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.'"
> 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
"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.
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
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?
It really depends on the license, and the Mozilla license is fairly permissive, so one could argue that Mozilla - in choosing their licensing regime - knew exactly what might happen. Other licenses, like the GPL, do not allow code to be made proprietary. There are pros and cons for both types of license: BSD-style licenses have their enthusiasts, even though corporations can steal BSD-licensed code and turn it into closed-source projects. Likewise, GPL-style licenses have their enthusiasts, even though we are denied the freedom to use GPL'd code in our own, closed-source projects.
The original programmers don't even get credited!
I'd be surprised if that were the case - I'm fairly sure the Mozilla Public License requires attribution? Anyway, Netscape's selling point will probably be that it's based on Mozilla, so I wouldn't worry too much about the Mozilla devs!
This is where the serious fun begins.
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.
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."
<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
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).
n 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
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm
where there's fish, there's cats
From the article
They already are making a browser based off IE, but it won't be called Netscape.
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.
Why not use xmms?
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.
IE 1 was basically Spyglass Mosiac (and IE still has a credit in the about box for that), but MS rapidly productised it in a couple of revisions, to version 1.5 then 2.
Then Netscape 2 appeared.
IE 3 came out, initally part of the plus pack for Win95 (pay for), then become "free" as well as being implemented on Windows 3.11 as part of the TCP/IP stack. IE3 was nearly on a par with Netscape, frames, plug-ins (ah, activex), a "clean room" implementation of JScript and some CSS.
Then v4 arrived, both Netscape 4 and IE4, and that's when Netscape imploded due in no small part to suckiness.
I don't know where you were in 1998, but IE 4 blew Netscape away. Netscape responded initially by planning a rewrite in Java (ha!)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Gecko# (gecko-sharp) is part of the mono (http://www.mono-project.com/) project to implement C# and the .NET CIL.
.NET / Mono supports (i.e. Windows/Intel for MS .NET, a whole bunch more for Mono).
Mayne the example I have for ActiveX was a bit misleading - I was trying to get across that what is needed is a platform independant way of embedding the browser. Gecko# is a binding for C# (using GTK# - the GTK bindings for C#). In theory it should work on any platform that MS
This then takes people away from being worried about which OS your developing for and just worrying about the application your developing.
If there is a well documented, straight forward method for embedding a browser and you have a choice between a non-portable MS IE browser and a portable Gecko browser - which one are you going to pick. I'm well aware that it will depend somewhat on the application, but a lot of people will pick the portable way. Especially if the market their aiming for is even flirting with Linux/MacOS.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
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.
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!
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.
This is a confirmed Firefox bug. Sure, Slashdot uses non-standard code, but Firefox still has a "correct" (or "intended") way of rendering it, and frequently gets it wrong. It's been fixed in the trunk.
Also, there's no reason to reload. Just resize the text (easiest way is to scroll the mouse wheel while holding Ctrl). There's also an extension out there that forces a reflow when the page finishes loading to work around this bug.
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()?
Rumor has it this is fixed in the next release of firefox.
.
But until then, hit CTRL+ and then CTRL- (or Ctrl-Mousewheel) instead of reloading.
This problem will be fixed in Firefox 1.1, but that won't be released until March. You can try a nightly build before then.