Slashdot Mirror
Netscape Reborn?
An anonymous reader writes "BetaNews reports that Netscape has been revived with Firefox backing. 'Despite media reports and industry pundits over the years relegating Netscape to Internet history books, AOL has restarted the browser's development. The company plans to bring back a refreshed Netscape browser based on Firefox.'"
... live longer.
Well, the post war era will show.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It may be based on Firefox, the old source for Netscape/Mozilla, it may even look like Netscape of old, but it'll never have the same feel that Netscape had.
I don't understand why netscape bothers... I'm not meaning to troll either. Anyone care to shed some light on this?
FTA - "The browser's market share has dropped to single digits"
HEY! I'm 20% of all Netscape users! w00t!
-B
And lo, the child did become father to the man, and the student the master.
a world in progress...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So Netscape will be based on Firefox which was based on Mozilla which was based on Netscape? Do I have that correct? ;)
Now ,who is this Netscape browser being revived for?
What is the reasoning behinnd creating Netscape,when firefox already exists?Is it for name sake?
Why does yahoo do this
Maybe AOL has finally understood that their previous strategy was not optimal in the long run, if IE wins hands down(as it has almost done) so that there is no competition, will Microsoft then still play with the ISPs, or will they start requiring use of their server sofware and such "to be fully supported"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Peoples memories of Netscape and the brand are not good now, why bother with this, why not just back the Mozilla name and at the same time unite to take on Internet Explorer.
If they do this, it just means browser stats will start to show up as something like IE 50%, Mozilla Firefox 25%, Netscape 20% which would totally obscure the actual success of Firefox.
(Don't bother debating the values I've used, they are totally fictional and not meant to even be predictions)
i'm guessing it's kinda like if someone took Apple's modified version of BSD and used their code to make a new OS.. Netscapes code is probably too old to be turned into a modern browser without a complete overhaul, so why not just use firefox which is quite up to date.. ?
MABASPLOOM!
Let a bunch of other people do the work you tried to do.
Maybe I am wrong (and PLEASE correct me if I am because others may be laboring under this same idea)...
1. Firefox gets developed as an open source product
2. Netscape, by AOL, flounders and they basically fail in their mission
3. AOL kills Netscape development
4. AOL seeing a better mousetrap that's open source, decides to get BACK in the game on the backs of hard working open source developers everywhere.
On the other hand I am all for any initiative that can handily take on IE.
<STALLMAN>
Still there's just something that pisses me off about co-opting the work of the open source community
</STALLMAN>
printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
I am happy that firefox is getting so much attention. I'd bet that AOL is happy about the 10 million dollar "seed" money they put into the Mozilla project when they split it off into a non-profit.
Maybe they will donate more now?
I also bet their happy about Redhat buying their other netscape projects and openning the up to source code...
If AOL does a good job, it could be another big geek freind and maybe in a few years they'll turn around and won't have it's users the target of so many jokes.
Na...
> Isn't firefox based on Mozilla?
Yes.
> Wasn't Mozilla based on Netscape
No, Netscape was based on Mozilla.
> So now Netscape is going to be based on Firefox?
Yes.
> Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?!?!
No:
Mozilla -> Netscape
Mozilla -> Firefox
Firefox -> Netscape
Because there's gold in them thar code...
Seriously, AOL has a history of taking a good product and milking all the cash they can out of it. (Ads in AIM/ICQ anyone?) To a lesser extent winamp (Pro version)
I wouldn't be surprised if they "refresh" Netscape with a firefox engine and an Opera business model to milk some more pennies from advertising.
In the end its all business...AOL doesn't do anything without the goal of profit.
Maybe they should call it Netscape Phoenix or Netscape Firebird (ducks)
Netscape Revived With Firefox Backing
By Nate Mook, BetaNews
November 16, 2004, 4:45 PM
Despite media reports and industry pundits over the years relegating Netscape to Internet history books, AOL has restarted the browser's development. The company plans to bring back a refreshed Netscape browser based on Firefox, which will incorporate an enhanced user interface and several new features.
A prototype of the new Netscape will debut on November 30 to a limited number of beta testers, AOL told BetaNews.
Netscape was last updated in August to version 7.2, which brought the browser up to date with Mozilla 1.7. But for the most part, Netscape has received little attention from AOL since the release of 7.0 in August 2002. The browser's market share has dropped to single digits as Microsoft's Internet Explorer reigned supreme.
But Firefox's surging popularity has breathed new life into Netscape. Although AOL could not yet comment on what to expect in the prototype, the revamped browser will likely extend Firefox's feature set with Netscape-specific extensions and retain Netscape's traditional green user interface.
AOL announced the upcoming prototype in a message to Netscape users, even taking a swipe at Internet Explorer for its recent security woes.
"While other browsers have seen little improvement over recent years -- except frequent patches for security leaks -- we have consistently added new features to save you time and to make the most out your time online," the Netscape product team wrote. "As a part of our next evolutionary step, we have developed this new Browser Prototype, which could change the way the world masters the web."
Seemingly in competition with itself, AOL has also been beta testing an Internet Explorer based Web browser it calls "AOL Browser." AOL Browser is independent from the company's client software and adds features such as tabbed browsing and privacy options on top of Microsoft's IE engine.
Users interested in testing the Netscape prototype can pre-register by visiting netscape.com and entering the registration code: prototype1104.
Would someone mind trying to explain what the point of all this is? Why would I choose a Netscape branded version of Firefox, repleat with pre-set home and search pages aimed at generating ad revenue for one of largest companies in the U.S., when I could simply download and install the free and fully function version from Mozilla.org? Plus, are they going to ensure compatibility with all the existing extensions? Why is Slashdot even interested in following Netscape anymore? The last time I visited their homepage, I really had to dig to find the browser.
Who didn't see this one coming? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Netscape developers are smoking crack. Nobody is in the mood for another corporate anal retracting, spyware planting browser.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Basically, it's just Firefox but with support for the blink tag.
My other processor is big-endian.
Branding is important so I think that they should perhaps promote both project by naming it Netscpae Firefox.
ayottesoftware.com
It wasn't long ago that AOL decided to kill Winamp. Now they have decided to breathe life into Netscape. Interesting turn of events ...
One can only hope the bulb lights up and they switch to the excellent Gecko engine in the next version of the AOL browser. Many a web developer would raise a toast to that.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Firefox employs the same Gecko rendering engine, which supports the BLINK tag.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
There have been some occasions in the past in which a company released the source code to their product, expecting some kind of profit later. This doesn't work! Although it does make their product hugely better because of the free code they can later put back to use, the free product is generally even better than theirs. Look at Netscape/Firefox. Yes, I know the Mozilla project didn't use much NS code, but the point is that NS started them down the road of making a browser, with the intention of profiting.
1. Open Source
2. Take whatever people make from it
3. Profit
Just doesn't work.
Another (better) example is OpenOffice.org. They got most of their code from Sun's proprietary StarOffice. Now Sun puts OOo code back into StarOffice. But who wants to buy it now that OOo is free. That's why MS doesn't release the source to Office or Windows. It never works. Software companies need to realize that you can either be charitable or profit. You can't make money from your charity. It never works.
There was, however, a game that is still being sold commercially whose source code was released, but you still need the CD to play. Best world for everyone. If anyone remembers what this is, please reply and tell me.
My sig would have been a lot cooler if
"In the end its all business...AOL doesn't do anything without the goal of profit."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Profit is the sole reason people go into business, so they have money to buy the things they want.
As long as AOL is a capitalist entity, and not a mercantilist one, I have no problem with them.
This is GOOD. Firefox will still be around- AOL can't make it go anywhere.
But having Netscape back is great for many reasons. Having a commercial vendor chasing bug fixes and adding features helps, but most importantly Firefox was born from the Ashes of Netscape, but the code was set free first. The more companies that can see a project like this happen the more they'll be inclined to release code that they've run out of legs to push.
IBM has helped pave the way- opening big chunks of code and hoping others will help them push the projects along, but the open source movement will be helped tremendously if this is happening across a wide open front.
-- Q
The Netscape name still means a lot to people. Slashdotters care about the codebase and feature set, not the branding (or rebranding, or re-rebranding). But there are still many, many users who will "upgrade Netscape" before they will "download and install Firefox", all due to the familiarity of the name and trust in the brand.
And "Mozilla" is a tougher sell yet.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Keep it simple, stupid.
These days I can't live without Firefox.
Yes well we're not all flag-waving fanboys. From a practical point of view, anything that increases the popularity of Mozilla-based browsers is a good thing. The more people who use Mozilla (in whatever form), the more web developers who'll have to design their sites properly. All of this reduces the dominance of IE.
If anyone should, and if anyone had the financial motivation for doing so, AOL could create the killer XUL app as a front door to AOL....
With a version 1.0 of Firefox do we now have the proof that the Gecko engine can be embedded in applications outside of the Mozilla suite.
Shouldn't it be more important to try and develop an embeddable browser (already done) and its supporting infrastructure (not as complete) - like documentation, languge bindings, etc, etc.
This is something that Gecko# has started in a way, but I'm sure a lot of projects (both open source and commercial) would benefit from being able to embed gecko.
In the Windows world, developers can just embed the IE browser using an ActiveX control. I'll bet that a lot of commercial developers would have no problem dropping the IE control in exchange for a Gecko control - less operating system (assuming one buys into the idea that IE is comingled with the OS) level dependancies.
With a well supported embedded component, Walmart could have their own browser.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
Netscape is an original example of the outstanding possibilities for open source development models.
Over the course of a few years in the 90s Microsoft managed to push Netscape out of the market, and somehow Netscape managed to fuck up the original Netscape source base. The didn't stand a chance to compete back then.
Netscape went opensource '98. and now, 6 years later, their product has developed into the most evolved, innovative browser available in a massive community project that went more than successful.
Open source models draw lots of manpower, practically for free, if the incentive for contributors is good enough... more and more companies are realizing this, which is a good thing. In the end everyone is profiting from such successful cross commercial/open source endeavours.
Are they bringing out netscape just to fragment the userbase of Firefox?
If they want to add AOL extras, why not just bring out a "Firefox" by AOL version? or a "Firefox powered by AOL"?
Everyone knows Netscape is dead, it just seems like a losing brand strategy. . . unless they are trying to hurt firefox marketshare.
...promote both project by naming it Netscpae [sic] Firefox.
Or, how about "Fire (E)scape"?
(Doesn't really matter what they name it first, though. If history is any guide, they will probably change the name several times.)
Bureaucracy loves company.
How many times now have we heard from AOL that Netscape will be resurrected from the dead..... only later to hear it was still born?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
.. and the Netscape dudes had a knack for milking the cash out of AOL.
;)
$4.2 Billion can't be wrong
And they could say fuck you, as there would be no Mozilla without Netscape/AOL's investment in the project during it's more important stages in development. Most of the developers who completed Moz 1.0 worked for Netscape.
"Before you die, there is something you should know about us, Lone Starr. ... I am your father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate."
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
You can put lipstick on it and call it Gertrude, but in the end, a pig is still a pig.
That is, what I like about Firefox/Thunderbird is that they aren't "Netscape" per se. AOL is looking at Netscape's shortcomings and assuming that a simple substitution of the browser code with Firefox will gain support? Maybe for the unwashed masses who don't really care (and are probably using IE because it's there). If you told me it was "Netscape; powered by Firefox," that would not intice me to use Netscape.
I think what is not said is that MS probably plans the same thing for IE, albeit in some surrepticious manner. Maybe a rewrite to avoid any obvious license violation. But, I bet we'll notice that IE will start behaving a lot more like Firefox.
But, I wonder if Firefox will start having integration issues with Winders machines? It's been known to happen. MS sends out a critical security update, and Firefox will start having problems. Things break, din't they?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Why would AOL decide to invest again in Netscape when time and time again, it's only shown to be a pig? The smarter thing to do would be to give the funding to the Mozilla corporation as well as lending expertise and then, instead of making Netscape their project again, they simply use the open source nature of Firefox to rebrand a browser that is getting great.
However given AOL's history of stupidity this comes as no suprise. Firefox has momentum, it has great praise for its features and stability, it has speed, and it has -- more than anything else -- good PR going for it. The idiocy of AOL starting competition against a program now that has a poor history (even if Firefox is based on the Netscape code) is not good. It's like Yugo coming out with a new automobile when they see Hyundai doing well -- their history is so poor that it will be shunned by the community -- even if it's based on the same product.
Sorry at my frustration... but AOL has a history of bad business moves and this just adds to that wonderful history. No point in going 'smart' now... it would ruin their record.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Remember the original name of "firefox" ala "firebird" was PHOENIX... as a joke that it was reborn out of the ashes (and chaos) of the bloated mozilla browser... So here it is actually true, nestcape aka mozilla is being reborn thru the phoenix.
... without the Mozilla Foundation's permission. Remember, the logo and name are trademarked by the foundation, same way the netscape logo and name are trademarked by AOL. This is good - unlike what some people have said, AOL *cannot* make a crappy netscape, say it's "based on firefox" and then dilute the firefox brand.
jason
http://www.virtualvillagesquare.com/ Online Communities: The Next Generation
This is one of the things I don't get about open source. Don't the developers of Mozilla open them selves for exploitation developing these projects and then allowing companies like AOL to basically take all their hard work, re-brand it, then make money off of it? We have a few "internet appliances" in the office which are basically just Linux distributions with a fancy web gui to control them. Yet these companies make boatloads of money selling other people's work. The original programmers don't even get credited! Is it time for some sort of new GNU? Something that protects the effort these buys put into everything by ensuring that the projects they create can't make _someone else_ rich? Or am I totally ignorant to how this all works?
"What is the reasoning behind creating Netscape,when firefox already exists? Is it for name sake?"
No, the reason is not name sake, it's just sake.
They had too much when deciding the faith of Netscape, and, just as in the hi-tech area, they are no match for the japanese spirit.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Why aren't they just plugging into the existing project? It's got PR, momentum, etc
I would think they could easily brand Mozilla without branching it...
Agile Artisans
What's left to do? Make a theme? Can't I just install an AOL theme? Isn't this just a marketing thing? Well, at least there'll be dozens of coffee cup coasters out there with Netscape ala Firefox ala AOL on it.
[signature]
Wasn't it...
Mozilla -> Netscape -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Netscape
Wasn't there mozilla back in the early 90's when the net first started?
Evolution or ID?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, Netscape was based on Mozilla.
OK, so you haven't been around that long. Netscape 6 and later was based on Mozilla. Mozilla itself started when Netscape open sourced Netscape 4. So Netscape is Mozilla's daddy.
If you go further back, they're all of course descendants of NCSA Mosaic.
siener's youtube channel
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/netscape .htm
Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
Exactly. And how many computer "idiots" (this is quite obviously a generalization - I know not all of AOL users are technologically incompetant) are subscribed to AOL? How many will follow the leader?
That's a lot of market share.
Please, NOT. Not again. I dont want poor CSS and still more propietary extensions. We want standards.
Even a branded FF its a bad idea.
I vote no.
-Woof woof woof!
Yes, Firefox was (indirectly) based on Netscape.
Not Netscape is based on Firefox. I'm surprised we havem't seen many of hose "In Soviet Russia" posts.
Netscape is only really Mozilla's daddy in the sense of the corporation - Netscape corporation started the Mozilla project. Netscape opened the code to the bulk of the product Netscape, the open source community took a look and pretty much rejected the code while supporting the project.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
...Ouroboros
it's the taking apart that counts
Firefox has more name value than Netscape now. AOL killed and buried the Netscape name. This would be like a car company naming a new car "Edsel" or "Yugo".
'cause netscape 7.2 is a very stable release based on mozilla 1.7 so it has most of the "standards" feature set of firefox only with specific user-interface controls to match old-school netscape. all it needs is the better popup controls, find bar, and simpler extension management tools, and its got what makes firefox useful.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
you get a son/brother
...or even better, a daughter/sister.
Well their current browser is basically the Mozilla suite with a bunch of adware like the weather channel stuff. I tried downloading it and was very turned off.
-T
I would like to point out (as I'm sure many people already know) Netscape is also being launched as an ISP. Given Netscape's ownership, I would guess that it's simply AOL repackaged with pretty, less-offensive icons. Commercials have been all over History channel. Seems to be the same target audience as AOL. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but it seems that AOL is getting more desperate with each quarter. Can't we just give Netscape a proper burial and move on? Is there really a need for another Earthlink/NetZero rip-off?
Anyways, they even have one of those new-fangled web accelerator gadgets that makes one of them there internets go really fast. I also hear there are naked chicks. My cousin's got it.
"You and your third dimension."
Linky please? I'd like more information on this for my projects, and a google search for "gecko#" just turns up pages on the care and feeding of small lizards ;) Does it work in cross-platform mono?
In the Windows world, developers can just embed the IE browser using an ActiveX control. I'll bet that a lot of commercial developers would have no problem dropping the IE control in exchange for a Gecko control
I am using the Mozilla GRE ActiveX. in fact, I filed a bug report on it yesterday. The drawbacks are that it's a seperate install (even if moz/firefox is present), whereas IE is always present on a windows machine, that the API is not complete, and well, the bug report that I filed.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
netscape lost its sexiness in the public eye when it failed to keep up with IE. The whole mozilla revival thing with version 7 failed because it was essentially an older less sexy version of mozilla that had ads and spyware (AOL) stuck in it with no advantages over the true mozilla browser and was further dragged down by the netscape name which had already become synonmous with oldy-moldy. Now they are going to try to jump on the firefox bandwagon which will surely lead down the same avenue and may even taint the firefox name.
ôó
And have been laid off since, the core of Mozilla/Firefox developers no longer are AOL/TW employees, just like Nullsoft which has been stripped down like an Escalade in a chop shop.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Its more like:
NetScape ->Mozilla ->Netscape
\
->(Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox)->Netscape
Thats more accurate.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
With the push to accept and switch to Firefox, why do we need another browser, based on the FF core to confuse the masses? How will Netscape stand out from FF? It seems pretty pointless (except from a corporate marketing standpoint, to make $)
A little history leason is in order:
Netscape, the company, begot Mozilla, the Browser.
Mozilla, the browser begot Netscape, the Browser.
Mozilla, the browser, begot Firefox, the Browser.
Firefox, the browser, begot Netscape the Browser.
Man, that's one screwed up family tree :>
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
..for them to get people working @ new winamp versions and not netscape. i never understood the point of creating new netscape versions.. it's always equal to mozilla and brings stuff i already have or stuff i dont _NEED_ like AOL shitware.
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
FTA: [...]the revamped browser will likely extend Firefox's feature set[...]
That's exactly what I like about Firefox. It doesn't NEED a bunch of other crap bloating it.
<i>Mozilla -> Netscape
Mozilla -> Firefox
Firefox -> Netscape</i>
"Mozilla" (original by "Mosaic Communications")
|
Netscape 1-4
|
Mozilla (the open source one)
|
+oooo+oooooooooo+oooooooooo+
| | |
Netscape 6,7 Firefox Other gecko browsers
|
+o+oooooooooooooo+
| |
Mozilla Netscape ?
(next version) (what this article is about)
where there's fish, there's cats
Actually, if you go back even longer, you'll find Mosaic, the common ancestor of both Mozilla and Internet explorer.
And before you ask, no, there is no common source code. The source code lineage has been broken many times. For example, the original Netscape was made by the same guys who did Mosaic, but apparently they didn't reuse Mosaic code. Same for Internet explorer, MS licenced a version of Mosaic (Spyglass) but it is doubtful if they actually used any of the source code for IE. And lets not forget that the Mozilla project decided to ditch the netscape codebase they had been given.
And of course, to make it even more complicated, netscape 7.x were/are based on Mozilla.
Mozilla was written with the Netscape code. Yes, they rewrote most of it, but they still used the code as a framework when they were write the original Mozilla milestones. So Netscape 4.x is the ancestor to the current Mozilla project.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
...at Mozilla Update Firefox extensions.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
"And the beast had returned, appearing as the already reborn great bird, this time throwing a million ads at the unbelievers. For now was the time of redundancy, now was the time of advertising. The followers of Mammon trembled in fear as they gazed upon this horrible clone and its machine of marketing that followed, leaving a trail of discs in its wake."
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Branding is important so I think that they should perhaps promote both project by naming it Netscpae Firefox.
I think the name "Netscape" actually carries negative currency. I know people who still harbor such residual hatred for Netscape 4 that the only reason they happily use Firefox now is because it doesn't say "Netscape" on it anywhere. And these people are developers!
where there's fish, there's cats
I'dont care much about AOL's version Firefox (most likely it'll be something like Firefox + some useless stuff), but does all this mean that they will bring devedge.netscape.com back online?
However there is a possible bright side to all of this. They may contribute to the project. They may find bugs that they want to fix, and they should have to contribute those fixes back to the community.
While all good, those things are *nothing8 compared to what AOL could do for Mozilla, if they truely wanted. ALl they have to do is ship Firefox as the default browser in the next AOL update, and Firefox is instantly one of the most used browsers on the internet.
Do not underestemate the huge market share AOL has. Them alone adopting Firefox would *force* all web providers to support non-IE browsers for all offerings.
Turn your flagging product code over to nameless unwashed masses who chip away at improvements and kick in a few great new features. Then a few years later, harvest the improved code and restart your business. I may be cynical. I may be assuming too much about netscape re-appropriating Firefox/Mozilla code. But AOL is NOT the nicest or most deserving entity to receive such a boon from Netscape's original dicision to open up mozilla code. Our tolerance of AOL must be that we all just hate Microsoft and want somebody to stand up against MS.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
that can be called "The Second Renaissance"...
i though Netscape 5 was the opensource project that never really got finished..... i thought it was a ground up rewrite of Netscape done opensource.... and in some roundabout way that evolved into the Mozilla project. that's why till a while ago (maybe still?) you could download Netscape 4.x and Netscape 6.x, but there was never a 5.
the later versions of Netscape were basically tweaked versions of Mozilla. then the desire for a streamlined browser lead to the firefox/chimera and camino splinters....... knocking out the mail/news features to be handled by Thnuderbird.
if you never used the later versions of Netscape, it was out of control..... web browsing, email, newsgroups, instant messages bla bla bla all wrapped up in one application. i don't know what they were planning, but in a way it was the perfect lone application to have you mom/grandma launch when they want to "go internetting". maybe they were going to try to embed it in some Audrey-like device..... or just some simple all in one monster.
No, that's a myth that's grown up over the years. It wasn't the "open source community" that decided to rewrite Mozilla, it was Netscape. Their management mandated the rewrite in late 1998 (against the wishes of most of the development team, who didn't like the six-month deadline they were given).
the adblocker
pre-populated with rules so I don't have to hunt for them using google because even the extension doesn't give you any help.
the download manager extension
why oh why do we have to have an extension for basic functionality?
a better set of default buttons
new tab, back, forward, stop, release, home, bookmarks, history, print, downloads. Rather than the limited selection we have now - oh and a better positioning of them.
a nicer looking theme
Qute or mostly crystal maybe. With the proper windows style looking menus.
then 90% of the stuff that I have to do every single time Firefox is installed would be done already. I know the concept of extensions is to keep it lean and mean, but if Netscape want to make it truely customer friendly, these would be a good start. Power users can always uninstall them (if they even bother with the branded version)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Just saw a television commercial last night advertising Netscape's Internet Service Provider business. The ad was directly aimed at the NetZero crowd. It's definitely the first time I've seen an ad for Netscape on television. Perhaps this is just one method of reintroducing the Netscape brand?
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
Yep. Maybe even Slashdot will finally have to fix that Firefox-rendering-bug that seems to affect about 50% of pages now.
well AOL still uses a modified version of IE for their browser right? i think the OS X version of AOL does (or at least beta tested) another browser to stick in the AOL app, but that may be due to M$ dropping development of IE for OS X. i think that was some mozilla derived thing. the only person i know that uses AOL has no idea what they are running anyway.
Do you really think the next mozilla will be based on firefox?
From the article
They already are making a browser based off IE, but it won't be called Netscape.
I am sorry to say that I see AOL's policies as confused! Instead of at least supporting their own product in addition to IE, they whole heartedly back IE. [Some thought AOL had been bribed/bought by *cough* M$]. As a result anyway, Netscape goes to the dogs, an organization is created to oversee its development...this creates a sense of "it's done with Netscape". Developers initially fled Netscape. Now after seeing that Mozilla and its products are not doing that badly after all. AOL wakes up. I wish them well and all the success they need. This is the same thing those that do not support Linux are doing, yet Linux direction now can only be in the upward direction.
Borland did this too with the _real_ Firebird: the free DBMS born from Borland's. Now I don't even remember the name of Borland's product :D .. but Firebird I did use.
gtkaml.org
The first browser was called Mosaic, not Mozilla.
Right?
Martin
Most rewrites also happen in parts. So that while at the end everything is rewritten during development you have rewritten code and old code sitting next to each other so that you have some working product.
So Netscape is still Mozilla's daddy.
This is not just nitpicking. Starting from scratch is a totally different approach to development then doing a complete rewrite. With a rewrite if you do it right you can have working product to show your achievements so far at an earlier stage. If you start again from scratch you lose the baggage of old code being used but you also need to build everything before you can show your product.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Maybe not the next version number, but the original intent was for Firefox to eventually be merged back into the Mozilla suite. Based off it's surge in popularity, I'm not sure what they're going to do with it now.
AOL bankrolled the Mozilla foundation for several years, and when they let them go, they donated some stuff and did the decent thing (IIRC). Netscape 6+ was based on the Mozilla suite. What's so strange/controversial about Netscape basing a browser on Firefox?
AOL is in the dumps, but it's still a large corporation with huge marketing muscle. Is it bad for Firefox if a Netscape browser based on it starts to show up in AOL marketing?!
Beyond brand cheering, the most important thing for the success of Firefox is that it (or branded versions of it) reach about 10% or so of websurfers; large enough to force sites (except slashdot!) to write compliant HTML, and small enough not to attract the majority of internet security attacks. AOL/Netscape's move can only help.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
And in case you need any proof, look at the function names. They all start with ns*.
The real rewrite was Gecko, which gave birth to XUL which did result in a pretty solid rewrite of the browser, but as I recall, the JavaScript engine never saw (nor needed) a complete overhaul.
Yes, but shouldn't we be going all the way back to Tim B-L's original browser written on his NeXT machine that was intertwined with what we'd think of as the server?
Which brand would the not-completely-clueless be more-likely to buy:
1. AOL
2. Netscape
Perhaps the better alternative would be to try to sell open-source brands, but don't expect AOL to understand that.
The first browser was called Mosaic, not Mozilla.
N CSAMosaicHome.html
Mosaic was a separate, freely-available browser from which the company known as "Mosaic Communications" stole the name and the original developers. They very quickly changed their name to "Netscape" but kept the "Mozilla" name internally. The domain 'mcom.com' is still owned by Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner/etc.
The real Mosaic codebase itself apparently found its way into Internet Expolorer, if you believe IE's "help/about" screen.
See: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/
where there's fish, there's cats
Major continuing vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer
No real changes to IE in how many years?
Popup protection took how long?
The problem with monopolies is they are under no pressure to change things. If there's no competition, why bother? Microsoft left an opening by moving their development efforts somewhere else and the folks at Netscape/Mozilla seem to have the experience and expertise to fill it. I say good for them - the browser market is due for some change.
You have an interesting definition of open source community. I wouldn't call the people that were working on Mozilla during the rewrite the "open source community," but that is definitional I suppose.
I normally refer to the employees of a company as employees, but if you like your "touchy feely name," go for it.
Netscape opened the Mozilla source code. Netscape supplied almost ALL the programmers. The fact that they licensed it under generous terms HARDLY lets the "community" get credit for it.
Alex
True, but that doesn't take away from the fact they were key contributors to making Firefox possible. Anyway, the goal here is to have an open, cross-platform, standards-compliant browser and to keep Microsoft from owning the internet. I fail to see how another popular gecko-based browser would detract from that objective.
Dude, I just want NCSA Mosaic to come back....go Illini!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Sounds like code for bloatware if you ask me. The exact same thing that killed Netscape's first run and that the Firefox project was made to get away from.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
And with open source even Microsoft may die
come on people, sing with me
"I'm my own grand pa...."
from the movie "the stupids"
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Remember, AOL has a HUGE dial-up play, as they also bought Compuserve a few years ago. They now have a low-end Netzero competitor Netscape Dial-up to compete in the low end (they have phone access numbers everywhere, why not differentiate with AOL Service and other packages).
Every ISP ships a "browser" that is normally a rebranded IE. Why wouldn't AOL ship a Netscape browser for Netscape service?
Any additional roll-out is a bonus.
Alex
you know a company is on crack when:
1. they kill a great brand
2. they fire all its support staff
3. the support staff continue to support the product (firefox) and it starts becoming very successful
4. they think no one will notice how stupid they have been, oh, wait(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TWX)
5. the only logical explaination is they smoke crack
Or anything Gecko-based (true, that generally means Moz-based, but ... didn't someone build a wrapper for Gecko that acts as an IE plugin so you can use it as IE's renderer?)
Firefox is hot, everyone is riding the pine of there sucess. I know that Netscape & Mozilla had history together but. Obviously this is a monopoly ploy.
I wanted Mozilla to replace the term Netscape when people talked about browsers.
I think you and I will get our wish as AOL messed up with Netsvape in the first place and history repeats itself with big corporations -- including AOL.
Many users do not forget the AOL-IE headaches and popups.
Mozilla and Firefox rule. Only sheep use other inferior browsers.
You're right, Epiphany deserves to be mentioned, it is the browser of choice for GNOME. And in case you didn't know, there is a separate package called Epiphany-extensions. Epiphany extensions are of course not as numerous as Firefox ones, but if you want to port one, essentially only the XUL interface has to be replaced by a GTK one.
Netfox?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It's a broken singlely linked list with no previous pointers (broken because of the inherent infinite loop because without versioning listed, Netscape then points to Mozilla and the loop continues).
I cannot be the only person that thought this when I looked at that.
So then Netscape is its own grandpa???
Nothing like a browser that held back the creativity of web developers everywhere. The quote "This site is Netscape 4.x compliant" is still giving me nightmares to this day. We (last year) finally got one of our biggest clients to change our contract to support Nav 7+ rather than 4.x. We had to convince them that less than 1% of browsers to their web site where 4.x.
> Firefox was born from the Ashes of Netscape
Actually "Phoenix/Firebird" was born from the ashes, but had to change it's name to Firefox because of another existing OSS project. Bit you probably already knew that...
Why not just get firefox itself??!? The AOL-ized Netscape is just going to be a advertisement festival that I'd really rather just skip altogether.
Is AOL that delusioned, that they believe they will be able to provide any real value on top of what Firefox already brings? I imagine that they will repackage it and put it on all their mass-mailed CDs, which is a good thing overall if it gets people to use it, but who knows what spyware and adware AOL will strap onto this.
This is just another example that AOL/Netscape isn't actually going to innovate something; they just splash a new coat of paint and call it their own. That's why Netscape lost the browser wars. Thankfully its corpse was used to grow the seeds of Mozilla.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Exactly. The popular memory of Netscape that persists today will be of the pathetic Netscape 4.x, which was plainly inferior to IE 4.x+ in almost every way (standards-compliance, stability, resource consumption, ...).
The glory days of Netscape 3.x versus IE 3.x are too far in the past to salvage Netscape's reputation.
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?! ?!
*Head Explodes*
It's really not that "head asploding" if you thing about it. Ultimately, Netscape is basing their new browser off of its own source, which was the point of the Mozilla project to begin with. Take the Netscape code, open-source it, and base your code off of the updated open-sourced version. It's the same thing that's going on with StarOffice and OpenOffice, and... well, that's how open-sourcing tends to work, no?
So Netscape hadn't updated their browser in a long time, and in the meantime the code forked, and they chose one of the forks. No head asplosions.
Yeah, but what about non-developers? I've sold many people on switching to Firefox who weren't otherwise prepared to do so by saying, "this is the new version of Netscape."
Ignoring that sort of thing, with all the positive press surrounding Firefox, I think releasing a new Netscape is running the risk of confusing people.
Use the Slashfix extension (which is a partial fix), or (on Windows) try the MOOX builds -- they don't seem to have the timing bug that causes the problem.
So it's something like siscors, paper and rock?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
People, even if you don't use it, it means the Mozilla engine now has more marketing muscle behind it. And the more the Mozilla engine is used--regardless of whether it's Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Camino--it's one less copy of IE in use!
And really, what's the big deal if people use Netscape instead of Firefox?
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?!?! ....next? I dunno, "Profit!" maybe?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Correct, they did not (though they may have reimplemented some things in similar ways).
While Spyglass licensed the NCSA Mosaic code, they apparently only used the name, rewriting all the code. That's what Microsoft licensed for IE. However, most of the IE code has been rewritten over the years (in particular, they componentised it for version 3 and rewrote the rendering engine for version 4).
(Actually, Netscape was the main driving force behind the rewrite.) Some of the Netscape code was not rewritten, including Netscape Security Services (SSL code etc.) and Netscape Portable Runtime (an API to allow the main code to call OS-specific functions in a platform neutral way).
And from my point of view, the browser war translates to "IE vs. standards compliance"
In all fairness, though things are better now, both IE and Netscape broke a lot of W3C rules to add the latest features for their browsers. <BLINK> tags anyone?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Just when the name "Mozilla" and "firefox" started to become creditable, then all of a sudden AOL wants back in! They will just make an adware version of firefox that also installs aol icons all over the place, and slap the name Netscape on it.
Just as Richard M. Stallman predicted.
Please, no more name changes :(
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
http://community.netscape.com/nscpbrowser requires an AOL Logon (i.e. AIM) but allows you to check up on what is going on. Not too informative right now though.. Check back on the 30th.
I do like the poll. Currently, 81% of users are running Firefox. I didn't realize we were spreading THAT quickly!
So now, the plan seems to be to keep on with the old suite while all the components of the new suite reach 1.0, then continue to maintain it for hold-back users, but to push the Firefox/Thunderbird/whatever combo as the real product of the Mozilla Foundation.
And not just a web browser.
I saw an ad in a Toronto tabloid today for Netscape Online.
Mozilla was the original code name coined by the Netscape team for the very first Netscape browser. Since Andreesen had left the Mosaic team at NCSA at University of Illinois to start Netscape, he decided to call it Mozilla, or "Mosaic killer", like Godzilla.
Later when it came time to release it they decided a better name for marketing would be Netscape 1.0.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
You forgot all the spoilt brats Netscape sired with the AOL branding around them :)
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Also, Netscape the company begot Mozilla the Foundation. :p
Netscape based in Alabama?
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?!?!
You forgot "->???->Profit!!".
Netfox? Foxnet? Fox Network!!! Argggh!
darn, I thought this would get a +3 funny in a hartbeat. I mean, if it were bad, it would get modded down, now I have the impression it's not understood. Is it too subtile?
:-/
nothing worse then a wordplay that has to be explained...
name sake - ambiguity: japanese spirit - sake (saké)...
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Seemingly in competition with itself, AOL has also been beta testing an Internet Explorer based Web browser it calls "AOL Browser." AOL Browser is independent from the company's client software and adds features such as tabbed browsing and privacy options on top of Microsoft's IE engine.
Wow, all the features of Firefox, with the security of IE. Why build a browser based on IE?? Reminds me of the Holy Grail.
---
HERBERT: But Father, I don't want any of that.
FATHER: Listen, lad. I've built this kingdom up from nothing.
When I started here, all there was was swamp. The king said I was
daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same,
just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second
one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That
burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth
one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest
castle in these islands.
Damn good thing they dropped 'Phoenix'. That would have just confused too many idiots^Wpeople.
(How do you spell it? Phoenix? Pheonix? Phenix? Feenix? Feenicks? How's it pronounced? Oh sod it, I'll just stick with Internet Explorer..)
Unofficially (or maybe officially, what do I know?) Mozilla stands for "Mosaic Killer." The two were different.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Wait a second, that doesn't sound quite right to me. I think you missed a couple of steps.
Netscape begot Mozilla, the browser.
Mozilla begot Netscape, the browser.
Netscape begot Mozilla, the open-source browser.
Mozilla begot Netscape 7, the browser. Then it begot Firefox, the browser.
Firefox is about to beget yet another version of Netscape, the browser.
I think that's a little more accurate, if you pretend that assorted name changes never occurred.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Don't like it? Than don't use the AOSmell version. But keep in mind, with Open Source (is Mozilla GPL? I don't know, but apparently only GPL is True and Real Open Source), this is what you get. If I want to mutate Firefox into Adware, guess what? It's not a problem. Rock on AOL, rock on Open Source.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I'm not talking legacy in the sense of legacy code, but legacy as in working on something really big and world-chnaging.
I'll bet a number of people working on Mozilla do so from teh standpoint of wanting to work on something larger than themselves, something that will leave a lasting legacy - so AOL using Mozilla as a base for a browser would make someone like that very happy, even if they never got a cent or even recognition! Not everyone wants fame or money, some people are just happy to work on something that really takes off and makes the world a little bit better place to live.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you're not completely clueless, you will already know Netscape is part of AOL, and that AOL sucks, which would move you away from this altogether :)
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
So we'll have a new Netscape browser based on Firefox which is based on Mozilla which is in turn based on Netscape...
So Netscape is now based loosely on Netscape.
It's a logical infinite loop. Next you'll hear about people being their own fathers.
I'm going back to NCSA Mosaic
To blog is sublime
Why use something based on Firefox, and not just use Firefox?
The word is begat.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Ah, Mark Twain, we hardly knwew thee. Oh wait, nevermind. "The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated."
Netfox Firescape ;)
They have a chance to bring back their network from the dead. They can not play in MS's yard and win. This offers them a chance to move their customers to Linux (or some other OS, but I do not think it is possible).
By moving their default Browser to Firefox AND offering Open Office and some form of open multi-media (ogg/vorbis, real, whatever), they can get their current customers use to alternatives. Then offer up a dvd with a Linux install. It should have Firefox, OOO, and some simplified form of a Linux desktop.
Funny thing is AOL expanded huge by moving to the internet. IOW, by moving to an open forum and then making it easy. They could take something like Linux which many consider difficult and make it easy. Then prevent MS from undercutting or backstabbing them
But, this is the new AOL that we are talking about with little to no foresight.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
asexual browser indeed!!
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
I agree it's good to have commercial input.
But also, the mere name Netscape is still widely recgonised by websites as a supported browser. There are sites I've seen that will work in Netscape 7.1 or 7.2 but won't work in Mozilla 1.3 or 1.7. Betfair.com is one example but I've seen others.
Netscape still has a lot of cachet as The Other Browser Brand.
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)
Slashdot will fix the fucking site so all us firefox/mozilla users won't have to reload every other goddamned page.
We'll make another browser...
That's propostereus!!!!!!
Where I work, we design our sites to work with IE; Not my decision, but a decision none the less. One of the things that I really missed about having to use IE over FireFox is the tabs.
Enter FlashPeaks' Slimbrowser; It is simply a browser that puts IE into tabs and has the ability to use XML-based toolbars (of limited use, but still not bad). It is a good space saver on my taskbar. There are a few minor issues but they're nothing horrible.
I would imagine that AOL's IE-based browser would be more of the same, with the addition of a bunch of garbage that they usually throw in their products (Look at what happened to ICQ as an example).
Love sees no species.
The company plans to bring back a refreshed Netscape browser based on Firefox.
"Refreshed" is an IE term. Surely you mean "reloaded".
Isn't firefox based on Mozilla? Wasn't Mozilla based on Netscape? So now Netscape is going to be based on Firefox?
Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?!?!
Heh, Kinda reminds me of that "I'm my own grandpa" song!
-matt
Support from AOL? That almost an oxymoron.
yeah and AOL will renamed LOL !!
Why doesn't AOL just use Firefox?
Correct.
:)
Due in no small part to the fact that Netscape actually invented Javascript, something we should be gratefull for (minus the popups
.
Not only did Netscape give us javascript, it gave us frames, font, images, blinking, need I say more?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
From Netscape sprang Mozilla. From Mozilla sprang Firefox. Now from Firefox sprange Netscape. The circle of life is complete!
NOT redundant. READ!
Let's say you and your buddies decide to write a book, and you call yourselves "Netscape Communications Corp.". You start with a short story that was called "Mosaic" written by a bunch of nerds called the NCSA.
Now, you wrote this book, and called it "Netscape". It was pretty good, but you kept updating it through revisions 1.2, 2, , and 4, each a few months or years apart. While you were at it, you released a couple of special "Gold" editions which had a bunch of extra crap in it, and maybe a "Communicator" edition which was really a trilogy.
By the time you've realeased version 4 of the book/trilogy (and a few subrevisions to correct the awful spelling mistakes and grammatical errors), you realize that it sucks pretty hard.. you've added pointless plot twists, introduced internal inconsistencies, and basically, it's not all that great any more.. so people stop buying it.
You decide to work on version 5 of your book, only realize it's going to be a LOT of work to make anything worth reading, and your publisher has told you to stuff it. So, you stop working on it, and say, "Hey! You want rights to a book?" to the first group of bearded hippies that walks buy.
So, the hippies take the book, some chips, smoke a lot of dope, and make friends with you and your crew. They pour through it carefully, keeping the good parts and ditching the crap. These hippies release a version of your triology and call it "Mozilla".
But; the story's not over yet. Your publisher has been sold, along with your name. The new owner of your name asks the hippies for a copy, which they gladly provide. This copy is put through the spin cycle on a washing machine along with some gum and wax crayons, and is released as version 6 of the trilogy.
Now, a bunch of other hippies come along (while the Mozilla hippies are fiddling with this and that -- trying to get the book "perfect", as only hippies can do), and decide they want a book, too... only the Mozilla book is the size of the freakin' family bible and they're too frail to lift it. So, they release the Reader's Digest version of the first book of the trilogy -- which, due to the editorial skill of this second set of long-hairs, happens to be quite good.
This second group of hippies called the book by a variety of names. First, they called it Phoenix, but an evil company that made typewrite daisy wheels told them to change it, or they'd sue. Next, they called it Firebird, and another evil company (this time making filing cabinets) told them the same thing. Then one of the hippies was on an acid trip, and thought he saw a red panda in his vision quest. Looking up "red panda" in warezed version of Microsoft Encarta, he saw that it was also known as a "Fire Fox". Taking this as a sign from Budha (or at least a Karma-earning omen), the hippies called their latest book "Firefox".
And lo, they editted and polished Firefox for many moons, until the publisher who bought your original publisher who went tits up when your Netscape Communicator "trilogy" failed decided THEY wanted a book of their own. But rather than fix that steaming pile of crap, they dropped by to see the second group of hippies.
The hippies weren't home, so they couldn't ask if they could use the book, but there is it was -- sitting on top of the photocopier, along with a sign that said "Yo - wanna book? Have one. If you've got some extra, we'd appreciate if you'd stick around for a toke".
And so, this distant relative of your original publisher, using your name (Netscape Communications Corp) makes some photocopies of the Firebird book, splashes some paint on the cover, sticks a couple of coupons in, and releases a "new" book on newstands everywhere.
Now? What the hell was that book about?
Oh yeah. It's the source code for a web browser.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Netscape, the company, begot Mozilla, the Browser. :>
Mozilla, the browser begot Netscape, the Browser.
Mozilla, the browser, begot Firefox, the Browser.
Firefox, the browser, begot Netscape the Browser.
Man, that's one screwed up family tree
Screwed up family tree? You haven't read "--All You Zombies--" by Robert A. Heinlein, have you? Now, that is one screwed up family tree. (You can find the full text on Google or buy The Fantasies of Robert A. Heinlein.)
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
AOL will add some proprietary plug-ins. Change the look and feel, add a new skin and you have the AOL/Netscape branded Fire Fox. However there is a possible bright side to all of this. They may contribute to the project.
There is a possible bright side even if they don't contribute anything. More people using non-MS browsers will mean that more webmasters will have to start designing portable websites with standards in mind, instead of only making sure it works in one particular browser.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
It's funny, but also insightful (when will the slashcoders learn? Perhaps it's time to dump perl altoget - *bzzt* offtopic alert - oh nevermind.
Now that I think of it... wasn't it Netscape the one that crashed on massively nested tables? Had very slow rendering? Poor CSS support?
I still remember the dark times of hand-coding for NS4.x, and using javascript browser-sniffers *shudders*.
But that time's over. The king is dead.
Long live the King!
Mosaic / Netscape were SGML browsers (with incomplete SGML support, mind you). Problem is that SGML is a horrid thing to behold: It's the DTD that defines if a tag is self-closing or not (like the <br> tag), not the structure of the document itself (like in <br/>). So, this leads us to: TAG SOUP!
XML on the other hand, is and always has been a tree-structured markup language.
Maybe I'm wrong, but any amateur programmer could program an XML parser now, it's not that difficult. The only exceptions to be taken are the comment and cdata sections (and the occasional used server-side). The rest is opening,closing and complete tags.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the feeling that IE processed tags in a somewhat tree-structured way, and that's what made it be a blazingly fast renderer.
So, Netscape's not the only one to blame. The W3C group ditched away some very good ideas that would have made the web a much better thing. Like the include tag, for example. They ditched it because SGML provided a way (entities) to include stuff. But it was so complex that NOBODY COULD IMPLEMENT IT. SGML was a big monster, alright. AFAIK only one man implemented an SGML parsing library, and that's James Clark.
So we could blame all the fault on AOL, MS or the original netscape programmers. But the W3 owes us, too.
Let me quote a post on the W3C discussion, dated May 1995.
(Source: W3C mailing list)
So, 10 years have passed and the net's full of horrid tables, absolutely-positioned div's, and much, much tag soup. Netscape simply couldn't adapt itself to the increasing complexity of HTML pages.
But, and I think i'm not the only one who thinks so, the W3 could have made things MUCH simpler for us. Both users and programmers.
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1 315204
More like "it's finally matured into something else". It's all rather like the new Amiga, with pretty much only the name in common with the original.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Throw up on there netscape download page a huge fancy bit with the netscape and firefox logos and have a huge 'The new name for Netscape is Firefox' and have a link to the firefox page, along with some official statement that the netscape company endorses firefox as it's browser of choice etc.
There is an extension that has a workaround for Firefox's rendering issue (Bug 217527) with /.t ension.html
http://hardgrok.org/blog/item/slashfix-firefox-ex
However, if the are just basing the browser on firefox, why wouldn't I just get the original firefox?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
I guess Phoenix was a appropriate name ;)
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
I guess this is kinda interesting, if AOL restarted Netscape to make firefox their primary browser this is very good. On the other hand if they brought it back to only attempt to once again make revenue, then it's not worth my time.
Brand name recognition is a good reason. Not everybody has the time to go and research every possible browser to see how secure it is. Another reason is default settings. Maybe Netscape could offer default settings and extensions that differ from Firefox? If so, then that means less people need to tweak, and the entire internet community is better off.
testing out my trending skills
LOL!
If I had mod points left I'd rate this funny.
ayottesoftware.com
anything that promotes non ie technologies it a net plus for the market... as long as aol doesn't use their position to turn off millions to firefox by adding adware/spyware to it and distributing it on their cds... otherwise the people who actually use those cds and find that aol adds some value for them will become converts (possibly without even knowing it) and firefox could possibly become the most dominant browser if other isps follow suit
Get your torrents...
You forget those before netscape:
In the beginning CERN begat the www in about 1991 with a text browser called "www", based on a proposal by Tim Berners Lee which was a bit of Xanadu and a bit of gopher (which was a bit like veronica and wais).
Marc Andreeson led a team that wrote Mosaic, the first GUI version of the client, funded by NCSA in 1993. (I remember using version 1.0 on a Sun early in 1994 and also getting email from Andreeson in response to some queries I had.)
In March 1994 Marc and Jim Clark (former founder of SGI) formed what was later called Netscape.
pithy comment
That sound like people who say Linux is a rewrite..HA..Shields UP..Dont Flame me...
Who says It'll even get released? AOL's famous for all blow and no go, as it were.
If you're on a fast link you probably won't notice a problem. Those of us on modems get to see it a LOT.
Some things should just be allowed to die. Netscape is one of them. AOL itself (besides their IM application) might be another.
A lot of us chose to use Netscape when we realized that IE was a piece of crap.
Personally, I started using Netscape when someone told me that there was something better than Mosaic.
I never did use lynx much, but I did use Gopher.
I miss Gopher.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you