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.'"

41 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Bah by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of us chose to use Netscape when we realized that IE was a piece of crap. We were a small but dedicated group. After Netscape died, a lot of us moved to Mozilla, where we brought our passion and dedication. Yes, Netscape may have returned from the dead, but it's not *our* Netscape, it's a familiar-looking (and smelly) corpse animated by the dark AOL magic that seems to autospawn new AOL coasters every month. Netscape of lore is dead. It might steal marketshare from IE because of the familiar name, but somehow I doubt users will get excited about it the way they did for the original Netscape.

    2. Re:Bah by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I'm sure that if this fails, the next Netscape will just be a skinned version of IE.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:Bah by gilesjuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The feeling that your browser window was about to crash, the feeling of boredom while it loaded.

      C'mon, Netscape of old was inferior to IE. With Firefox it's finally matured into something decent, both in terms of appearance and performance.

      I'd almost say Netscape RIP, the brand does a diservice to Mozilla, people will remember the old clunky Netscape and think Firefox is like that.

    4. Re:Bah by mwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gotta be precise here. Netscape the company went foom, but Netscape the browser just got a new name and a new set of priorities, and IMHO became much better as FOSS.

      I really don't see the point of another "Netscape" release, for the customer. It'll probably be just like the previous one: the current best from Mozilla with a bucketload of advertising gunk poured over it. Who needs it? Some of my favorite changes as NS Communicator became Mozilla were the things they took out.

      I certainly do see the attraction for AOL, though: they can sell areas of the UI like billboard space.

    5. Re:Bah by the+unbeliever · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Netscape 4.x was inferior to IE 4+, that is certain.

      However, Netscape Navigator 3 was far superior to it's IE version counterpart.

    6. Re:Bah by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 4, Funny

      but it'll never have the same feel that Netscape had.

      God be praised.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    7. Re:Bah by SpinyManiac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not here.

      The new guy in Legal just requested Firefox.
      Management have OKed it, I just installed it.
      There were already 3 unofficial installs, now the landslide begins. 4 down, 496 to go.

      Off topic, but I've gotta' say it. Firefox used to require a proxyserver password, and we have to change every 30 days. Now it uses the login credentials like IE. The last barrier to corporate deployment here.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    8. Re:Bah by blowdart · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually no. Gather round children it's history time.

      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.

    9. Re:Bah by canavan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Netscape 4.x is much faster than ie, firefox or mozilla, except for deeply nested tables. It starts faster, loads faster, renders and scrolls faster and yes, it's a lot faster at crashing as well. It doesn't support css etc. but compared to any other so called 'modern' browser I've tried, it's lightning fast and has a tiny memory footprint.

      Just because Firefox feels faster on your three point something GHz machine and Netscape 4.x didn't back in the days when you were still using a 486 or 100MHz pentium doesn't mean Netscape was slow.

  2. Market share? by beacher · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA - "The browser's market share has dropped to single digits"

    HEY! I'm 20% of all Netscape users! w00t!
    -B

  3. The next quote from the book of Mozilla by Malfourmed · · Score: 5, Funny

    And lo, the child did become father to the man, and the student the master.

    1. Re:The next quote from the book of Mozilla by Dausha · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We meet again at last. When I left you I was a crappy browser. Now, I shall become the Firefox." Darth Netscape said.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. The Mozilla brand is probably stronger now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)

  6. Re:Maybe AOL got it? by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Might be, or it might be that they still think that there is marketing value in the name, to keep it alive.

  7. Up from the Ashes by syntap · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe they should call it Netscape Phoenix or Netscape Firebird (ducks)

  8. Re:this is BAD in my opinion by quarrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. Netscape name still means a lot to people by ewg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:this is BAD in my opinion by woodhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Long Live the Browser . . . by Dausha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:What's the point? by drkich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess what? You are not the target audience. If you know about FireFox, sure why would you use their browser. Their audience is the millions of people the fork their service over to, who do not know any better.

    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. They may find bugs that they want to fix, and they should have to contribute those fixes back to the community.

    So even if you don't use their browser, depending on how they work this, it is a win-win for everyone involved.

  13. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by Siener · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Browser History: Netscape Then and now and future by Mstrgeek · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is a great site on the history of Netscape what has beeen for Netscape and what is to come I think it fits in well with what we are talking about

    http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/netscape .htm

    --
    Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
  15. Re:Some things I don't get about open source by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  16. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Mozilla is a complete rewrite. That's why it took so long, they pretty much threw out all of the Netscape code when it was written, and Netscape 6 onwards were based upon Mozilla.

    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.
  17. Re:Netscape for Whom? by CdBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes exactly that. Bear in mind that the name Netscape still has tremendous recognition: Firms which would jib at the idea of installing "open-source" software might have fewer fears if the product was backed up with support from AOL.

    Geeks like us will continue to use and recommend the "true" firefox but the Netscape browser may be able to win some people over who would otherwise have stuck with internet explorer

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  18. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  19. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 5, Informative

    <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)

  20. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  21. Re:this is BAD in my opinion by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  22. RTFA by POWRSURG · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article

    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.

    They already are making a browser based off IE, but it won't be called Netscape.

  23. What's the Problem? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  24. Re:Netscape backed by firefox?? by erikharrison · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  25. Why bother? by shokk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Why bother? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they can add is volume. If AOL moved to Firebird it would be a HUGE step in killing IE only websites. Would you want a commercial website that AOL users could not get to? Netscape could bring a more commercial feeling to Firefox that big companies want. Or you can look at it this way... What can it hurt?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Why bother? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I did not say kill IE. I said kill IE only sites. Websites should work well with published standards and I hate to say it but defacto standards like IS as well. Hummmm you are a little nuts in the political correct speech department aren't you? I can kill a beer, hit the kill switch on my motorcycle, kill the lights before I go to bed, and I can have a really good joke slay me. And I can hope that Firefox getting enough market share will kill the practice that if a website works with IE then it is good enough. A reasonable person would understand that none of the above statements involve any death of humans, animals, plants, or BSD. To somehow think that the phrase "kill IE only website" is in somehow equal to the crusades that took an very large number of lives in the middle ages or any other racial or religiously motivated war is.
      1. Stupid.
      2. Insulting and demeaning to all those that lost their lives in such horrible events. To somehow equate the two is just insulting. If you want to change the world start looking for real intolerance. I suggest the mirror as the first place to look and if you do no see any then you are blind because we all have it or the potential. Start there then worry about someone using kill in a post on slashdot.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  26. Register for the Beta by CptnSbaitso · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  27. Great! Maybe then.. by poptones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot will fix the fucking site so all us firefox/mozilla users won't have to reload every other goddamned page.

    1. Re:Great! Maybe then.. by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      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. .

  28. Why is this so hard to understand? by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Informative

    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()?