd speculate they use non-async-safe multithreaded code, which IMO makes no sense whatsoever - Why use multithreading at all, if you don't hope to make use of more than one CPU? Okay, a very small number of situations require it (Windows services, for example, wherein I have yet to find a good way to keep the SCM from tweaking without tossing it a thread), but other than such rare reasons, if you don't plan to support more than one CPU, just skip the single most bug-ridden programming concept ever created.

      But, so it goes, and I seem to have started ranting. Forgive. Anyway, as much of a hassle as it seems to need to bind a process to a given CPU each time I use it, the drastically improved responsiveness of a dual CPU machine more than makes up for it.

    25. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open more then 50 JPEGs, each in its own tab, and do it really fast (like if you are browsing a page with someones holiday photos). Whole Firefox stops redrawing itself - not only the pictures, even menus and *bars. It remains fully responsive, if you scroll a page you will see the scrolled-in part but not the was-on-the -screen-before-scrolling :) part.

      Works every time (Windows XP, sometimes with 20 JPEGs, sometimes with a 100, but eventually every time). I suspect some threading problem, because it only shows when switching between tabs/openning new tabs really fast. BTW, "regular" Mozilla 1.5 behaves the same.

    26. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by acebone · · Score: 1

      Win2KServer
      Firefox 0.8

      No bugs - no crashes

      Nice printpreview - would be awesome if they where to make form controls and images deleteable :)

      --
      Check out my PHP Url Validator
    27. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by acebone · · Score: 1

      > ...while loading multiple (the only requirement is that they are quite big) pages

      You're a naughty boy !

      --
      Check out my PHP Url Validator
    28. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by gowen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really, I find firefox handles intense flash based ads really, really well

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    29. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by ispeters · · Score: 1

      We're building a web-based application using lots of JavaScript (lots means ~32k lines or 1,000,000 chars) and Dynamic HTML (boo, hiss goes the crowd) and we have to restart Mozilla once in a while, that is if it doesn't restart itself.... Although, to be fair, IE doesn't exactly manage its memory that well, either.

    30. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by akincisor · · Score: 1

      It works on the linux firefox as well.

      Srikanth

    31. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by abischof · · Score: 3, Informative
      1. Go to about:config.
      2. Select "Print Preview"
      3. Crash.

      That would be bug 218304 ("Print preview of about:config crashes"). FWIW, you'll have to copy-n-paste the address into your URL bar since Bugzilla refuses Slashdot referers.

      --

      Alex Bischoff
      HTML/CSS coder for hire

    32. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh. Mine handles it well too by not even having flash installed. Why bother with flash when every site just has to use it for the most annoying purposes?

    33. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crashes Firefox in 98SE...

    34. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Good question. I've been using 1.7a on WinXP Pro for several months now, just upgraded to 1.7b, and have yet to crash it once. Talk about thoroughness and attention to detail, take a lesson MS!

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    35. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concurrency is a design concept much more than it is a performance optimization tool, at least on today's consumer hardware.

    36. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 1

      You should try using a real OS, try Windows XP. *ducks*

    37. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by excelblue · · Score: 1

      Actually, it might be more of the plugins. If you installed the wrong version of the Java plugin, and it has an error, it will crash Mozilla. This is because a line in the code will terminate Mozilla. This is only partially Mozilla's fault, but they could have just removed that terminate feature.

    38. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh come on, you cant call this "crash"!
      moz firefox, w2000k pro...
      if works fine after all. yes, there's printer error, but who forces you to click the "ok" button?
      You can surf, switch tabs, and even post on /. =)

      just don't look at the center of your screen =)

    39. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by shione · · Score: 1

      Fire(bird) 0.61 running on Windows XP SP1.

      It didn't crash but a window popped up saying 'printing failed for some reason'. Clicked ok and everything was fine. Must be a new bug introduced. I wasn't game enoughto try it in 0.8 which I also have installed on this comp. :)

    40. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      I think it has more to do with the Flash plugin for linux that hasn't been updated in years than it does with Firefox itself.

    41. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by xandroid · · Score: 1

      Installing some themes and extensions can prevent Firefox from starting if they've been written for an old release. Then you've got to delete your ~/.phoenix and re-customize it all over again...

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    42. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by juksey · · Score: 1

      "Or maybe I just spend too much time reading slashdot." Is that possible??

    43. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by ewhac · · Score: 1

      Hercules/Guillemot Game Theater XP 7.1 (Crystal Semiconductor CS4630), driver version 6.09. Every time I try to turn on 3D sound features for my games, the sound either becomes very soft, or the echo effects start appearing before the primary effect, or sound effects terminate early, or the thing just locks up outright after a few minutes of play.

      It's fairly damn clear they're not using MP-safe locking primitives to arbitrate access to the chip and/or shared resources. So I have to keep the hardware acceleration cranked back. I've tried setting an interrupt affinity mask for just the sound card, such that only one CPU receives the interrupts. It's helped slightly, but it still exhibits problems.

      Anecdotal evidence on USENET suggests that no one provides an SMP-safe sound driver.

      Schwab

    44. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by IcePic · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons for threading an app even on single-cpu systems would be that you dont have to do async IO for one. You can have the emailthread talk net all the "same" as the browser tries to save that 100M pr0n archive you just downloaded. So while the main thread waits for something, the others can run, but usually (when the mozilla developers test it? =) two things never happen exactly at the same time, but on those darned smp machines, it sometimes does.
      Then weird stuff breaks and I get another adressbook. (on next start it always says: "Hey, can't read it, I called the old one abook-24234234.bak-something and invented a new one")

      --
      -- I'm as unique as everyone else.
    45. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by groomed · · Score: 1

      I am running an SMP system and doing a lot of sound work with very few problems whatsoever. Have you tried the very latest (1.0.3) ALSA drivers? Previous versions would always lock up my machine due to insufficient locking. Alternatively you could shell out some cash for the OSS drivers at 4front-tech.com, I've had very, very good experiences with them. But in your case (playing games) that may be a bridge too far.

      Good luck!

    46. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just need to make sure it doesn't get /. as the referrer. For example, drag the link out of the window and back in.

    47. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? by spamnix · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought the binary was called "mozilla-bin"... shouldn't that be killall -SEGV mozilla-bin?

      --
      I have a BS in BS.
  10. The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly... by pdcryan · · Score: 3, Informative

    The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly exaggerated...

    OS X's Camino hadn't been updated since March of '03 (.7 release), and personally I thought it had been put out to pasture thanks to Apple bundling Safari.

    According to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino/ we can look forward to .8 soon.

    Welcome back!

    --
    Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
  11. Yeah, never mind the long life branch by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about a long life brandname for Mozilla Firefox?

    I'd suggest Mozilla lite or Mozilla Express.

    1. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How about a name that is indicitive of the programs function? You know, something like 'FireWeb', except not so lame.

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    2. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Too close to a Larry Niven copyright, actually.

      sPh

    3. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      Internet Explorer ?

      Surely this is a generic name that suggest the functionality of the product. besides it's so generic I am sure no one must have thought of using it.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    4. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, is 'FireWeb' ok with everyone?" :)

    5. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by poulbailey · · Score: 1

      > How about a long life brandname for Mozilla Firefox?

      What? You mean like Mozilla Firefox? They're not changing it.

    6. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by rokzy · · Score: 1

      I hate anything called "lite", and Express -> Outlook -> nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

      I thought that once it was 1.0 or thereabouts its official name would be "Mozilla Browser" anyway?

    7. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by edwdig · · Score: 1

      Considering they trademarked the name Firefox shortly before releasing 1.0 (due somewhere around late spring/early summer), I think its safe to assume the name Firefox is going to stay.

    8. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whar about Mozilla (Internet) Explorer ?

    9. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest Firegnu then, maybe Firestallman. Or they could just call it "Internet", that would help some lame ass users who seem to think that Internet Explorer is the internet. Yes go with internet, Mozilla Internet.

    10. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 1

      Someone Mod this parent up as funny... I should have seen that probable response coming a mile away.

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    11. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by planarian · · Score: 1, Funny

      How about Mo o' less?

    12. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      But when I hear that name I just think of Clint Eastwood in that daft film.

    13. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What? You mean like Mozilla Firefox? They're not changing it.

      I wouldn't be so sure if I were you...

    14. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by red+floyd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah. We should cash in on the popularity of "The Apprentice", and call it "FireDonaldTrump".

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    15. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant GNU/FireRMS, rite?

    16. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Phoenix was always supposed to be an internal codename like Whistler or Longhorn. To me the obvious names would be the same ones as the 4.x versions:

      Mozilla Navigator
      Mozilla Mail and News
      Mozilla Communicator or for a new name Mozilla Suite

    17. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny you should say that, since there was an Internet Explorer before Microsoft released theirs. Their argument in court was that Internet Explorer is a generic name and thus couldn't be trademarked.

    18. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla Firecracker. Everyone loves firecrackers. Yes, even you.

    19. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would call it "Mozilla Internet Browser"
      You could shorten it to "Internet Browser", or just "Browser" in mixed conversation.

      Sample conversation:

      Girl A:
      "...like, yesterday, my boyfriend, you know, put this internet browser on my computer, like, and..."

      Girl B:
      "Wow, like, really?..."

      Girl A:
      "Yeahhh, and, like, you know, no popups!"

      Girl B:
      "Rad!!! Cool, I want, like, one too, you know..."

      Girl A:
      "I know!!! Like tell your boygriend, like, by the way... " [fake swoon] "he's so totally hot, like, anyway..." [fake serious] " to put this, hum, like, internet browser, you know, on your computer..."

      Girl B:
      "Yeah!!! He's a dork!" [rolls eyes] "Like, hum, okay... Thanks! you know?..."

      Girl A: ...more mindless chatter...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    20. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by poulbailey · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I think Phoenix was always supposed to be an internal codename like Whistler or Longhorn.

      The slight difference between the two names is that Phoenix wasn't trademarked. Firefox is. They spent a lot of effort on finding a proper name and trademarking it and are not going to abandon it anytime soon.

      They are keeping the name Mozilla Firefox. See the Firefox roadmap if you don't believe me:
      "Firefox 1.0 will be called simply "Mozilla Firefox"... or "Firefox" for short."

    21. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by katarac · · Score: 1

      I like "Mo-Better-Browser: A Spike Lee Joint".

    22. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by ArchAngel21x · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please provide a link to that story

    23. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I think Phoenix was always supposed to be an internal codename like Whistler or Longhorn.

      No, the codenames are listed on the roadmap. They're all towns (LA suburbs I think) -- Pescadero, One Tree Hill, Royal Oak.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    24. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Navigator

      The KDE folks always figured that Konqueror came after the Explorers and the Navigators.

      Maybe Mozilla should outdo them to the next step with the logical follow-on to a Konqueror.

      You know, either Oppressor or Insurrection.

      That's about the choice, anyway...

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    25. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      How about just call it:

      "You're FIRED!!"

    26. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely Missionary. Then Genocide.

      Mozilla Missionary. Has a ring to it.

    27. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A quick Google for "Internet Explorer trademark" would have done you wonders, but here's just one URL from that search:

      http://www.geek.com/techupdate/msynetst.htm

    28. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Morky · · Score: 1

      That could be fucked, too, since the Gozilla (tm) trademark owners are poised to sue as soon as they see any money in doing so.

    29. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla Revelotion
      Mozilla Failing Country

    30. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla Chlamydia.

    31. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do you think Gozilla got its name from in the first place?

    32. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      here do a control f for synet.

    33. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't that mean the Mozilla group could just rename FireFox to 'Internet Explorer' and Microsoft couldn't do anything because they'd be able to use Microsoft's own arguements against them in court?

    34. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla President
      Mozilla Congressman
      Mozilla Corporation

    35. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by varag · · Score: 1

      Surely, these are the names of pubs?

    36. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by wkitchen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or maybe call it the "Mozilla Streamlined Internet Explorer", or MSIE for short.

    37. Re:Yeah, never mind the long life branch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you expect to find a girl, if you have so much contempt for them?

      If they are societally expected to be airheads, are they really dumb?

      Do question marks make my arguments more convincing?

  12. Re:Deleting bookmarks by jazzis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, IE "only' eats your hard drive after the infection.... whoops!

  13. Mozilla vs. Firefox by moberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On a decnet computer IE will load in just a second or two. In contrast Mozilla takes at least 10 seconds before you get anything on the screen. Firefox is just as fast as IE. However. probably a good 50% of explorer is already loaded all that needs to be done is draw a new window, this can be proven by crashing IE (not hard) alot of times the whole desktop disapears. This shows how well firefox is written because it must load entirely from scratch.

    1. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by hattig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least with tabs Mozilla is really quick - opening a new tab takes no time at all, yet with IE opening a new window there is a perceptible pause. Especially as IE seems to think "oh, he's opened a new window. What I'll do is load up the same webpage he is viewing in the original window" ... weird logic that leads to even more delay.

      Firefox 0.8 has been the least stable version of Mozilla/FireWibble I've used though. It eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory. It crashes and takes down Windows with it (this is really odd, but it does, I can't explain it, no decent OS should be taken down by a rogue application).

    2. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree there is much good to be said for firefox, but I guarantee you Netscape 4.7x is faster still. I have both on this old Linux clunker and an old SGI with very little RAM. Netscape loads faster and doesn't crash as often (!!) nor does it take several seconds to open or close the options window. So here's hoping the new mozilla build is inherently faster!

    3. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by lederhosen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Netscape 4.7x on solaris crashes all the time.
      Mozilla almost newer. Netscape 4.7x is faster though. Does not rreally matter when it shows
      the pages much nicer.

    4. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by iantri · · Score: 2, Redundant
      Explorer IS the shell on Windows, and is always loaded, so that is why IE has a speed advantage.

      IIRC Mozilla has a quickstart thing that loads most of it into the background for Windows, which is only installed if you want it.

    5. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by adamshelley · · Score: 1

      Firbird 0.7 destroys Firefox in stability. I went to firefox and was about to tell all my friends running ie- hey check out the new mozilla, its sweet fast and stable- but i couldn't.

      I still got my hopes up for the next version though. No band wagon hopping yet. Even with all of firefox's problems it still keeps my windows box at work spyware free.

    6. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by catbutt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Especially as IE seems to think "oh, he's opened a new window. What I'll do is load up the same webpage he is viewing in the original window" ... weird logic that leads to even more delay.

      That logic is the main reason I just can't stop using IE entirely (in favor of firefox), no matter how much I try. "New window" is useful in IE, because it not only opens the same page, but it makes a clone of your history...allowing you to "branch" your history.

    7. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Funny
      Firefox 0.8 ... eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory. It crashes and takes down Windows with it ...

      Well, to continue your analogy, Windows goes down on everything, and spreads virsuses. It's a little like a whore with the clap.

    8. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory.

      Wow, I'm not familiar with that scale; that sounds like a cool scale.

    9. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by madprof · · Score: 1

      Yes Netscape 4.7 would be a lot faster as it is a less complex and smaller bit of software. However it also sucks rocks. :-)

    10. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by prichardson · · Score: 1

      It crashes and takes down Windows with it (this is really odd, but it does, I can't explain it, no decent OS should be taken down by a rogue application).

      Are you trying to say something about Windows here? The only application I've ever had take down my OS X box is a full screen game (that was over two years ago).

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    11. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by twbecker · · Score: 0

      Now don't get me wrong, I dumped IE for Phoe^H^H^H^HFirebir^H^H^Hfox a long time ago, but I want to know what kind of hardware you have that loads Firefox at anywhere near the speed of IE. The load time is really IE's only decent quality, even if MS did "cheat" to get it.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    12. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by caino59 · · Score: 1

      After reading your post, all I can hear in my head is Lil' John saying "Yeah!"

      I haven't had any crash problems really with Firefox .8. Only time it crashes is if I have a page loaded for a few days in a browser window and then try opening a new one. And that's few and far between. I've never had it take down the whole OS. Surprisingly....everday/everyuse machine: WinXP Pro......have about a 23 day uptime or so (Not braggable...but not made for constant everyday use)

    13. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Sir your logic has a flaw... you have mentioned Windows and 'decent OS' in the same sentence... indeed.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    14. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. If it weren't for the damned memory leak, I could keep Firefox running for weeks at a time, as opposed to Firebird which crashed at least once a day.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    15. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      I can't explain it, no decent OS should be taken down by a rogue application

      I find it interesting that you blame windows, not firefox. Not that i disagree or agree with you, just that the blame couldnt possibly fall on the open-source /. browser of choice; windows OS must be to fault. A bit biased?

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    16. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Try the 'Clone Window' Extension

    17. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And here I am , with my copy of firebird 0.7 on solaris , which runs for literally months with out crashing.

      I have installed the browser uptime extension and every time someone, mentions how stable XP is, All I do is show them my browser up time, arguments stop.

      I have firebird 0.7 on solaris, firefox 0.8 on Windows ME (yes the dreaded ME) and firefox , CVS build on gentoo linux and none has crashed on me so far.

      I did have stability problems with fireXXX What's more even my roommate has now switched to firefox, and this is the fellow who ran to buy the Win XP upgrade on the very first day it was released.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    18. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by hattig · · Score: 1

      Firefox is an application that somehow takes down windows.

      Yes, even the keyboard stops responding.

      This has happened several times, every time is when I do something with Firefox. To be fair, it might be a plug-in issue.

      It happens rarely enough to not be an issue, and my install of Windows XP is 1 year old now, which probably makes it a rather geriatric install.

      Regardless, an application crash/fault shouldn't bring down the OS. It is like Windows XP has a "WIN32_StopEverything" API call that is being called!

    19. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by tepples · · Score: 1

      License policy has nothing to do with it. In general, it's an application's responsibility for the application to stay running. It's the operating system's responsibility for the operating system to stay running. That's why operating systems provide memory protection, so that one application cannot interfere with other applications, the window system, or the kernel. Microsoft Windows fails in that regard; even Windows 2000, based on the NT kernel, still cooperatively multitasks too much of GDI. (Evidence: Try loading a multimegabyte text file in Notepad.exe with Word Wrap turned on, resizing the window, and trying to click anywhere else. The whole window system blocks on recalculating Notepad's word wrap.) And don't get me started on how a DirectX app can bring the whole machine down.

    20. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      I can second that, Net 4.78 crashes everytime on solaris, while Mozilla / fireXXX are stable literally for months.

      The only time I close my firebird on solaris is when I log out every 4-5 months. My log-in session becomes slightly sluggish after about 4-5 months, so I log out and log back in. But apart from that firefox remains up for all the time.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    21. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by edwdig · · Score: 1

      How can you call Netscape 4.7x faster than Mozilla?

      Netscape 4.x can't handle CSS very well, forcing pages to be designed with lots of tables. Once you start nesting tables, it grinds to a halt.

      I guess if you threw a really complicated page that used lots of CSS at Netscape 4, it would be faster than Mozilla, as it would just ignore the majority of the markup. Wouldn't look good at all though.

    22. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      WTH are you talking about? He's not blaming the OS for anything other than it's inability to survive an application crash. Any advanced operating system should have two runtime "spaces", application space and kernel space. Stuff in application space is by definition supposed to be protected so that the OS can handle an application crash cleanly. Stuff in kernel space has access to the kernel memory space and it can really mess things up if things go wrong. Windows has this concept but chose to run the GDI in kernel space so there's a path into kernel space memory for applications to fuck things up. Yes, the application crash is a FireFox problem but the resulting kernel crash is an OS problem, namely poor design.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    23. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by manWorkSucks · · Score: 1
      It eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory

      that's priceless.

      --
      NERDS!!!!
    24. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more to a web browser than just rendering pages -- Mozilla might have a decently fast renderer, but on a slow machine pulling down menus or interacting with the toolbar is like slow-motion.

    25. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      MOzilla also seems to suffer from AWFULL memory fragmentation. Whenever mozilla is swapped out, reloading it to ram rakes AGES.
      I talk about 30-45 Seconds until interactivity on a system with 768 MB RAM.
      Its actually quicker to kill the process in the task-manager, restart mozilla and then reload the last pages...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    26. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by qon · · Score: 1

      On a decnet computer IE will load in just a second or two

      Yeah? How about on LANtastic or VINES?

      q

    27. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Hooded+One · · Score: 1

      A partial fix to that problem has recently been checked in, and they're continuing to work on it. The bug is here, though as I recall bugzilla.mozilla.org doesn't let you link directly from Slashdot, so you might have to copy & paste.

      It really is one of the most annoying Mozilla bugs though, so I hope it gets fully fixed soon.

    28. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      [FireFox] eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory. It crashes and takes down Windows with it

      ... and when Windows gets short of memory, it pages more than a New York librarian on crystal meth.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    29. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      For most pages Netscape 4.7x is much faster.

      I know netscape 4.7x sucks in rendering quality,
      but that is another point (which I *did* mention).
      Another thing is that mozilla is way more stable.

      What I was trying to say in my post was that for
      me Netscape 4.7x is to unstable to use, so I use
      mozilla which is a bit slower and render pages a lot
      better

    30. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah welll. Its good to know that exactly that bug is known for 3 years with tons of people reporting it again and again (there are douzens of "doublicate of bug nr xxxx" in the list), and after 3 YEARS someone comes with a log that shows that font files are accessed rather then swapfiles.

      And everyone is surprised. meaning that nobody ever really looked at that problem (are all leet open source developers linux only?) the last 10 releases or so...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    31. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Sweet! Thank you!

    32. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by flink · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I've had Firefox 0.8 running on Win2k since I logged in on March 29 and it's holding steady at ~42MB. Hardly svelt, but I wouldn't call it a hog compared to, say, Eclipse, which is at around 80MB after just being restarted.

    33. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Since IE is the shell it is already loaded, notice that the favorites are available in windows explorer. For a true test get XPLite (litepc.com) and remove IE as the shell. Then see how fast IE comes up. On my wife's it is a good 30 sec.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    34. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, IE takes time to load on my PC. Since I use GeoShell as an explorer shell replacement, my computer doesn't automatically pre-load IE. It's annoying to mis-type a directory path in the file browser because it becomes unresponsive for a while as it loads IE to display the couldn't-resolve-location page.

    35. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by athakur999 · · Score: 1

      This issue actually had a partial fix checked in a few days ago. Here's the bug:

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7683 1

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    36. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My computer doesn't seem to be powerful enough to run Firefox. When I open a link in a new tab, the entire application usually locks up for a second or five, as if something is not multithreaded. I don't remember this happening in Mozilla.

    37. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      If you want to cut down on firefoo memory usage don't use themes, i was able to take quite a few megs off it's footprint by using the default theme(16 megs on initial loading), I also believe that it is more stable with the default theme... or more accurately, can become crazy when using a borked theme.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    38. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by TheClam · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can switch to FireFox and get that functionality with the MozFBRH extension. It allows you to middle-click on the Forward and Back (Reload and Home also have extra functionality, hence the acronym) buttons to open up a new tab with forks of the history.

    39. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      "It crashes and takes down Windows with it (this is really odd, but it does, I can't explain it, no decent OS should be taken down by a rogue application)."
      Stop running Windows95/98/ME then and switch to a real OS.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    40. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by hattig · · Score: 1

      I'm running XP. This didn't happen under any previous version of Mozilla or Firebird either.

      I have other machines running FreeBSD and Linux.

    41. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by styrotech · · Score: 1

      It eats memory like a whore in a chocolate dick factory.

      Really? I'm a little confused as to why a whore in a chocolate dick factory would eat a lot of memory.

    42. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by hattig · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for someone to pick up on my poor grammar there! I hadn't had any coffee when I wrote it.

      If there was an edit function then I'd have fixed it to read:

      "It eats memory like a fat whore in a chocolate dick factory eats chocolate dicks."

      which is marginally better albeit not perfect.

      Of course, the imagery therein might be a bit too much for some of the less mature geeks here, hehe :)

    43. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think today's comment sums it up: "The developers would be admitting they wrote something they can't fix correctly."

    44. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 1

      woah!

      you're still using decnet?!

      not only that but you've got IE and Firefox browsing information over decnet?

      would that be hpnet now thought?

    45. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      If you want to cut down on firefoo memory usage don't use themes, i was able to take quite a few megs off it's footprint by using the default theme

      Fortunately, Firefunk crashes every time I try to install a new theme under the PPC port of Debian. Whee! That sure freed up some memory!

      --saint

    46. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by the_womble · · Score: 1
      However. probably a good 50% of explorer is already loaded all that needs to be done is draw a new window, this can be proven by crashing IE (not hard) alot of times the whole desktop disapears

      What disappears? I have crashed IE on Win 2000 (by opening an HTML file that is embeded in itself) and nothing else disappears.

    47. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by xandroid · · Score: 1

      You can get this behavior from Firefox by going to about:config and changing "browser.turbo.enabled" to "true". It will load normally the first time, but after you close it parts of the browser will stay in memory, so the next time you open it will be much quicker.

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    48. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. You'll appreciate though, I'm sure, that it is extremely dubious that a user land process can be responsible for taking down a real OS. You should consider the possiblity you have defective drivers or perhaps even problematic hardware.

      Simply put, I highly doubt Firefox is responsible for the problem you describe.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    49. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      On a decnet computer IE will load in just a second or two. In contrast Mozilla takes at least 10 seconds before you get anything on the screen.

      Does it work better on a TCP/IP computer?

      (And yes, damn you, I really did think you meant DECnet for the first few seconds of reading your post!)

    50. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by milgr · · Score: 1
      On a decnet computer IE will load in just a second or two.
      I don't think that IE would use decnet. I thought mozilla could only use decnet for handling its X display. But what do I know?

      I found DECnet invaluable when modifying the VMS TCP/IP stack. If TCP/IP crashed, I could still access the computer without going into the lab.

      --
      Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
    51. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by juhaz · · Score: 1

      It [NS 4.x] certainly doesn't feel very fast when it gets clogged up eating 100% CPU and doing nothing. Which I remember it doing every half an hour or so.

      And nothing less than "kill -9" doesn't got rid of the POS either.

    52. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by juhaz · · Score: 1

      What disappears?

      Pretty much everything.

      W2k desktop with explorer crashed looks something like this. Taskbar is gone too, not hidden, and sometimes things are missing from systray even after you resurrect explorer.

      I have crashed IE on Win 2000 (by opening an HTML file that is embeded in itself) and nothing else disappears.

      IE doesn't seem to take the another explorer with it every time, but sometimes it does.

    53. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Linux pages more, I've had the misfortune of witnessing it, and when it starts getting low on disk space as well, the paging gets fucking insane, until it starts killing memory hogging processes.

      Windows just crashes.

    54. Re:Mozilla vs. Firefox by juhaz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the application crashing Windows (or Linux) is Firefox, or OpenOffice, or MS Office, or Adobe Photoshop.

      If application, any userspace application at all, crashes OS, there is a fault in either OS or drivers. Always. There may be and probably a fault in the application as well, but in that case it just serves as a catalyst to activate the OS fault as well.

  14. Contension by Jack+Comics · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the article fails to mention however that there appears to be a point of contension between Mozilla developers over whether or not the next long-lived stable branch of Mozilla should be 1.7 or 1.8. Many feel that it is too late in 1.7's development cycle to make it the next stable branch after 1.4. For more information, see here. It's a shame that the Mozilla Foundation apparently feels pressured to make decisions based on time frames instead of quality.

    --
    "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Contension by edwdig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The decision was made to improve quality. Several projects, including the 1.0 release of Firefox, were schedule to come off the 1.7 branch.

      That caused the Mozilla people to delay 1.7 in order to work on stabilizing it so that the products using it would have a higher level of quality.

      Making 1.8 be the stable branch wouldn't have been of any use to any of the major projects using the code.

  15. Problems... by arvindn · · Score: 5, Informative
    The blurb doesn't mention it, but quite a bit of dissatisfaction has been expressed about 1.7 becoming the next long lived branch, rather than 1.8. The issue seems to be that the APIs for this version are rather half-assed, which means that those who develop on the platform won't get a clean interface and will need to get used to some hacks and kludges.

    On the other hand people are happy that there's finally something to replace 1.4 which was showing its age.

    Note that this means that the next version of Netscape, if there is one, will be based on 1.7 etc.

    1. Re:Problems... by Cyph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note that this means that the next version of Netscape, if there is one, will be based on 1.7 etc.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way that there's going to be a new Netscape version considering that AOL killed off the Netscape division a while ago.

    2. Re:Problems... by wnknisely · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      In illa quae ultra sunt
  16. Re: stable releases by Cochonou · · Score: 1

    There were only two stables releases prior 1.7. Those were 1.0 and 1.4.
    I don't know if this can really qualify for a "even is stable" mentality.

  17. Re:Deleting bookmarks by jpsowin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've used Mozilla for a long time (talking years here), and never had that happen. Deleting randomly? Were you using a bleeding-edge release or something? That's crazy talk for a stable release.

    Most things like that are caused by user error, not random delete subroutines.

  18. New base != 1.X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why on earth would they completely change the base code and keep the same major release number?

    1. Re:New base != 1.X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why on earth would they completely change the base code and keep the same major release number? Er, they're not. Mozilla 1.7 is just an upgrade to Mozilla 1.6. Even Firefox and Thunderbird do not use new base code. The backends of Mozilla and Firefox/Thunderbird are virtually identical. The only thing that's different is the UI. Of course because the UI is the most visable part of the program, it feels like completely new code.

  19. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Let me guess...

    You didn't read the instructions on how to install a new version, and you deleted them yourself?

    Due to windows instability, I've had to do all manner of restores and upgrades. The only time I lost any bookmarks was the first time I flubbed a Mozilla install.

    After I read the directions (please read them, but IIRC, it's something like: rename old mozilla folder under the mozilla.org folder, install new mozilla, see that it works, move plugins from old mozilla folder over, test that plugins are working, delete old folder, DO NOT DELETE ANY OTHER FILES BUT THOSE) I had no problems.

    You can backup the bookmarks file, too, just restore it to the right place, BTW...

  20. Mozilla will be a browser for Linux only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Once Microsoft improves its browser mozilla will not have much chance on the windows. Right now even they don't put much energy for becoming the dominant browser on the windows. They simply refuse to do so many things just because they can't do the same on the Linux. Mozilla developers themselves acknowledge this.

    So over the long run, the future of mozilla is not very bright. Mozilla foundation's money will dry up sooner or later. Sun is one of the companies funding mozilla, they may stop funding mozilla. AOL certainly will not put more money into something that doesn't make any money. So in essence mozilla will be doomed.

    So I don't know why you guys are so excited about mozilla. When a project turns into pure open source project, without a company backup, it becomes very very hard to beat the closed source competition. Very few projects are there that can compete with closed source, but those are not as complicated as mozilla.

    1. Re:Mozilla will be a browser for Linux only by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      When a project turns into pure open source project, without a company backup, it becomes very very hard to beat the closed source competition. Very few projects are there that can compete with closed source, but those are not as complicated as mozilla.

      You mean not as complicated, like, say, apache or linux?

    2. Re:Mozilla will be a browser for Linux only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did say "without company backup."

      That rules out Linux. I can't comment on Apache.

    3. Re:Mozilla will be a browser for Linux only by twbecker · · Score: 0

      Windows is actually the "main" platform for all of Mozilla's products. True, they are cross platform and therefore won't add features that can't be implemented on other platforms, but as anyone who hangs around on the Moz forums will tell you, There is a major focus on Windows.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
  21. Re:Deleting bookmarks by axis-techno-geek · · Score: 3, Funny
    That's the only reason why I still use IE. It never deletes all the bookmarks and profile information randomly.

    No, it just reports your every move to Redmond, WA.... and any server that asks ;)

    --
    This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
  22. What about the previous roadmaps for Firefox? by Synistar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The question is when will Firefox and Thunderbird become the core applications?? That was their original plan for Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox.

    1. Re:What about the previous roadmaps for Firefox? by smackjer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The plan is when Firefox and Tbird are considered version "1.0". What the requirements are to hit that milestone are anybody's guess.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:What about the previous roadmaps for Firefox? by STrinity · · Score: 1

      AFAIK (and the last announcement I saw was after .8 came out) the plan is to start merging Firefox and Mozilla after .9. I assume TB will be merged whenever it catches up.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    3. Re:What about the previous roadmaps for Firefox? by steeef · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's your answer (from the roadmap):

      We are not retiring the SeaMonkey [Mozilla] application suite, or its XPFE front end, in the foreseeable future. Several companies have shipped and will ship products based on this venerable component of the application suite, and on the entire suite. Many organizations deploy it or a derivative of it, such as Netscape 7.x. We intend to keep supporting these deployments in at least a conservative, sustaining engineering fashion. However, we still intend to focus on evolving Mozilla toward the more flexible application architecture pioneered by Firefox and Thunderbird. That's where our innovative engineering effort should go.

    4. Re:What about the previous roadmaps for Firefox? by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

      I think it's best that Phoenix & Thunderbird do not take the place Mozilla. What makes Firebird and T-bird so badass is that the developers get to use the Mozilla code as reference, and then rewrite it more efficiently. Like I said, that development advantage is what has lead to the great quality of both Firefox and Thunderbird.

  23. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Junta · · Score: 5, Funny

    The browser was like *beep beep beep* and it ate my bookmarks...

    And they were really good bookmarks too...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  24. Re: stable releases by Quixo-tastic · · Score: 1

    The linux kernel uses "even is stable" - this gentleman was alluding to that.

  25. Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why is it that every once in awhile all links will die for no reason?

    Like, I'll click a headline and get a "games.slashdot.org" cannot be found. Clicking any other link will give me the same error. It's like it just stops trying to resolve stuff.

    The only way to fix it is to shut down and restart. Bloatzilla does the same thing, and it's been this way for several versions.

    It also often misrenders slashdots submission page, though not as often as it used to.

    What gives? Lots of work on neato whizbang features like the new download manager, but the fundamentals - actual web browsing - still have annoying issues.

    Guess that's just OSS. Noone can make anyone work on something as boring as a "this browser doesnt work" bug, when they'd rather invent some new way to click links.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. I mean to add that the "cannot find domain.com" shit happens even when browsing through a proxy, when there should be no DNS involved.

      WTF is with that? It's friggin annoying because it'll happen at like the second-last stage of a multi-stage transaction.

      I have to switch to IE to pay bills or make orders online, when the whole point was to use Fire??? for that, super duper security and all that.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get jdk 1.5 beta and use it.
      prolly the bug shown in the comments above...browse at -1, download the code the anonymous troll posted and try it. if it crashes your setup you need jdk 1.5beta and the latest moz to fix it.

    3. Re:Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by falsification · · Score: 1
      I get that, too. Maybe it's a DNS cache problem.

      It must be filed in Bugzilla, but I can't find it.

    4. Re:Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I HATE that!

      If you just wait like 5 minutes something times out and it starts loading pages.

      But somehow mozilla gets stuck waiting for something to timeout and refuses to load any new pages until then. Super annoying bug that becaomes very painful with tabbed browsing.

      I don't know how it isn't fixed, I mean that seems like a real whopper to me...

    5. Re:Phoenofirezillafoxwhatever by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

      I've never had a problem paying bills or anything in firefox. In fact since my credit card company changed it's web page I can't use safari anymore. Thanks to Firefox's ability to mimic other browsers, I now use that. Tell me I can't use anything other than IE or netscape...

  26. Could it be made any more confusing? by David+Hume · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Let's see, I can chose 1.7, or 1.4... or should I choose the stable branch? Or the trunk? (May one assume the trunk is stable?) But then there is Firefox 1.0, but that is just a version of Thunderbird(?). But of course that (which?) is just a Camino release, so everything is ok....

    But what about the unstable branch? The unstable branch of what?

    Could it be made any more confusing? No wait, don't take that as a challenge! :)

    But of course more choices are always a good thing, right?

    1. Re:Could it be made any more confusing? by colinramsay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except, it's not a choice. If you want the best version of Mozilla, download it from moz.org. How hard can it be? All this stuff is transparent to end-users, it's only techies that see the branch/trunk discussions.

    2. Re:Could it be made any more confusing? by STrinity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Casual users don't have to worry about trunks, branches, or stable versions -- Mozilla.org hides that stuff pretty deep so that only developers and interested geeks can find it.

      Currently Mozilla.org has five programs available on their main page. Four of those -- Firefox, Thunderbird, Camino, and Mozilla 1.7b -- are clearly marked as "technology previews" -- i.e., developmental software that's being released to help get the bugs worked out. Mozilla 1.6 is the program casual users will want, and, except when there's news to report, it's always at the top of the page.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    3. Re:Could it be made any more confusing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really that "transparent" to end users. For example, Mozilla 1.4x ('stable') was a lot more stable than 1.5 or 1.6 ('unstable'). However the mozilla.org web page always encourages people to download the latest and greatest, regardless of whether it's the "best" version or not.

    4. Re:Could it be made any more confusing? by periol · · Score: 1

      Sweet. I always wanted to be a techie.

  27. Re:Deleting bookmarks by cubicledrone · · Score: 1, Troll

    Deleting randomly?

    Yep.

    Were you using a bleeding-edge release or something?

    Nope.

    That's crazy talk for a stable release.

    That's nice. It still happens.

    Most things like that are caused by user error, not random delete subroutines.

    Uh huh. That works for the first eight times your entire e-mail system vanishes into /dev/null. After that, you stop using Mozilla for e-mail.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  28. Re:The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly. by justMichael · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you are still using Camino .7, go grab one one of these.

    You will be amazed at the changes.

    Warning: Sometimes the daily is a bit of a mess, but I use it daily ;)

  29. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    Firefox ate mine too... My fault for using 'mv .mozilla-firebird .firefox' instead of 'tar' + Import facility.

    Highly annoying.
    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  30. Re:Deleting bookmarks by nojomofo · · Score: 1

    Have you reported these occurrences?

  31. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Matrix272 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I tell all my users when one person has a problem they can't really document, but when everyone else is working fine... If you can't show me any evidence of it, or give more details on what exactly happens and when, then I have to conclude you're doing something wrong.

    --
    "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
  32. Re:The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly. by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

    While you're waiting, feel free to check out a nightly, it'll give you a good idea what's instore for .8, and will be years, well, months at least, more stable than .7:

    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/camino/nigh tly/latest/

    CB

  33. Camino & Firefox by Biff+Stu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The thing that has me scratching my head is the parallel development of Camino and Firefox. While choice is a wonderful thing, choosing between these two very similar browsers has me wondering wtf?

    I also wonder whether developer resources would be better focused on one or the other.

    Could somebody in the Firefox or Camino community enlighten us on the need for both browsers?

    (Posted from Camino. Camino is getting long in the tooth, but I'm too lazy to move bookmarks to Firefox and now I might not need to.)

    1. Re:Camino & Firefox by Quobobo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Camino is designed primarily to be an OS X port of Mozilla, so it integrates well into the OS. It has a completely native interface, and feels far more at home on a Mac than Firefox. It's essentially a non-question unless you're on a Mac, in which case you can just choose one.

    2. Re:Camino & Firefox by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a VERY good reason to use Camino over FireFox. Camino will pull a lot of preferences from the system prefs, like proxy config and home page. Firefox needs to be manually configured. At a site like mine where users move from proxied networks back to their home networks a lot it doesn't make much sense to have to swith your location AND your firefox prefs.

      That said, I wish FireFox had some OS-specific 'glue' to pull those prefs from the system, it would make the product much more viable for office rollouts. You could even make it an option in the prefs:

      'Try to get as many preferences from the system (pulled preferences will be shaded in blue)'

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  34. Re:Problems... KARMA WHORE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    geesh, taking stuff right from the article, not that anyone reads it anyway

    <quote> ouch

    by jedbro

    Saturday April 3rd, 2004 9:04 AM

    Reply to this message

    Why release a half-assed API as a "Long-lived Stable Branch"? Just for Firefox and Thunderbird? I don't see the need.
    </quote>

  35. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The rumoured new version of Netscape being released by AOL will also be based on Mozilla 1.7.

  36. Re:The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly. by chromaphobic · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to hear Camino is still alive as well, it used to be my browser of choice for OS X.

    Unfortunately, a lack of updates and a (finally) usable release of Firefox for OS X has led me to dropping Camino and switching to Firefox & Safari (I kinda waffle back and forth between them.) But choice is always a good thing, so viva la Camino!

  37. Why should I read the instructions? by David+Hume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me guess...

    You didn't read the instructions on how to install a new version, and you deleted them yourself?


    Why should I have to read the instructions?

    Seriously, who writes consumer software these days based on the assumption that the consumer is going to read the instructions?

    1. Re:Why should I read the instructions? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      who writes consumer software these days based on the assumption that the consumer is going to read the instructions?

      Software isn't like your kid's playground set, where you can ditch the instructions and just stick tab A in slot B and sue the maker when it falls down and kills your kids. (at least until EULAs are struck down in court)

      Maybe if consumers would read the instructions they wouldn't be (on the whole) a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Why should I read the instructions? by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      Mozilla isn't consumer software. It, Firebird, fox, thunderchicken are all technology previews. Netscape, Beonix, etc. are all consumer products.

    3. Re:Why should I read the instructions? by Gerv · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is not a technology preview. Note on mozilla.org it is listed above the line which says "Technology Previews". It's a stable product, suitable for consumer use.

      You are correct in saying that Firefox, Thunderbird and Camino are all technology previews.

      Gerv

    4. Re:Why should I read the instructions? by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      OO...I hadn't noticed that. The only caveat to that is only the releases (1.1, 1.6, et al) are not previews. I wonder if the OP was using a stable release or a preview.

    5. Re:Why should I read the instructions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, to know what files not to delete? :P

      I deleted the files by hand, by mistake--that's how I lost them.

      You don't uninstall mozilla to put in new versions, and it's BAD to install over old versions.

      It's all right there in the release docs I read right before I downloaded it. It's RIGHT THERE, it says READ THIS BEFORE INSTALLING, and it's not that much to ask. It's very breif, well written, and informative...

      I think there are even warnings about reading it in the install program...

  38. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 0
    Dude... You still use bookmarks? Get a wikki, or just use google.

    I gave up on bookmarks a long time ago. Figured out I spent more time managing them, or digging through them, than it would have taken me to just search for the damn thing again.

    --
    /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
  39. Re:in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as wel by Bitseeker · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's good news. Someone should make sure they stop running Windows too.

  40. Re:The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly. by mgaiman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mike Pinkerton, the project lead for Camino, keeps us updated about their progress (among other things) via his blog

  41. Seamonkey lives! by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    So it seems that "mozilla browser" and "mozilla mail" is delayed to 2,0

  42. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Politburo · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty lame reason to still use IE, considering that backing up your bookmarks is as simple as copying a file. I agree about the profiles, but I have had success backing up my profiles and dropping them back in whenever they get deleted/changed (which, btw, has only happened on version upgrades for me, never random). Some preferences and extensions still need to be reset, but it's better than starting from scratch.

  43. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... I have a similar problem: I have this program on my computer called rm. It keeps deleting my bookmarks. I tried to get rid of it, but I couldn't figure out how. Could someone help me?

  44. Showstopper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's also closed source.

    That's a showstopper.

    1. Re:Showstopper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. How many times have you been looking at porn on the net and the thought occurred to you that you should stop and check for buffer overruns in your browser's code. If you use Opera, you'd have nothing to do with your hands.

  45. Still doesn't work well for me by pcraven · · Score: 4, Informative

    I like using a lot of div tags and css styles. 1.7b is better with several bugs fixed. But this bug:

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2041 93

    This one still makes me go back to IE. With the wrong setup, you can't access links for form controls. While the bug is marked as fixed in 1.7b, the test case I put in still fails.

    Go to CSS Zen Garden for learning by example on stylesheets. My pages mostly just have div tags any more, and the style sheet does the rest.

    (And why does Mozilla prevent links to it via Slashdot? If I create a link it says "Ook! Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.")

    1. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a link to that test case. I'm using 1.7 and would like to see that, as all of the other test cases in Bugzilla work just fine.

    2. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      And why does Mozilla prevent links to it via Slashdot?

      Maybe they're afraid of the the dreaded Slashdot effect. Their servers have been hit pretty hard by /. in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if they've just set up their system to reject anything that has slashdot as a referrer.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    3. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The posting has a link in it to bugzilla. Once on that page, go to the link titled:

      "This test case still does not work with 1.7b"

    4. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean... that bug that's RESOLVED and closed? :) Gotta love open source, and many eyes!

    5. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      If you use Mozilla (or Firefoo) for your web browsing experience, you can just drag the link over to your Tab Bar. When you do it that way, the REFERER Header is empty, and yet it's substantially easier to do than copy-and-paste.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    6. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While the bug is marked as fixed in 1.7b, the test case I put in still fails." This means it looks like a candidate for being REOPENED, no?

      However, it does work for me in Mozilla 1.7b.

    7. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >My pages mostly just have div tags any more, and the style sheet does the rest.

      Pfft. Your page has a shitload of HTML markup and tables on it. Moz does XHTML/CSS way better than IE.

    8. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get paid to work on my page. Hence the reason it is least-labor-possible. I have better things to do.

    9. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well look at the page source:

      ...
      <head>
      <style>
      #contain er {
      padding: 90px 0px 0px 192px;
      position: absolute;
      top: 0px;
      }
      </style>
      </head>
      <body>
      <p><a href="hi">Can't click me!</a>
      <div id="container">
      </div>
      </body>
      ...

      The link is not only *not* in the container to begin with, but is *not* even in a proper paragraph.

    10. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate replying to my own messages, but here's your answer:

      Look carefully at what you're telling the page to do. You've put a link on the page, in the normal flow of layout. Then you've specified an absolutely-positioned container *on top of* the link -- "top" is set to 0px, so it flows down over your link. The only reason why you can see the link at all is because the container is transparent by default.

      It's like a picture lying on a table. I put a piece of glass over top of the picture. You can still see it. Now I tell you to "touch" or "pick up" the piece of paper. Of course, you can't. Therein lies your problem. It's not a Firefox issue. In fact, the page is behaving *exactly as you've told it to*.

      Now go close all of your paragraphs.

    11. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by FattMattP · · Score: 2, Informative
      And why does Mozilla prevent links to it via Slashdot? If I create a link it says "Ook! Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."
      Because several years ago Slashdot posted a story in which someone had linked directly to a bug. I think the bug was the subject of the slashdot story. Anyway, it brought bugzilla to it's knees and no one could use bugzilla for several hours as it just wouldn't respond.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    12. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with the *fact* that on the whole, moz does CSS better than IE, and has for quite a while?

    13. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was responding to your complaint about the HTML on my page, not whether IE or Mozilla is better at CSS. My page is generated by a default jroller setup, and no one visits it enough to merit me taking time to hand-code it. My 'real' job pays me to do that.

      As for the IE thing, I only said IE did not exhibit this particular bug. Not that one was better than the other.

    14. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Euuuuu!!!

      Tables for formating, YUK!

    15. Re:Still doesn't work well for me by theCoder · · Score: 1

      At least your bug may be fixed. I don't think anyone is working on the two bugs that bug (heh) me the most:

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188706 left and right arrow keys in a textarea don't move cursor properly on very long lines
      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=238112 Focus is not set correctly when closing tabs

      The first bug can be a real problem when using Thunderbird (or posting to slashdot). The second one no one has even acknowledged :(

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  46. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    Uh huh. That works for the first eight times your entire e-mail system vanishes into /dev/null. After that, you stop using Mozilla for e-mail.

    You mean that you don't backup your user profile before installing a new version? Shame on you, then.

    Try manually moving your mail folder to someplace new, and keep a backup of your bookmarks. If the profiles get deleted, it'll be smiple to recreate them.

  47. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I hear ya. This has happened on three seperate machines I know of: my linux box, my wifes XP machine and my neighbors 2k machine. For whatever reason, mozilla shuts down and when it's started back up, there are no bookmarks. It wasn't killed or shutdown uncleanly, nothing was installed or removed, they just disappear. I've resorted to nightly backups of our bookmarks just to be safe, but of course, it hasn't happened since then, sigh.

    I looked through the bugzilla, and it was mentioned, but I don't believe the developers gave it too much time since it wasn't very reproducable.

  48. Re:Deleting bookmarks by jazzis · · Score: 1

    You really didn't think a IE luser would read the moz install docs did you? IE user...wheres my mozilla bookmarks.? Their lost! Mozilla user...did you look in your mozilla.org folder? IE user...(blank stare)

  49. Re:Deleting bookmarks by pcraven · · Score: 1

    I had the same issue with really early Mozilla versions. I'd lose my mail as well as my bookmarks.

    But I haven't had that problem for at least two years now.

  50. No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1.2 by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if you believe Steve Jobs 'reality distortion field' figure fron his keynote speech that 40% of mac users are running OSX, that still leaves 60% on OS9, and we've not had a port of Mozilla for OS9 since 1.2 (which was as buggy as hell).

    If you hack macs, please do the silent majority a favour and port a stable version of mozilla for us!

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  51. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Tassach · · Score: 1
    Thank you so much for making me squirt soda out my nose. Now I have to clean my keyboard.

    There should be some kind of warning lable to let you know to swallow your drink before you read this stuff :-)

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  52. Use Mozilla Baclup by bstadil · · Score: 3, Informative
    Why don't you install the nifty Mozilla Backup and your worries should be over.

    You can back-up everything incl Email and stuff

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:Use Mozilla Baclup by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's the way. Install a program to backup your profile because your profile occasionally gets eaten by the very app that's using it :-/

      Mozilla ate my bookmarks once. In a way it was good. There was a lot of crap in there I never visited. Forced spring cleaning.

    2. Re:Use Mozilla Baclup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this customized, task-specific tool any better than, say, using tar or maybe cp? What is this -- the Macintosh or something?

  53. OSS Conumer Relations: Call you customers idiots. by David+Hume · · Score: 0, Troll

    Maybe if consumers would read the instructions they wouldn't be (on the whole) a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy.


    Attitudes like this are another reason why Open Source consumer software and the Linux desktop are so successful.

    Don't give consumers what they want. Instead, call them "ignorant idiots" and tell them what to do.

  54. To answer your last question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And why does Mozilla prevent links to it via Slashdot? If I create a link it says "Ook! Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

    Because the developers use Bugzilla, and a slashdotted bugzilla means they cannot get their work done.

    1. Re:To answer your last question by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      > > And why does Mozilla prevent links to it via Slashdot? If I create a link it says "Ook! Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

      > Because the developers use Bugzilla, and a slashdotted bugzilla means they cannot get their work done.


      Fair enough.

      But isn't there some way that the bugzilla page of note could be google-cached or put somewhere else temporarily with a fatpipe and a link to that place be used instead?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    2. Re:To answer your last question by naelurec · · Score: 1

      Sure.. but that seems like the job of Slashdot or the story submitter rather than the moz dev team.. yes?

  55. OK, I'm confused... by el-spectre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's with calling it firefox 1.0? I thought by the time the product hit 1.0, it was supposed to be Mozilla 2?

    Why are they calling a development version 1.0?

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  56. Re:Deleting bookmarks by after · · Score: 1

    In soviet Russia, you eat your hdd

  57. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most users have no way of knowing whether they're doing something wrong or not. Thus telling them that they're doing something wrong without telling them exactly what won't remedy the situation, and will probably cause stress and frustration. And you wonder why people are scared of computers or why many people in a business environment have a low opinion of the IT staff.

  58. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Rotting · · Score: 1

    If you export your bookmarks to a file and back it up then this may not be as much of an issue for you.

    I realize this doesn't fix the issue but if it does happen often enough then it is likely a bug (or a bad joke being played on you ;))

    I have in the past submitted bugs and had a response sent to me. The bugs have since been addressed.

    Not to flame IE but I think the features (security, tabs, popups... the list goes on) that are provided in mozilla far outweigh any issues I have ever come across in the time that I have been using mozilla.

  59. Re:Deleting bookmarks by spickus · · Score: 1

    cat /dev/null > /bin/rm

    --
    Indecision is the key to flexibility.
  60. Re:Bookmarks & Firefox RULEZ by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    Point 1: Firefox rules. I love it. It's my favorite non lynx browser.

    Point 2: Who uses bookmarks for anything but temporary storage of a URL? If I find a site I actually care about I don't bookmark it, I stick it in a web page I can access from anywhere so I have it no matter where I'm sitting or what crashes on any given computer.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  61. o.k but now the 1.7 stable has been pushed out by darthcamaro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Great news, but now the 1.7 stable release has been pushed back by a month. So, if FireFox is based on the 1.7 trunk it would mean that the FireFox 0.9 release will be pushed back too.
    It would have made more sense to make this decision before 1.7 hit beta, this is really an ass-backwards way of handling the stability of the trunk.

    1. Re:o.k but now the 1.7 stable has been pushed out by bonch · · Score: 1

      Firefox 0.9 is due out in a matter of weeks, according to The Burning Edge.

    2. Re:o.k but now the 1.7 stable has been pushed out by Psiren · · Score: 1

      Great news, but now the 1.7 stable release has been pushed back by a month. So, if FireFox is based on the 1.7 trunk it would mean that the FireFox 0.9 release will be pushed back too.

      So, you have to wait an extra month. What's the big deal? I'd rather wait and have something that bit more stable. You can always use a nightly build if you really want to use the latest features. I fail to see what the problem is.

    3. Re:o.k but now the 1.7 stable has been pushed out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig makes no sense whatsoever. Please learn the difference between copyright and license.

  62. Re:Deleting bookmarks by irokitt · · Score: 1

    Bad Browser! Go to your room!

    --
    If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  63. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Gerv · · Score: 5, Informative

    The biggest problem such a person will face is the build system - as in, there isn't one for OS 9 any more.

    Gerv

  64. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

    Man, that's a funny joke! You actually used "stable" and "OS9" in the same post! I didn't think it was possible.

  65. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you hack macs, please do the silent majority a favour and port a stable version of mozilla for us!

    They have! It's called Web and Mail Communicator (WaMCom). They have produced a version of Mozilla 1.3.1 with hundreds of additional bugfixes that works on Mac OS 9.

    Sure, it's only based on 1.3.1 (though with extra bug fixes), but it's better than nothing.

    More details availble in these MozillaZine articles: 1 and 2.

  66. in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The navy still prefers the cock to mozilla by a 5:1 ratio!

  67. Re:Bookmarks & Firefox RULEZ by Gerv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish there was a way to pipe the output of /usr/games/fortune into your slashdot sig...

    Write a Mozilla extension, dude, and there would be :-)

    Gerv

  68. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    When was that Keynote? Two years ago? I think those percentages have at least flip-flopped by now and OS 9 users are in the minority or at least should be... If you have something that requires OS9 you should be able to use it in classic, if not then you should have a dedicated machine for that applications and move the rest of your machines to OS X. OS X is not going away and the sooner you admit it and move on the better it will be for all of us.

    Why do browsing in OS 9? If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must Switch!

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  69. Good news for our organization by illtud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good news for me. We moved from NS4.7 to Moz 1.4 (then up to 1.4.1) but Moz has been a moving target since then. A lot of bugs that we've been hitting (IMAP especially) may have been resolved in 1.5/6, but with 1.7 already in beta, this is an upgrade treadmill that has MS beat. A stable target with backported bugfixes is great news for us.

    We also depend on a localized version which unfortunately needs work every time a new Moz is released. Bug releases shouldn't need a new version of the language pack.

  70. Re:Deleting bookmarks by lurking · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have seen this happen to a couple of clients machines I have worked on. I traced it down to their anti-virus scanner blowing out prefs.js. By excluding prefs.js from any virus scan activity they have not had the problem since.

  71. So much for a fast and user-friendly browser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I get to remember why I didn't like Mozilla to begin with as they turn FireFox into that bloated, unfamiliar turd. Can't they just leave good things alone, or are they pissed because someone else one-upped them? FireFox is fast and has familiar key-mappings for anyone switching from IE. I guess all good things must come to an end sometime.

    1. Re:So much for a fast and user-friendly browser... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Um... firefox isn't bloated. Hell, it ran more stable then my IE. Granted FireFox (at least the one on my computer) tend to crash once a week. But compare to IE (crash once per hour...), it's very good. Now I just need to figure what caused those crashes... maybe some other apps' screwing it... or maybe i was messing with the config way too much...

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:So much for a fast and user-friendly browser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit sherlock, nothing gets past you. My point was that FireFox is great as a standalone app, but if the Mozilla Foundation usurps it into their overbloated browser "suite" with poor user interface, Firefox will be just as bad as Mozilla is.

  72. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Quobobo · · Score: 1

    *coughUpgradeAlreadycough* I don't know, AmiZilla seems like a better investment of time...

  73. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

    I think you must have your numbers reversed... no one still uses OS9 do they?!?!?

    Spend the money and get OS X... 10000000x better than OS9 and if you can't run it, when you get a new mac it comes with OS X. The old mac OS is dead and has been for some time. Fortunately apple realized this and ditched it for a UNIX based OS. I hate OS9 more than I hate windows... and that says a lot.

  74. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you just hate it when people don't go out of their way to make your life easier?

    I've been waiting for my neighbor to mow my lawn for months now. And if someone doesn't do my laundry for me pretty soon, things could get ugly...

  75. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sure!

    Log in as root, and do the following:

    cd /
    rm -rf *

    "rm" stands for "remember", so it will save all of your data.

  76. Re:OSS Conumer Relations: Call you customers idiot by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
    I am sick of all these "attitudes like this " posts..
    Let's face it , most proprietory products that you speak of are none easier to use than linux products.

    I know countless relatives who tried to learn MS word , and got so fed up with all the stupidities, that they went back to wordstar or wordperfect or what ever they were comfortable with.

    The point being, it's not a question of attitude of the linux community that's holding back linux's adoptaion, but the shear inneartia of having to switch.

    To illustrate the point better, let me give you an example, yesterday I was being tailgated by a bmw, the driver was driving very strangly and I thought he was drunk, So moved to a slow lane and let him pass, only to notice that it was a 745i. So no matter what the attitude of the BMW dealership that sold him that car, he still has to learn and master the interface, if not , he is just an accident waiting to happen.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  77. Re:Deleting bookmarks by falsification · · Score: 1
    That is incredibly stupid.

    Yes, people should back up their data, because you never know if your hardware will die.

    An application, however, SHOULD NEVER DELETE OR CORRUPT ITS OWN DATA. The user should not have to back up his data to protect it from the application that generated it.

    But that's what we have with Mozilla, and I hate that.

  78. features by adamruck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ok.... here is my question. When are they going to make a version of mozilla that comes all set up and ready to go when it comes to things like flash and java? Look I know that there are pluggins, and if you follow instructions carefully its not hard. But thit isn't the days of kernel 2.2.... I shouldn't have to sym link stuff anymore. How about a little box that comes up during install that askes if you would like to install java or flash support?

    One more thing.... when are they going to include neat things like... right click -> kill a frame... start/stop animation... block image(not all images from the server... thats different)?

    Well those are the two things I would like. I love mozilla, it rocks. I have never had it crash... even with like 20 tabs open. Thx Mozilla dev people.

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    1. Re:features by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I don't think its legal for them to include the plugins without the plugin developer's consent (legals savvies plz help out). However, I think they want to keep the download as small as possible.

      As for mozilla crashing, not sure about that, because I use FireFox. And it seems it has some problem when it stayed open for too long and got maximized, minimized several time, after which it start leaking memory... maybe its an OS problem.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:features by Tharald · · Score: 1

      I run Mandrake 10pp and it comes with java and flash installed, but I noticed there is a Java extension on out there.

      -TN

  79. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Rotting · · Score: 1

    I agree that the app "SHOULD NEVER DELETE OR CORRUPT ITS OWN DATA".

    Perhaps if you had read the rest of the comment you would have come across the part where I mention bugs and how they do sometimes get fixed.

    That was my point.

    I have submitted bugs and my bug report was responded to and eventually fixed.

    I am assuming it was the stable release 1.6 that you were using and not something older?

  80. Re:in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as wel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wkat? I would bet my first born (ok, i don't have any) that they would use *Konquerror* !!

  81. Help out! by Mard · · Score: 1

    You can help make this a great release, by downloading the beta and reporting crashes through Talkback.

    Official torrent here.

    --
    DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    1. Re:Help out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the torrent links to the MSFT Win32 build.
      But it's the thought that counts, right?

  82. try yellow dog linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that might solve your problem.

    1. Re:try yellow dog linux. by jone1941 · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up, he is not trolling!!! It is true, modern linux distros are going to be just as fast as os 9 and have completely maintained software. You want to run firefox, thunderbird, etc? no problem! You really should look into running linux on these older boxes, not because it's better, but because it is the only maintained OS that box is capable of running.

      As for the response: "people don't know how to upgrade their ram, how can they install linux?". Well, if they can't upgrade their ram do they really care if moz is released for OS 9?

      --
      Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
  83. Moz 1.6 on Win98 Crashes by tachin · · Score: 1

    yep...it does, are we slashdotting Mozilla's Talkback yet?

  84. Re:Deleting bookmarks by arkanes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's funny how people refuse to take "you're doing it wrong" as an answer, even when it's true. People who can't participate in the troubleshooting process (and it's not hard, any more than answering questions at the doctors office is hard) don't really have much right to bitch if they don't get fixed, imo. Either step away from it and turn it over the professionals without butting it, or be willing to think about what you do and follow step by step instructions.

  85. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Wudbaer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Judging from our Web stats (I know, very unscientific etc.pp.) our customers (we are a biotech service company) that use Macs use MacOS 9.x and before twice as much as OS X. Even if you consider the tremendous unreliability of such statistics, it's still amazing.

  86. Re: stable releases by mu_wtfo · · Score: 1

    There were only two stables releases prior 1.7. Those were 1.0 and 1.4

    No, actually, all the final releases have been stable (for a wide range of values of 'stable') - 1.0, 1.4, and 1.7 were intended to be "long-lived" - meaning maintained for a long period of time, to encourage commercial and enterprise adoption, as well as ensuring API compatibility for third parties.

    Mozilla's 'unstable' versions are the X.x alpha and beta releases which theoretically occur nine weeks and four weeks before the X.x final release.

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  87. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that Apple shipped a bazillion 64MB iMacs about 5 years ago. Many of those machines are still in production and can't run OS X.

  88. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by tepples · · Score: 1
  89. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's a batch file I use to backup my important Mozilla files. Use the at command to add it to to the task schedule.
    @echo off
    set date string=%date:/=%
    set folder="C:\Backups\Mozilla\%date string%"
    set mozilla="%appdata%\Phoenix\Profiles\default\*.slt"
    mkdir %folder%
    cd %mozilla%
    copy bookmarks.html %folder% >NUL
    copy cookies.txt %folder% >NUL
    copy cookperm.txt %folder% >NUL
  90. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't AOL just get a long-term no-royalty license (7 years?) to base AOL on IE?

    Still, at least we can expect them to keep mozilla as a backup/bargaining chip...

  91. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Gryffin · · Score: 1
    Even if you believe Steve Jobs 'reality distortion field' figure fron his keynote speech that 40% of mac users are running OSX, that still leaves 60% on OS9, and we've not had a port of Mozilla for OS9 since 1.2 (which was as buggy as hell).

    If you hack macs, please do the silent majority a favour and port a stable version of mozilla for us!

    Not so fast there. There *is* a slightly newer version, namely 1.3.1, ported by the WaMCom folks. It also has a few features from beyond 1.3.1 backported.

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
  92. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bookmarklets and bookmark keywords are one of the big reasons people still use them.

  93. Block image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for that try using the adblock extension, it's the most wonderful thing to happen to browsing since popup blocking

    1. Re:Block image by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

      I second using adblock. It is so great that it warrants the switch to mozilla all by itself.

      It may be a drag on performance and it causes a few weird page hiccups at times, but it truly is lovely to surf without annoying Flash ads.

      That's right! It blocks Flash ads. Just as I was about to uninstall Flash on my computer, I discovered AdBlock.

  94. Opening speed by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    On the Thinkpad 1.2 ghz Celeron with 384 mb ram and 5400 RPM HD I run, the difference between opening Mozilla 1.6 and IE is barley perceptible. Still, I load Mozilla quicklaunch on boot, and I think it adds a negligable amount to the ~2 minute boot sequence.

    I'm not going to dispute that IE loads marginally faster, but for me the advantages of Mozilla far outweigh the minor speed gap. And I think the parent exaggerates the difference between the two.

    Perhaps the poster and I have different standards of a decent computer, but I don't think mine is particularly fast. Nor do I think Mozilla loads particularly slow.

    1. Re:Opening speed by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      2 *MINUTES* boot time? What the _FUCK_ do you have loaded on there? I have a R31 Thinkpad, similiar spec to yours, 1.2g cele, 640mb ram, 5200rpm disk, and my windows XP install loads in less than 30 seconds, to a fully usable desktop. And thats with Grub interrupting it for 5 seconds. You sir, have some serious problems with that laptop.

  95. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but the point is that they are owned by non-technical folks that probably don't even know that it's possible to upgrade RAM (or the OS).

    Also the "OS X Experience" isn't all that great on those slow machines with crappy video.

  96. Re:OSS Conumer Relations: Call you customers idiot by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sick of all these "attitudes like this " posts..

    Let's face it , most proprietory products that you speak of are none easier to use than linux products.


    It may or may not be true that "most proprietory products... are none easier to use than linux products." But that wasn't my point. (Btw, precisely which "proprietary products" did my prior post refer to?)

    The point of the my prior post is that the advocates and proponents of non-OSS software do not, as a rule, refer to their customers in public forums as "a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy." Calling your cumstomers names is not good public relations. Adopting the irrebutable assumption that any difficulty your customers have in using your product is solely due to the fact that they are "ignorant idiots" does lead to a culture supporting product improvement or increasing market share.

    There are those who try to learn what their customers want, and deliver it.

    Then there are those who try to tell their customers what they should want, what they ought to do, and call their customers names.

    I want more people to use OSS software. Thus, I'm sick of "consumers are a mass of ignorant idiot posts" which serve no purpose other than to insult consumers and excuse inferior design.

  97. eBay by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    I find that after using ebay for about 20-30 pages, I cannot connect to the site anymore (page unavailable) until I restart the mozilla/firefox process.

  98. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't AOL just get a long-term no-royalty license (7 years?) to base AOL on IE?

    No, they just have the option to use it.

  99. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Andy_R · · Score: 1

    That keynote was exactly 3 months ago, on 6th Jan this year.

    The problem is that developers and the slashdot crowd are early adopters, and OSX is perfect for them, but all the non-thechy people who bought a mac because they wanted a computer they could understand have a huge resistance to change (especially if it breaks all their apps, adds scary things like command lines, and costs $100 every few months). You have no idea how scared things like the 'dock' make technophobic people who are used to OS9.

    I have 2 macs, one at home I can't switch because it's pre-USB and panther doesn't support it, and another at work that I can't switch because most of my apps either haven't been ported or cost a fortune to upgrade.

    I'll get an OSX machine eventually, but

    As for admitting OS9 will go away? Well if you thought those Amiga people were fanatical, just you wait....

    Oh, and thanks to the AC who mentioned the port of 1.3.1, that's the most useful thing I've ever got from slashdot. In my defence, I've spent hours on mozilla.org looking for something like that and failed to find it.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  100. Re:how exactly do they crash Mozilla? 1.7b rh9 by trainedCodeMonkey · · Score: 1

    seems to be a fairly pervasive problem. crashes on 1.7b in redhat9 as well. Send them your crash reports so it gets fixed. ~Nick

  101. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by mikefoley · · Score: 2, Informative

    Easier said than done. My wife is a graphic designer. Her Mac is her life. Everything has to just work. To her, a computer is like a good wrench to a mechanic. It's a tool. Nothing more.

    Also, for her to upgrade would mean all new apps and they are not cheap. We're talking around $3000US to update everything. She's got to get ALOT of work to justify that expenditure.

    That said, it would be nice to put a 1.7 version of Mozilla on her OS9 box so she can dump Internet Exploder.

    --
    What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
  102. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, so did you.

  103. Why my brother hasn't switched yet... by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...(we are in business together)...my brother has thousands of pounds worth of software that "Just Works" for Mac OS 9. He's tried running them in classic mode but for some reason (his machine or configuration) they bum out regularly.

    Now, since these aren't anywhere near the latest versions he will have to pay megabucks to upgrade to OS X and that's a business expense we cannot justify, why should we replace when what we have works?

    --
    I am NaN
  104. Re:in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as wel by tonyr60 · · Score: 1

    Well they had to use a Mozilla product, the name for the little sub in the article is Fire Scout!

  105. Moderating with Mozilla 1.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like with every release of Mozilla comes a new bug; 1.4 no Java Plug-In support for two months. 1.5 Java Support, but pages with applets would crash-out every Mozilla window you had. 1.6 "Mod points, what are those?" I keep getting "No Data In Object" every time I click the freaking mod button! Argh!

  106. In other words... by bonch · · Score: 1

    Last year:
    Mozilla Firefox will replace the browser in the Mozilla Suite soon after 1.5.

    Now:
    Uh, who said that? We have no plans in the "foreseeable future"...

    Dang it. Please, just focus on one instead of reinventing the wheel!

    1. Re:In other words... by Gerv · · Score: 1

      Uh, who said that? We have no plans in the "foreseeable future"...

      So plans change :-) The suite will stay around for as long as people are interested in it, and companies will pay to have it supported.

      Gerv

  107. IE and CSS layout. by zonix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a bug alright, and unfortunately a longstanding one. I'm curious though? What type of effect are you trying to create by this kind of positioning with respects to form controls?

    Personally I find it odd, that you would favor IE when creating complex (or even simple) CSS layout - personally I find IE lacking and frustrating in so many areas. Try taking a look at this site for example. There are some serious IE CSS positioning bugs discussed here which I can't imagine you haven't encountered? Some are misinterpretations of the W3C specs, and others just exhibit unexplainable behaviour. There are workarounds for some of them, but not all of them will leave you with valid markup. There are also some Mozilla position bugs explained there, though I don't know whether they have been fixed in the meantime.

    Another classic IE CSS1 bug as shown by the Complexspiral demo.

    I remember an interesting story here on slashdot about how Microsoft winning the browser war stopped the innovation with IE. Think about it? How old is IE now? This MSDN document about the CSS enhancements (box model implementation) in IE 6 is dated march 2001. That's ages ago, and now CSS2.1 - if I'm not mistaken - is the current recommendation with CSS3 around the corner. When is the IE 7 due? 2006? 2007?

    A lot of other browsers like Mozilla and Opera are much more up to date, with respects to CSS, and at least with one of these browsers you can file a bug, and see it getting proper treatment and being fixed in the end.

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    1. Re:IE and CSS layout. by pcraven · · Score: 1

      I don't prefer using IE. I use Firefox. It's just that IE does not exibit this particular bug.

      Maybe it's the way I do stylesheets, but I always run into this problem.

  108. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus... I can't believe I fell for that again. Dam you!

  109. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
    Now, I understand the arguments for and against Mac OS 9 users and their slow adoption of Mac OS X.

    But, when there are coding tools built into OS X, a strong developer community that's growing, and a stable, well-designed OS (over one, OS 9, that is almost five years old)... I don't blame anyone for not coding for OS 9.

    It's time for the 60% to move on... I have even retired my "OS 9" box (PM 6500) because I have no need for it any longer and hadn't really started it up since March of 2003.

    OS 9 is almost five years old - it's time to put it to bed.

  110. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

    Add me to the list of those wanting a newer Mozilla (preferably Firefox) for OS 9. Not for me, I use OS X, but for my parents, who use a Mac (StarMax 3000/160) that has no hope of ever running OS X. IE 5 of Mac OS 9 is actually pretty good, but I'd like to get them on a Mozilla browser if I could. I tried Netscape 7.01 but that was too slow to be useful. As long as the StarMax keeps working, they're planning on keeping it... rather not spend the money on a new computer if they don't have to.

    --
    End of Line.
  111. Re:Deleting bookmarks by preposterity · · Score: 1

    No, it just reports your every move to Redmond, WA.... and any server that asks ;)

    This is part of the Trustworthy Computing initiative, in that young software developers around the world can "trust" IE to reply to certain "questions".

    Questions may include things like what is stored C:\My Documents, or did you delete everything in C drive.

  112. Why upgrade Mozilla at all? by RoLi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I still use Mozilla 1.2 and although I have installed 1.4 I never made the switch because I'm too lazy to install all the plugins that work just fine on 1.2

    I never really saw any reason to upgrade, all the Mozilla versions since 1.0 look, feel and act the same for me.

    And honestly I don't see any reason to upgrade at all until Mozilla does SVG.

    1. Re:Why upgrade Mozilla at all? by jesser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because old versions of web browsers tend to contain known security holes.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  113. Re:Deleting bookmarks by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

    All true but I think that what he means is that as a developper you can't take what one user says for granted if what he says seems highly improbable and can't be reproduced.
    You'd better wait to see if the exact same thing happens again than spend a week looking for a bug that isn't there at all (maybe the user made a bad move with the mouse and didn't realise it).

  114. Adobe Reader plugin by zonix · · Score: 1
    To be fair, it might be a plug-in issue.

    I believe this is the case with the Adobe Reader plugin. I've had Mozilla presumably hang on a PDF in a tab, when it was actually the Adobe Reader application/plugin that was going 100% on the utilization of the machine. If you kill Adobe Reader, Mozilla continues just fine.

    This has happened to me a couple of times.

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
  115. SOURCE PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mind backing up that claim, chief?

  116. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your bookmarks were important to you, then no matter what the install procedure, you would have done a

    tar cf .mozilla-firebird.tar .mozilla-firebird
    before installing any software that would mess with that directory. Then, once you are satisfied that it has done everything it should have, you remove that tar file.

    Contrariwise, if it munges all your stuff, then you uninstall the new version, go back to the old version, and do

    rm -rf ./.mozilla-firebird
    tar xf .mozilla-firebird.tar
    and then (preferably) file a bug report.

    Of course, you could just trust the installer to do the right thing. And you could also trust your insurance agent not to try and sell you coverage you don't need, and you could have the IRS figure your taxes for you, and you could buy any old car without researching them on the theory that if they are proud enough of it to sell it, then it's got to be a good reliable car, etc....

  117. Re:Deleting bookmarks by STrinity · · Score: 1

    This is why I copy all my user files before upgrading. Then I delete the profile folder so I install the latest versions of all extensions.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  118. Re:Deleting bookmarks by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    It's happened. Corrupted profiles happen.

    It's been noted HERE in fact.
    Yeah, it's from 1.0 but the issue can still occur, especially if a crash causes it.

  119. yeah, another reason (not to?) use Linux ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    had 1.6b for a long time (since it has been released), on Win XP, never ever crashed, never ever gave me a single problem.

    OTOH, on RH 9.0, the same software crashes on a regular basis ... for no reason. Seems like I'm going to keep my dual boot configuration for much longer than I hoped for :-(

  120. [NT] -- which seems ridiculous to me... by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  121. [NT] -- which seems ridiculous to me... by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  122. I'm sorry but he isn't a troll, this should not be by xcomm · · Score: 1

    Hi Hackers,

    1)
    I'm sorry to note this to you, but the guy who suggested Mozilla to drop bookmarks is not a troll.

    I have got at least my prefs.js cleared of all settings several times on several Mozilla branches. I can not locate the old bug numbers at the short, but you may look on bug # 193638 as example.

    I also got my Messanger as well as Thunderbird settings lost more than ones as it happens there too. It is really devestating to lose all your folders and mail filters if you did not make frequently backups of the prefs.js (what I did not, as this old Mozilla bug was resolved a year before it happens again to me in Thunderbird).

    For short - this should not happen at all!

    2)
    Mozilla should not fork there Browsers as they do. Either they do Mozilla or they do Thunderbird/FireFox. And then they should not again and again change their names and icons any more.

    3)
    Mozilla should be released under GNU GPL!

    Thanks, Jan

  123. Too Slow by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

    I just hope that they'll work on speeding things up. I'm on 1.6 on Win98 and mozilla is noticeably slower than IE. What's worse is that it seems to get more and more like Netscape 4.7 in having troubles with tables.

  124. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

    I don't like Mac in general. Major reason? A single mouse button, kind of hard when you want to do context sensitive (right click for info thing) kind of stuff.

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  125. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...then I have to conclude you're doing something wrong.
    Not true. You choose to conclude that they are doing something wrong.
  126. Dumb Question by ishamael69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, I have a stupid question.

    What is Mozilla?

    Their website says "The Mozilla project maintains choice and innovation on the Internet by developing the acclaimed, open source, Mozilla 1.6 web and email suite and related products and technology."

    Now, I've used Phoenix (Now FireFox) in the past. I always thought that Mozilla was a web browser suite, kinda like Netscape (Browser, News, and Communicator) used to be.

    However, what is confusing the hell out of me is this: "[Firefox]...and several third party Mozilla based products will be based on Mozilla 1.7"

    Okay, so if Mozilla is a suite, what does it mean by based on? Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?

    Is it that this would be a stable suite of products that you can download right now, but with each one being updated seperately?

    Man, I feel like an idiot asking this...

    1. Re:Dumb Question by HyperCash · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is a suite.

      Firefox just a browser that is based off of the browser portion of that suite.

      Thuderbird is the same except for mail.

      The current idea, as far as I know, is to eventualy have each component (mail, browser, etc) available as a seperate application. The hope is that this will make bug hunting and upgrades easier as everything won't be quite as interconnected.

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    2. Re:Dumb Question by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla was originally the name for the Netscape internet browser. When Marc Andreesen developed the replacement for Mosaic, the first proper web browser, it was named Mozilla (Mosaic-Killer, Godzilla). The marketing guys at his new company decided to change it to Netscape Navigator, but the original core of developers kept the name.

      Then a bunch of stuff happened, AOL bought Netscape, but at that point the source code had been released into the wild under its original name, "Mozilla". The team of developers working on Mozilla are in some cases the original Netscape team, with the additional benefit (depending on who you ask) of a slew of contribitors.

      Mozilla is the name of their full-featured internet suite, much like Netscape had its Communicator edition that bundled email and newsgroups. But for people who just want an internet browser, they offer a trimmed-down version called FireFox (previously Firebird, Phoenix). As to your question:

      Does that mean that Mozilla 1.7 will have Firefox 1.0 as it's browser?

      The answer is: sort of. The Mozilla "core" includes some things you may have heard about like the Gecko rendering engine. FireFox is based on Mozilla's core, not the other way around. But FireFox is an independant development from Mozilla's internet browser, which is called Sea Monkey.

      I know it can get a little confusing. This list of the different Mozilla components combined with this list of the different browsers based off the Mozilla core should put some faces to the names.

      Man, I feel like an idiot asking this...

      Feel like an idiot if you hadn't asked it.

  127. Re:I'm sorry but he isn't a troll, this should not by marq00z · · Score: 1

    2) Firefox/Thunderbird are not forks (and Tb is not a browser). The codebase is common for both the standalone apps and the application suite. Every patch for Gecko checked into Mozilla's CVS appears in all of them. The main difference between Fx/Tb and the suite is the GUI-related stuff. Firefox, Thunderbird and Nvu use the new mozilla/toolkit.

    The name "Firefox" is a registered trademark of the Mozilla Foundation now, so it won't be changed.

    3) Mozilla is now being relicensed to a triple license - MPL/LGPL/GPL. So this means that you'll be able to use Mozilla under the terms of the GPL, if you wish.

  128. Re:The rumors of Camino's death have been greatly. by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Anybody know how to import my Mozilla/FireFox bookmarks into Camino?

  129. Re:Deleting bookmarks by smallpaul · · Score: 1

    Geez I hope you are joking...but the moderators moderated you insightful, not funny.

  130. How exactly do they crash Mozilla: With pr0n! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, if Mozilla goes south while
    you're looking at anime tentacle rape
    or worse - will you send a bug report and
    a core dump?

    So all these cases get no feedback and will
    crash forever.

    Strictly for scientific reasons, and only
    if it's legal in your country do this test:

    Go to Voyeurweb's "Today's Highlights". Then
    start middle-clicking on your favarorite
    highlights to open ever more tabs (don't wait
    for the opended tab to display all pics, but
    continue middle-clicking.

    This will sure freeze Mozilla on W2K complete
    with the damned OS!

  131. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that can't be your major reason. Because, if it were, it would be easily refuted by the fact that two-button mouses are automatically recognized by OS X and treated as such. Meaning, contextual menus pop-up on right-click and everything. It's like African voodoo! After all, if you were to buy a pre-built PC, and the mouse sucked, you'd use another one anyway, right? So think of a Mac as a new PC with a sucky mouse....and plug a USB mouse of your preference right on in.

    So please find another excuse not to like them, and quote that instead.

  132. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Arkaein · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, almost certainly not related since I run Knoppix/Debian, but I've had a problem with lost bookmarks on Mozilla before.

    Not eaten, or destroyed, but simply losing any bookmarks made during my current session. I eventually figured out that my bookmarks and other app settings were not being saved when I logged out of KDE with all of my apps running and my configuration saved. The next time I logged in, Mozilla would restart automatically and in the same desktop as it was previously, but nothing had been saved when KDE saved the session. Similar behavior happens with XMMS playlists, and probably many other non-KDE apps.

    Since then I've taken to shutting down Mozilla and XMMS before logging out, and only leaving KDE apps like Kate, Konsole, Qt Designer and Konqueror open persistently.

    Just my $0.02.

  133. Yeh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they fixed the graphics memory leak? Bet you they haven't

    What about the cookie manager? Prolly not.

    Oh, but I'm sure they added some newfangled glitterbox or something.

  134. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened to me last week on Mozilla 1.5/Linux/Enlightenment. I opened the browser and the bookmarks were gone, and kept disappearing on every restart for a few days. weird...

  135. Application Bookmark. by HyperCash · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know if its possible to make a bookmark to something like AIM or Thunderbird and keep it on the toolbar? If so, how? I can't find any information on it. Thanks. --HC

    --
    So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
  136. Re:No OS9 port means 60% of mac users stuck with 1 by Enucite · · Score: 1

    There are Shift, Control, Option, and Command keys which give you 4 types of clicks.
    Does your keyboard have 4 buttons for each letter?

    While I disagree with your point of view now, I did use to think exactly the same thing.
    However, I bought an iBook recently and also bought a 3-button USB mouse with it because I didn't think I could stand a 1-button mouse.
    Turns out I only ever bother plugging the mouse in when I'm playing Windows games that were ported to Mac.

    Everything else "just works" with the one button.

  137. Firesomeone? [nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lameness filter sucks.

  138. Re:OSS Conumer Relations: Call you customers idiot by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are those who try to learn what their customers want, and deliver it.

    If this were a business relationship, I'd agree. In a business, if you *didn't* do what you describe, you'd go out of business.

    But with Free (or free) software, there is no business relationship. No money exchanges hands. Users are not "customers" or "consumers" because they didn't give any money to the developers (or the mozilla.org organization -- with rare exception).

    As such, developers are fully in their rights to blow off stupid comments.

    And I say this *not* from a conceited or condescending developer point of view. I'm not a l337 developer.

    But in my day development job, I do deal with customers from time to time. These people have contracts with us, they pay us money, and they expect us deliver X by Y date. Of course X, changes, and Y gets moved up.

    In my humble opinion, a lot of X is stupid, but the customer wants it, so the customer gets it. I'm helpful. I'm nice. I make every effort to deliver.

    A lot of my job in meeting the customers' demands consists of doing things that are decidedly not fun or interesting: writing documentation, creating flowcharts, dummying up boiler plate examples, etc. (We're a small shop and wear many hats).

    We have to spend a good amount of time hand-holding our customers, who can be quite demanding. When some bug report can't be tracked down by our customer service or support folk, developers get pulled to investigate.

    And, of course, there's the meetings. Oh God, the meetings.

    I'm not complaining here, just observing. I know there are a lot of skilled developers who would love to have a good job right now, and I am truly thankful to be working. But that doesn't mean it's not frustrating at time.

    My "development job" is a lot more than just writing code. But I like to write code, not all that other stuff.

    So, at nights and on the weekends (Well, not recently. I've got a kid, soon to have another.) I would actually write code on little side projects. Not terribly useful to anyone besides myself. This is why I'm not a l337 developer. But I do it just because I want to, because I enjoy it. I enjoy writing things that do things.

    This is what Free Software is about. Freedom of the developers. Users are nice, even desirable, but they are not customers and can make no demands on my time beyond what I'm already freely giving. I won't deride them, but I'm certainly under no obligation to meet thier demands for free.

    If I want to 'deal with customers', I can just go to work, sit in my cubicle, and get paid to do it.

    Free Software is not "Big Business" and I hope it doesn't become so, because then would start to look like my day job.

    If money is made, fine. If users get good software, even better. But IMHO those are incidental, ancillary, indirect benefits. They may be good measurements of successful software, but they are not the *driving force* of free software. The driving force of free software is the software developer, and him creating the things he's interesting in creating.

    The people actually creating all this free softare are mostly doing it for free, for Pete's sake. I haven't paid one red cent for linux, mozilla, scribus, evolution, gimp, gaim, vim, cvs, mysql, XMMS, apache, perl, bash, gcc, or any one of the huge array of software I have on my multiple systems. Nothing. I've gotten it all for free, thanks to the kindness and generosity of probably thousands of people.

    They even help me out with problems from time to time, through email or support forums -- for free!

    To me, it's humbling. As a *user*, I may be frustrated due to some bugs or incomplete documentation in a software package, but I really have no right to complain, unless I write a big fat check to pay for want I want, to make demands on others and expect to have those demands addressed.

    Again, I'm not complaining, or thumbing my nose at users. I'm much more a user of Free Software than a creator of it.

  139. Re:in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as wel by domeguy · · Score: 1

    I've heard that the Navy is moving to Linux due to the fear of open Windows on submarines.

  140. Re:Deleting bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL!!! OMG!!! j00 are teh 1337 haX0r!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!

  141. Re:in other news ... : US Navy uses mozilla as wel by Coleva · · Score: 1

    Sadly, Mozilla is no longer permitted on Navy desktop computers, thanks to the NMCI contract mandating Internet Explorer as the only web browser permitted.

  142. nerdylove. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    Hmm www.nerdylove.com is still free...

    even better ....

    seaching google finds no hits at all.

    1. Re:nerdylove. by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      have fun building nerdylove.com then - just promise to send me all the hot nekkid chick nerdylover photos you get in the process! Call it my %age fee for finding the name for you!

  143. How do you manage it by Haiyadragon · · Score: 1

    I run Firefox on both Mandrake and WinXP almost everyday all day (a life, so overrated). It has never crashed by itself (Windows managed to trash it once or twice) and I never lost any bookmarks.

  144. Re:OSS Conumer Relations: Call you customers idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling your cumstomers names is not good public relations
    That's because honesty has no place in business. Just ask Enron.