Netscape 8 to Emphasize Security

wikinerd writes "Netscape is building Netscape 8 which will include several anti-phishing enhancements and will emphasize security. Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies. RSS capabilities will also be included in Netscape 8, which will be released on 17 February."

Comments

ActiveX

[rdc_uk]

Try just not putting it in at all...

Re:ActiveX

[ruiner13]

I thought the browser already was missing it. I remember an ActiveX plug-in a while ago, but I haven't seen a recent one. If it has ActiveX, you'd think it would work with Windows Update, which it doesn't, which is the only reason for keeping IE around, IMHO.

Re:ActiveX

[Tx]

I would actually like to be able to allow certain sites to run ActiveX controls. The sad fact is quite a few sites require ActiveX to function properly, and that will probably be the case for a long time. I dislike having to use IE for those sites instead of Firefox, so selective enabling of ActiveX would be OK with me.

Re:ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, we block ALL activeX at the firewall.

it has not caused one single problem here at work except for some worthless sites that the employees do not need to be going to during work hours anyways.

Re:ActiveX

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

ActiveX will never go away if we encourage sites to keep using it. At any rate, only about 0.5% of sites actually *require* ActiveX to be used (in my experience). And those can usually be easily spurned for a competitor..

Re:ActiveX

[sremick]

The other sad fact is that by compensating for the sites that use ActiveX, you stop giving them any incentive to stop using it.

They win, we (including you) lose.

The whole idea is to pressure sites to clean up their code, make it standard, and stop using ActiveX. You do that by increasing the marketshare of browsers that DON'T accept bad/nonstandard code and DON'T use ActiveX.

If you allow sites to be crap, they'll happily do so. It's the whole "give them an inch..." thing.

Someone once referred to this as a big game of chicken. Netscape loses by blinking and putting in ActiveX. This removes a lot of the pressure sites have to wake up and stop making their pages IE-only.

It's very unfortunate for all of us.

Re:ActiveX

[Bronz]

I don't think there are "quite a few" sites that require 3rd party ActiveX to function properly. Things like Gmail use xmlrpc, which in IE is invoked through ActiveX, but that's an internal ActiveX component.

Re:ActiveX

[tepples]

I don't think there are "quite a few" sites that require 3rd party ActiveX to function properly.

You try running Cartoon Network's game Kids Next Door: Operation BEST without turning on ActiveX.

Re:ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

Or join the gkndob project, which aims to create a Free Libre Open Source Software version of "Kids Next Door: Operation BEST."

Currently the project is in need of maintainers, code, and documentation.

Re:ActiveX

[Larsiny]

Using ActiveX in sites has nothing to do with bad and/or ugly code. There's plenty of nicely coded sites that utilize ActiveX. It's just a feature that is utilized to run stuff on the web that most times isn't a good idea to use.

However, stuff like Streaming Windows Media looks best using the ActiveX embedded version with the object tag instead of the embed tag. And like it or not, right now the Windows Media format is one of the top 2 most utilized streaming codec. For this to change, we're going to have to come up with a way to argue with companies that have commited their video production labs to microsoft to switch.

Re:ActiveX

[sremick]

Well, Windows Media might be one of the top 2 most-utilized codecs... but just like Windows is the top-used OS, that doesn't mean it's the best or that everyone else who doesn't use it should get the finger.

Incidentally, I view Windows Media on my FreeBSD box all the time using mplayer.

There are other codecs available though that are far better-supported across different platforms/browsers/OSes. By using them, a company can open its media to a wider audience (and the non-Windows audience continues to grow). The line to draw from that to more profits is a short one.

Windows Media is closed, owned and pushed by Microsoft to be only used on Windows on i386 platforms. Quicktime, although pushed by Apple, is well-supported by other OSes and browser, far more than Windows Media. And there are many other codecs too. Considering it's Microsoft, it's no big surprised that the masses have been brainwashed into using it. The repair of that needs to start somewhere. If it means being hardline about it and not using/supporting Windows Media, I'm fine with that.

One thing that will help is to not only point out the benefits ($$$) of using a codec supported by other platforms, but the actual dangers of using Windows Media

Re:ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

"At any rate, only about 0.5% of sites actually *require* ActiveX to be used (in my experience). And those can usually be easily spurned for a competitor."

Not really. Sure, any commercial, consumer-oriented site can just be ignored. My beef is with web application developers who decide to use ActiveX to build applications for uses that actually mean something. A specific example is ChartView, a medical record web access product from SoftMed (www.softmed.com). My hospital installed it a while back. It is dreadfully unreliable and completely IE-specific due to extensive use of ActiveX. The IT folks at my office are afraid to let anyone use it until they have "installed it properly". This "installation" consists of adding the hospital's domain to the trusted sites in IE and adding a shortcut to the url on the desktop. It is really funny to see some of the secretaries asking each other "Can I use ChartView on your computer? It isn't installed on mine."

Re:ActiveX

[raddan]

Yeah, but there's another area where having ActiveX would be helpful: legacy corporate apps. We have a huge number of them. Actually, I only call them 'legacy' because I'm hoping that someday they'll be replaced with something better, but right now, we're stuck.

Our parent company has spent many millions on the development of in-house apps that depend on ActiveX. They're only just realizing their conundrum now. Because the malware problem was getting so bad, we spent a significant amount of time training our users to use a different web browser for regular internet use, and to use IE for intranet apps. I went so far as to remove all IE shortcuts, and then put shortcut links on the desktop that open those intranet sites directly in IE.

So for us, having selective ActiveX in Netscape/Firefox would be a step in the right direction. It's not the ideal solution, but if you work in IT long enough, you'll find that you can rarely implement an ideal solution anyhow. In the interest of my own mental health, I like to think of it as a challenge to my hacker-fu.

Re:ActiveX

[Anonymous Coward]

The OBJECT tag is standards compliant. EMBED is deprecated. Use of a GUID for the source is a crummy microsoftism, but you can still specify a URL like the OBJECT tag really intended.

Re:ActiveX

[sremick]

I dislike having to use IE for those sites instead of Firefox, so selective enabling of ActiveX would be OK with me.

In this case, it't no different. You're not enabling ActiveX. You're viewing the page in IE. It's just wrapped up within a Netscape window.

I dislike having to use IE for ActiveX to. So I cast my vote by not doing it.

Re:ActiveX

[Chandon Seldon]

You have a single data point. With a couple more, you might even have a minor trend.

Re:ActiveX

[joeljkp]

Here's my take on this.

The "stop using ActiveX and companies will stop relying on it" argument is essentially a form of activism. By not enabling ActiveX in your application, you are forcing this brand of activism on the people who use your app. So if your users don't share your way of thinking, you've lost in two ways instead of one: they're still using ActiveX, but they're using it with IE instead of a better alternative.

Re:ActiveX

[joeljkp]

GunBound

Re:ActiveX

[Guppy06]

"The sad fact is quite a few sites require ActiveX to function properly,"

So that's why Slashdot has rendering problems in Firefox!

Re:ActiveX

[Chandon Seldon]

They turned that shit game into an ActiveX control? You can still download it though, so there's no need for ActiveX.

Re:ActiveX

[joeljkp]

No, you need activex to log into their site or something,

ActiveX?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought ActiveX was an IE thing. Has that changed?

Re:ActiveX?

[coolfrood]

If I remember correctly, Netscape is going to have a "view as in IE" option which uses the IE rendering engine instead of Gecko. That would probably bring in all ActiveX stuff.

Re:ActiveX?

[Budrick]

It's present in the community previews.

Re:ActiveX?

[PoprocksCk]

Netscape has also traditionally applied the ActiveX Plug-In to its builds. It's probably that, combined with the possibility of viewing pages with Trident that has caused it to become a concern.

Re:ActiveX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape is going to have a "view as in IE" option

That would be the Pwn3d button?

Re:ActiveX?

[bcmm]

Microsoft publishes "ActiveX for Netscape", which is a normal dll plugin. It works (but is undesirable) in Firefox under Windows.

Re:ActiveX?

[sloanster]

Yes, active x has been a msie thing, it's salient salient characteristics being that it uses ms-windows-specific methods, and has serious fundamental security problems. The microsoft-specific nature of active x flies in the face of the platform-neutral web.

Thus, if a site is using and depending on active x, they have been rejecting business from customers using browsers other than msie, and even if netscape starts using active x, these sites would still be basically telling all non-microsoft-using customers to go fsck off - Not a very bright business strategy.

Re:ActiveX?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can stick an IE browser frame in any of my VB programs with just a few clicks. User doesn't even realize it's IE.

Tell me this is NOT what they are doing, please.?

And if so, will there be a *nix version of Netscape 8?

Sorry, I'll stick with FireFox. Active X is the Devil!

Re:ActiveX?

[Anonymous Coward]

"View in IE" is a lousy hacked-in option, because it won't integrate into your bookmarks or browser history. Surf away from that site in IE, and you're still in IE, whereas if the rendering engine preference is a function of the URI (host+domain+optional-port+path), then it could revert back to gecko.

Why not just use Firefox?

[cflorio]

In November, Netscape released the first test, or "alpha," version of its new browser based on Mozilla's Firefox software.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[essreenim]

Netscape and Firefox are both based on Mozilla.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[Seumas]

Don't you mean "Netscape released the first test, or "Developer Preview" version of its new browser"...

As to why they don't just use Firefox directly? Because owning the user's homepage is money and power. People hear the name "Netscape" which has a long history prior to AOL cannibalising it and they decide to download it rather than this new "firefox thing".

So, by using that name and that slightly customized/modified browser, they draw a larger group of users. And a lot of those users never get around to (or don't know how to) changing their homepage.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[cflorio]

Don't you mean "Netscape released the first test, or "Developer Preview" version of its new browser"...

No, That was a direct quote from the article.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[Pieroxy]

Hmmm, almost:
Netscape, Mozilla and Firefox are all three based on Gecko.

Additionally, Mozilla, Firefox and Gecko are all three products of the Mozilla foundation.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[superyooser]

It is, but it can also use IE's rendering engine. I am a beta tester. See my post under the last Netscape story.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[hackstraw]

Better question, why use Netscape at all?

Netscape was cool like 10 years ago, and that was only because there simply wasn't anything else. To be honest, in looking back, all of their browsers sucked. But the company has been bought and bastardized and not even used by AOL. The only thing I know about Netscape nowadays is that they their name has been now sold by AOL to some cheesy dial up company that is competing with Netzero for $9.99 a month internet access at blazing speeds at 56 whatever or less. That was a stroke of genius by AOL to sell the Netscape name for a competing product.

Netscape is dead. Only its name remains, and that hardly means anything.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[essreenim]

oops

Netscape and Firefox are both based on Mozilla [gecko]

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[labratuk]

I really really wish Netscape/AOL would realise that 'Netscape' products are actually harming the browser world and just go away. It's bad enough that they steal firefox's* thunder (har har), but they also manage to give it a bad name by releasing shitty related products and confusing fickle internet users.

Netscape, nobody wants you, you are not doing good for web standards, please die.

*And other standards compliant browsers.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well , I use Netscape on Linux.rather than Mozilla or FireFox. The reason?

Netscape gets all unicode fonts(like IE in XP)
and shows web pages with foreign languages like
Thai or Korean properly.
Firefox/Mozilla you need to download extra
fonts and somehow install them - something that is very poorly documented and hard to do.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[joeljkp]

Many people would much rather install Netscape (which they've heard of) than Firefox (which they haven't). The more people use something other than IE the better, I say.

Re:Why not just use Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down, -1 hatemonger, liar, douchebag.

Why does Netscape development continue?

[Dagny Taggert]

I mean, the war's over and they lost. Those resources could go to a better Firefox or whatever. If something startling comes out in the way of browser technology, then resurrect the name. Now it's just re-branded.

Re:Why does Netscape development continue?

[buro9]

And that attitude would have scuppered Mozilla and Firefox work quite early.

Many alternatives to IE is not a bad thing at all, embrace and extend should work from our side too I reckon.

Re:Why does Netscape development continue?

[fireboy1919]

My almamater uses it (Purdue university). My guess is that it's a compromise to suit the business drones. They like closed products for some reason. I think it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Netscape will always be able to feed on Mozilla as long as such drones exist.

Re:Why does Netscape development continue?

[brunogirin]

They don't like closed products. They like products they can get from an identifiable supplier that can provide them with a support contract so that they have someone to turn to (and blame) when things go wrong.

It is the same logic that means it can be difficult for a small software company to start up in a field where you have large companies operating. Even if you sell software for a fraction of the price of equivalent software from a large multi-national company, and even if you have much more functionality and build everything on open standards when your large competitor does not, they are likely to go with the large company because they can have a 24x7 contract, someone to blame when things go wrong and the assurance that said large company will still be in business in 2, 5 or 10 years time.

This is exactly why it can be very difficult to promote open source and why a company like Red Hat is doing very well: they provide the support and credibility to Linux solutions that companies are looking for.

Now the fact that in most cases, they could do the same for cheaper if they went to open source solutions directly is irrelevant: people making the decision, who are usually technically clueless, don't want to take the risk of getting blamed for chosing a solution that had no support option if something goes wrong. The only companies that regularly go open source are technology companies because they have the staff in-house to solve things if something goes horribly wrong. But even then, it is usually a case of balancing the cost of diverting internal resources to solve a problem vs paying a supplier for support.

This is why the only way for open source software to be accepted by the main public is to be so much better than the closed source competition in terms of ease of use, learning curve, stability, community support, documentation that support is no longer an issue. Apache is a good example. Firefox is getting there.

Re:Why does Netscape development continue?

[fireboy1919]

That would be true in most cases, but Purdue doesn't have any contractual relationship with Netscape.

All they have is that warm fuzzy feeling.

Can some one tell me ...

[who got my name]

Why netscape is still beeing developed? Are they getting something out of it. I mean from the business point of view. We have Firefox, Mozilla, IE, Opera, Safari, , etc.

Re:Can some one tell me ...

[mirko]

Safari is Mac-Only.

Re:Can some one tell me ...

[essreenim]

You left out Lynx. I for one enjoy being arrested for my choice of browser

Re:Can some one tell me ...

[rainman_bc]

Safari is Mac-Only.

Isn't Safari based on KHTML? Isn't Konqueror also based on KHTML?

I guess you can't just go and install Safari on KDE, but you can use Konqueror which will parse html the same way Safari will... I'd say that it's "Close Enough". JMO...

Go for the Gold.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Netscape 8 to Emphasize Security"

OK, and what were they emphasizing before? Market Share?

Re:Go for the Gold.

[w4f7z]

Naw, they stopped emphasizing that after Netscape 4.

ActiveX on Netscape

[gambit3]

When did THAT happen?

I thought that was one of the reasons to use Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox.... cuz they DIDN'T support ActiveX... ??

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[tigershark97]

The new Netscape lets you choose between the gecko engine or IE's engine to render any page. You can have a few tabs open rendered by gecko, and a few tabs by IE, at the same time.

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[eggz128]

A while ago.

Nescape 7.1 (or maybe it was 7.2) came with the Mozilla ActiveX plugin preinstalled, although it was whitelisted to allow only the Windows Media Player ActiveX control.

The Netscape 8 betas however can use either the Gecko or Trident (WinIE) engines for rendering web pages. If the user decides to use trident for viewing a web page that tab is marked as "low security" (little red or yellow sphere in the top right corner of the tab) IIRC.

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[DrXym]

Netscape 7.1 and 7.2 support ActiveX controls, but only for scripting the Windows Media Player.

This new Netscape 8 (for some ungodly reason) appears to supports hosting IE rendering engine in addition to Gecko so perhaps there is a more pressing need for blocking ActiveX after all.

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is true, then that is HOT baby yeah!

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[Pieroxy]

If this is so, I will probably give it a shot. Some very annoying website still requires IE and being able to integrate it in my Firefox would be pretty cool. Maybe this Netscape thingy is a good compromise...

Not counting that my wife and myself use the same PC at home and if I could have two hotmail sessions opened at the same time (one in IE, one in Gecko), it would be pretty cool too.

Re:ActiveX on Netscape

[joeljkp]

If you don't want ActiveX, turn it off. That's not even an excuse to not use IE.

Here is one of the sites

[Anonymous Coward]

msn.com

and here's why

Of course

[WhatsAProGingrass]

And if you black list all those sites, how am I supposed to look at free porn anymore?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and before anyone says it, I'm not talking about the "market share" that only has to do with profits. Technically even IE is free.

Re:Of course

[Wordsmith]

Actually, considering the community aroudn firefox, it has more to do with providing a quality browser as an option than incresing marketshare

There's now an emphasis on marketshare as well, but it doesn't seem like it's being engineered specifically for mass-appeal. the marketing is a seperate effort.

And in general, for companies, the motivation is profit, not marketshare. Marketshare is a means to that end. If a company can be profitable with a fraction of the market (think apple) it's doing pretty well.

Two words: Name Recognition

[RLiegh]

until fairly recently, most PHBs have never heard of 'firefox' or 'mozilla'. Even now, those who have do not have a clue that all three are related.

The do know the name 'netscape', however; and it's a safe, corporate-friendly name (unlike mozilla or firefox).

Re:Two words: Name Recognition

[who got my name]

Thank you for a reply, and why would someone mod me redundunt if I was posting into a zero posts thread ?

Re:Two words: Name Recognition

[Dr. Evil]

It's a bad thing in this case.

Netscape? That bloated trash with all the crud bundled in with it?

Yeah, but it's better now... it's based on a lightweight Mozilla browser and its cousin Firefox.

... later that day...

This thing sucks. AIM keeps popping up and the browser is trying to sell me stuff. Glad we didn't consider any of that viral open source crud.

I wish they'd come up with...

[GillBates0]

Netscape next month is expected to release a test version of a Web browser designed to resist phishing schemes

users designed to resist phishing schemes and ENLAR6E Y0||R PE|\||5 spam.

Should have taken the *easy* route

[digitalgimpus]

I.E.: Speakeasy

Just give users an extension:
http://www.speakeasy.net/software/fire fox/

That way, they can keep up to date with Firefox.

Now Netscape, as usual will lag in updates... which means security holes may remain, etc.

If they did an extension, users could likely update with no problems.

Re:Should have taken the *easy* route

[denis-The-menace]

Too bad you and Speakeasy don't say what the MySpeakeasy.XPI does.
Nobody in their right mind who reads slashdot would install stuff blindly.

Re:Should have taken the *easy* route

[KarmaMB84]

It would help if MozSoft would get their act together and stop coding security flaws into WinZilla so that third parties don't have to worry about being screwed the the perpetual patch cycle.

Re:Should have taken the *easy* route

[digitalgimpus]

They customize the browser through an extension.

No big deal... it's just easier for everyone.

All clients need to do to update is download the latest firefox.

Essentially the auto-updater will let them know when a new firefox is available. And it will also notify them when a new version of the extension is available.

But who controls it?

[danbond_98]

Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies.

But who decides which sites are evil and which aren't? Will we suddenly find a group targetting anything they find morally objectionable (p0rn, etc) and having it added to the list?

Re:But who controls it?

[Gilesx]

RTFA. It doesn't block access to the sites, but merely automatically disables, javascript, ActiveX and all the other components that could be exploited by a nasty webpage. It also flashes up a warning dialog box.

All in all, this really could shape up to be a killer feature. I'd feel a lot safer leaving my parents surfing on NS 8 with this feature enabled, than I would with Firefox, and I LOVE Firefox - I just feel that less experienced users need their hands held more, and if Netscape are willing to do that, I'll send over newbies to them.

Re:But who controls it?

[Laurentiu]

So we're switching from Parental Control to Parent Control? Where is the world going to?

Re:But who controls it?

[rhpot1991]

I am sure that sites which should belong on the blacklist popup and dissapear all the time, keeping track of them is surely impossible

Blacklists don't work

[Jack Taylor]

The decision to use blacklists with ActiveX is an unfortunate one. In an environment as fluid as the internet scam industry, there will be vastly more new sites set up than human-controlled blacklisting can stop, especially if web servers are set up on botnets of unsuspecting home XP users. Let's just hope the default rendering engine will be Gecko.

Having said that, there are a few javascript phishing techniques that work perfectly well in Firefox with Gecko...

Re:Blacklists don't work

[c0p0n]

I agree. I think that, if you have to provide ActiveX in a browser, a whitelist would be wiser. Only enable, by hand, ActiveX on sites that you need.

Said that, ActiveX is a piece of crap when it comes to security, user-friendliness (ie uninstalling them) and non-standard.

Re:Blacklists don't work

[MindStalker]

Yes, the default rendering engine is gecko. But for capatibility many many people and even entire companies will set netscape to be IE only. That is if they use Netscape at all.

Re:Blacklists don't work

[DrXym]

ActiveX is no worse than Netscape plugins or Firefox extensions for that matter. All could equally turn your machine into sludge.

The big deal of course for ActiveX is that as you say it's not in whitelist mode which encourages sites to insist the user install utter crap and for the spyware to live in that atmosphere. However, when you do put it in whitelist mode it becomes quite useful. For example Netscape 7.1 uses ActiveX in whitelist mode to support the Windows Media Player. Thus sites get the scripting abilities of a popular control, but the user hasn't left their browser wide open.

from AOL to Netscape?

[Neo-Rio-101]

The grapevine says that AOL is currently having a few issues with people not being able to connect from AOL to other networks which AOL has blocked. So bad, in fact, that this is the last straw for many of their customers.

Some people I know think that AOL is using their netscape brand as an attempt to divert their operations onto a brand with not such a long history in customer complaints. ....then again, I could be completely wrong......

Re:from AOL to Netscape?

[Schnapple]

Some people I know think that AOL is using their netscape brand as an attempt to divert their operations onto a brand with not such a long history in customer complaints

Yeah, but Netscape 4.x went through so many "beta" versions that most people thought Netscape to mean "crap". And Netscape 6 was a total disaster. Plus, most people believe that Netscape "lost" to IE (which, let's be honest, they did). So AOL wants to change to a brand notorious for buggy software and losing?

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing funny about it really. All browsers' end goal is market share. Firefox may be arguably more secure than IE, but its focus on providing something IE lacks is just a step in its end goal of more market share. They happen to, at least for now, not be financially motivated, but market share is still what they want.

Hurt Firefox?

[alfal]

I question whether this will hurt Firefox's forward momentum. If netscape 8 is as good as firefox, then I would see it stealing a share of the market from firefox (not IE). The part that really concerns me is that once it gets popularity, will they start putting ads and revenue generators in the browser, similar to what AOL did to their AIM client?

i dont get it

[ted1488]

If im not mistaken isnt firefox based off of netscape in the first place? why dont they just play together and make an uber sweet browser. (not saying that firefox isnt a good one)

Re:i dont get it

[l3v1]

If im not mistaken

But you are. So.

Re:i dont get it

[sremick]

No. None of these are based off Netscape.

Netscape 4 was the last Netscape that stood from the orignial lineage.

Netscape 5 was begun and the source released. The Mozilla open-source project was formed. They took a look at the Netscape 5 source, and gave up on it, deciding to start over. Although the Mozilla "suite" was made to work/look like Netscape, it was new code.

Mozilla was developed for a while. The first public release was "M3" (I used it). Later on they changed from "M"(ilestone) releases to version numbers. I think it was version 0.6 that Netscape then used as the basis for Netscape 6.0 (which flopped). We saw a Netscape 6.1 later, based upon a later release of Mozilla (0.9.2) ... it was a lot better than 6.0.

Netscape 7 was based upon Mozilla 1.0.1, a much better (recent) version of Mozilla. The current version of Netscape, 7.2, is based upon Mozilla 1.7.2.

Firefox is based upon Mozilla, not Netscape.

There have so far been no Netscape browsers based upon Firefox. Netscape 8 will be the first.

Re:i dont get it

[ted1488]

Netscape 5 was begun and the source released. The Mozilla open-source project was formed. They took a look at the Netscape 5 source, and gave up on it, deciding to start over. Although the Mozilla "suite" was made to work/look like Netscape, it was new code. ok thats what i was mistaken on. i remember reading that once but i couldnt remember everything about it.

Re:i dont get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla exsisted long before Netscape 5.

Mozilla was a side project for many years.

Firefox is new, it's not based off Mozilla... now Mozilla is based off Firefox.

They should just let the Netscape name die. Just put all effort towards Mozilla/Firefox. We don't need yet another browser trying to compete.

Re:i dont get it

[bofkentucky]

Browser Family Tree

In the begining there was NCSA and its child mosaic, and all was good, but Marc got greedy and formed Netscape 1.0 from Mosaic and made lots of money
And lo, BillG had released windows 4.0 to the world, known as 95, but it had not a browser, so it purchased spyglass, who had built another browser based on mosaic, this abomination was internet explorer 1 and it sucked
And internet explorer 2 sucked as well, but 3 was a decent browser that had basic support for CSS and what we call ActiveX today
Netscape 2 and 3 were giants, but Netscape 4 and IE 4 were of equal strength, and then AOL purchased Netscape.
Netscape began to decline as it fell behind, IE5 and 5.5 were much faster the 4.5 and 4.7 of netscape, but there was a new day dawning, AOL saw fit to release the preliminary code of Netscape 5 to the world.
But this code did suck very much, so the mozilla foundation, with help of many netscape employees began writing a browser essentially from scratch
this took time and IE got faster, but people started using its holes to exploit windows boxes around the globe
And lo Mozilla starting releasing builds, called milestones, and some were good and some were evil, but they became stronger, until netscape took one of the milestones and released netscape 6.
And it was good, but people had forgotten about netscape, so they ignored it
And mozilla worked on until it released 1.0 and people celebrated
And Netscape released 7.0, which was Mozilla 1.0 with some of the features turned off, and some people switched fleeing the pestilence following internet explorer.
And mozilla toiled away until 1.4, and netscape took of this and released netscape 7.1
Now some in the mozilla community wanted to build a new browser that was lighter than Mozilla, ready to do battle with Microsoft, and they called themselves phoenix, but the could not use that name due to copyright
So they changed their name to firebird, but they could not use that name either
So they settled on firefox, but as they kept changing their name, they were releasing very good web browsers
And mozilla kept working until 1.7 came, and netscape released 7.2, and firefox synced their trunk to the mozilla 1.7 branch.
And development began quickly on firefox, through 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9, until 1.0 came, and 20 million downloaded it.
AOL saw the favor firefox had with the people and coveted it, so they made a beta based on Firefox, and it was ok.
And now Netscape is poined to release netscape 8 which is really Firefox 1.0, but mozilla is still working on 1.8 and IE is going nowhere.

Corrections and additions apprecitated, especially for Opera's, Safari's, and Konquerer's lineages

Re:i dont get it

[hawk]

>In the begining there was NCSA and its child mosaic,

Err, no. In the beginning, hypertext was in text. Mosaic added graphics to the existing www.

hawk

Re:i dont get it

[That's Unpossible!]

but Marc got greedy and formed Netscape 1.0 from Mosaic and made lots of money

Good thing he "got greedy," because that gave us Netscape 1.x, which pushed new boundaries on the web. And in the end, through a tangly road, we now have an awesome Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird browser base.

I understand that the Mozilla codebase does not really resemble the stuff originally released from Netscape, but I seriously doubt we'd be where we are today without Netscape in our history, and that money infusion from AOL/Netscape allowing the Mozilla Foundation to sustain through the lean "Mozilla will never amount to anything, it's too late!" years.

You can't pick your "parents," but if it weren't for them, you wouldn't be around right now, no matter how much your "childhood" sucked.

I'm glad Marc was "greedy."

Re:i dont get it

[bofkentucky]

I wasn't making a value judgement there, but if NCSA had been allowed to progress with the original netscape's team still there, it might not have had to travel the wilderness of NS 2, 3, and 4 to get back to solid standards compliant browser that mozilla and its decendants are, and IE would have had a much better base to build from.

Re:i dont get it

[zecg]

Brilliant, in a word. I dare anyone to not read this with their Bible voice on. I have no points, but this deserves modding up.

Re:i dont get it

[sremick]

Firefox is new, it's not based off Mozilla... now Mozilla is based off Firefox.

This is horribly incorrect. Please do some more research.

Totalitarian Secured Computing?

[Quebec]

Totalitarian Secured Computing?

It's a totally bad Wintel idea and it's Netscape who implement it first? WTF?

Gee...

[RedVortex]

I stopped using netscape a while ago... Actually, it was exactly when they put out Netscape 6, everything in my system was crawling to a halt as soon as I was using it... I moved to mozilla and more recently firefox, now that's browsing !

They had a great product but somewhere along the way something went bad...

RedVortex

Re:Gee...

[Ironsides]

Netscape V6 was the first one release after Netscape was bought by AOL. It was a Java Based program. Not that there is anything wrong with a java based program, it just doesn't belong on a desktop. In a web browser yes, but not on a desktop. And definitely not as a web browser.

Re:Gee...

[McDutchie]

Netscape V6 was the first one release after Netscape was bought by AOL. It was a Java Based program.

That is not correct. Netscape 6 was simply a clone of an early Mozilla beta.

Re:Gee...

[sremick]

Netscape 6 wasn't a Java-based browser.

It was a slightly-customized version of Mozilla 0.6 suite.

I seem to remember a project that WAS trying to make a Java-based version of Mozilla, but it didn't get far and got virtually no press or users. I'd be very surprised if you actually used it. I had trouble obtaining it when I actually wanted to find it.

The reason Netscape 6.0 sucked so bad was because it was based upon a premature version of Mozilla and the code just simply wasn't ready for prime-time yet. That's why Netscape waited a long time until 6.1, which was based upon Mozilla 0.9.2.

Re:Gee...

[McDutchie]

They had a great product but somewhere along the way something went bad...

Netscape 6 was a complete disaster, but netscape 7 and up, which are based on more recent Mozilla Suite (Seamonkey) versions, are actually decent. It still doesn't have an advantage over Mozilla proper, though, unless you like the integrated AIM/ICQ client.

Re:Gee...

[Schnapple]

That is not correct. Netscape 6 was simply a clone of an early Mozilla beta

This is also wrong. Netscape 6 had nothing to do with Mozilla, it was rewritten from scratch.

Re:Gee...

[stu42j]

http://jazilla.sourceforge.net/

Re:Gee...

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, no. You're wrong. Netscape 6 was based on Mozilla 0.6 which was a total rewrite after Netscape released Mozilla Classic (aka Nav4 which was going to be Nav5).

Before 0.6 they used a different versioning system M3 M4 M5 for the different milestones. They switched when Netscape said that they wanted to release the code (AOL/Netscape was still in charge of the Mozilla foundation at that point).

Re:Gee...

[anomalous cohort]

Netscape 6, everything in my system was crawling to a halt

Ditto. I also started using gaim instead of AOL instant messanger for the same reason. It's just too tempting for a corporation to use their product as an advertising vector. OSS projects don't seem to succumb to this temptation outside of the Help About dialog.

this site is on the blacklist

[Anonymous Coward]

msn.com

and here's why

Defnition:

[Ironsides]

Morally Objectionable: Adjective. Any site that sends Spam, Phishing E-Mails, Viri and 419 type Scam E-Mails.

Re:Defnition:

[Anonymous Coward]

A site that sends men? I know people who'd like to get a new man from the Internet! Or do you mean viruses, not viri?

Re:Defnition:

[l3v1]

Okay, so how you others to trust some dictionary and/or linguistics site that doesn't even know English alright ? "plural of vir, man, the root the English virile".

Re:Defnition:

[farnz]

Some of us studied Latin when we were young. And as it happens, the site is right about the Latin, even if its English is bad; if you don't trust it, go down to your local library and look things up in a book on Latin grammar. Or read and comprehend something like this online Latin grammar.

Re:Defnition:

[Finuvir]

My browser rendered that comment with the line break exactly where the missing "of" should have been. I couldn't see the problem at all until I looked at the quoted page and saw it all on one line. I'm going to assume that your appalling English is meant in an ironic sense and isn't just hypocrisy.

Good Blacklisting

[SpottedKuh]

Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies.

Good thing it keeps out those dangerous spammers! Now if only it kept out the people who set up little, lesser-known pages that try to exploit my browser via ActiveX.

Maybe the solution is for Netscape not to be Internet Explorer.

There's still a Netscape?

[aquarian]

Honestly, I had completely forgotten about them, and didn't know they were still around.

Re:There's still a Netscape?

[Seumas]

Uh. They aren't still around. AOL just owns the trademark and maybe a couple old-school (pre-1999) developers.

hmm

[Christoff Ka Sin Chu]

What's next, Mosiac?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd spell-nazi on you, but it's so damn obvious it's not fun...

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer. "Based on NCSA Mosaic."

yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a new Netscapefoxilla

or Netzillafox or zitscapefilla or whatever

Point is though:

Firefox = Mozilla = Netscape = yawn

come back IE all is forgiven

Only a beta

[naylor83]

The planned release is only a beta, not a final as the /. summary makes it out to be.

netscape is behind firefox

[newker]

how come netscape will build new browser? isnt it netscape is behind firefox? i think its better for netscape to concentrate and pour outs their resources to firefox. that will be the better (if they want to kill ie)

Re:netscape is behind firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anymore. AOL/Netscape layed off all of the programmers. They hired an external company to modify FireFox/Thunderbird and call it Netscape 8.

"Firefox" name kills chances in buisness

[Anonymous Coward]

The do know the name 'netscape', however; and it's a safe, corporate-friendly name (unlike mozilla or firefox).

Exactly, you understand. A "fire fox" may be an ok name amongst young, heavy metal listening programmers, but to goes down like a lump of lead with the suits. The lesson is simple - don't having programmers doing marketing. Programmers don't understand social things.

a few tidbits

[LuserOnFire]

1) I agree with what has been said a few times: using blacklists sounds nice, but really doesn't work well. Spammers and Scammers can create new sites faster then we can blacklist old ones.

2) I still think FireFox is the way to go. Much more attention to security and features. Easier to use and less bloat.

3) This is more of a question: Does anyone have any statistics of what browsers and versions of browsers are most being used? I mean, I'd love to see that broken down by country and by versions.

Re:a few tidbits

[naylor83]

I haven't got any hard stats to show you, since i can't be bothered to find any, but I get the impression this is the situation: Firefox is used about 5 % in the US, IE about 90 %. In Europe the usage of Firefox is higher, specially in Germany and France. Here the number is more like 10 % iirc.

Re:a few tidbits

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares about what you name new browser based on Firefox. The main thing is that the product is based on a standards compliant engine and makes life better.

the window of opportunity

[ChipMonk]

It isn't closed, merely narrowed. Think of this: new rogue website, not yet blacklisted, and it has an ActiveX which is designed specifically to clear out your blacklist. Bonus points for pulling this off without administrator privileges. Five clicks later, and you're ready to re-install Windows.

Stay with Firefox. It's sensibly disconnected from the #1 security weakness in Windows.

Re:the window of opportunity

[The Cisco Kid]

I run mozilla, and its 100% disconnected from any and all security weaknesses in Windows - I run it on Linux (and occasionally FreeBSD). Windows itself *is* a security weakness.

Re:the window of opportunity

[hawk]

Nah, I've eliminated the security risks on windows at home.

There's nothing vaguely resembling a modem or other network connection.

For that matter, there *won't* be a modem attached even for FreeBSD until I've figured out how to rip enough out of XP that it can't connect or even recognize that the modem is there . . .

hawk

Re:the window of opportunity

[The Cisco Kid]

My point was that my solution for eliminating windows security risks was to eliminate windows entirely. Actually, eliminate might be the wrong word, since the last time I installed windows on a machine owned my myself was when windows 3.1 was the current version - I needed something that supported PPP so that I could connect to the net and download the slackware disk images.

Netscape, how do you feel...

[Sfing_ter]

Netscape, how do you feel...
now that you have joined the dark side of the force?

They are, aren't they?

[ImaLamer]

The opening line in this story read:

Netscape is building Netscape 8 which will...

when it should have read:

Mozilla developers have built 99.9% of Netscape 8 which will...

Re:They are, aren't they?

[HeghmoH]

Don't be ridiculous. While the Mozilla developers have done a lot, they never would have even gotten off the ground if Netscape hadn't written and then open sourced their code.

Re:They are, aren't they?

[strider44]

You do know that there's no netscape code left don't you?

Re:They are, aren't they?

[KarmaMB84]

I don't know. Do you classify the majority of Mozilla, which was written by paid Netscape developers, not Netscape code?

Re:They are, aren't they?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that there's no netscape code left don't you?

You do know that your talking complete rubbish don't you?

The majority of the Mozilla code was written by Netscape employees.

Now I know what you mean. You mean that all the old Netscape Communicator code was rewritten. Well, firstly, that's wrong (things like NSPR and NSS are still kicking around) and secondly, most of the code was rewritten by Netscape employees.

While Netscape may not have written any Mozilla code since July 2003 (the fact that there is no Netscape browser division kind of puts a damper on that), it doesn't mean that they didn't make huge contributions in the first five years of the Mozilla project.

Go to bonsai.mozilla.org and search for checkins by people with netscape.com email addresses if you don't believe me. Or use lxr.mozilla.org to search for files that have Netscape employees as listed contributors.

Re:They are, aren't they?

[HeghmoH]

Have you ever written any real-world code? Just because no Netscape code is left doesn't mean that Netscape's work doesn't still make up a huge part of the project. Rewritten code leaves its mark in design, implementation, data structures, algorithms, everything. Just because the individual characters have been retyped doesn't mean squat, and the old code is still a large part of the work even if it's all gone (which, as another poster pointed out, it's not).

Re:They are, aren't they?

[ImaLamer]

Don't get me wrong. I remember waiting an hour and fifteen for Netscape 1.0 to download over a 2400 baud modem...

I know that Netscape is the base - and today when I use Firefox I no doubt look at it and see that same ol' application.

I know...

I was just pointing out that "Netscape" is no longer building browsers on their own without any outside influence. I'm sure most of the code which makes/will make the browser run smoothly on today's computers comes from the mozilla foundation developers. Not all code, the newest code in Netscape.

BTW, I think they should jump version numbers and keep a internal version such as 0.A023.2 and label this version:

Netscape Eighty Four

I don't know why... it just appeals to me. They can abbreviate it N84 or '84 to make it seem hip. They really need to create a logo which plays on the "scape" too... it's all about branding.

Re:They are, aren't they?

[HeghmoH]

I certainly don't mean to disavow the contributions of the Mozilla team. Their work is significant, and probably the majority of what's there by now. However, the work done by Netscape is far more than 0.1%, and that was my objection.

A little slower than Firefox but much more solid

[gelfling]

I've been using NS for years and there really isn't anything in Firefox that isn't already in NS. The Profile Manager in NS7.2 works much better, plugins work better and it's generally more solid. The trade off is that it's a little slower than Firefox. I tested out FF on my family and they couldn't really detect any difference in behavior from Netscape7.2.

NS4.72-4.78 were the reference standards for years and were the coding baseine for a great deal of web apps. There was no NS5 and NS6 was shit. Admittedly it was slow buggy crap. NS7.1 was a huge improvment and NS7.2 was a polished version of that. It's got all the biggies that FF has; tabbed browsing, popup blockers, profiles.

Embarassment coming...

[fitten]

Well... with a marketing campaign of "Focusing on Security", every security hole/bug found in it will be just that much more embarassing for them. It was that way with IE for a while with their security releases but it's happened to much that we've all become desensitized to it.

FUD? or typo?

[Anonymous Coward]

being this uses ActiveX it should be labeled

Netscape 8 to Emphasize Insecurity

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[digidave]

The Mozilla Suite has all of that as well. Where do you think NS got it from? The whole point of Firefox is that it doesn't have tons of stuff like the Suite does... it's a streamlined browser. Being faster is why it exists.

What about the whitelists?

[beegle]

This is all well and good, but this is coming from the same company that offers a free chat client that comes with a free copy of WildTangent.

How long before Netscape offers a "preferred partner program" where they promise not to blacklist the spyware produced by any of their partners?

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[gelfling]

But Firefox and/or Mozilla is not dramatically faster enough. Seems like the FF development crowd suffers form the same design by committee but with only a slightly smaller committee.

Netscape lives?

[Leomania]

What is it with the on again/off again Netscape browser? The last few releases have been so bloated with mostly unnecessary "stuff" that Mozilla was a better (if not yet as well branded) choice.

I understand that the name "Netscape" itself has huge mindshare, but does anyone really associate that with AOL or Time Warner? Does it give their brands any additional mindshare by association? The article says Netscape claims to be the No. 2 browser now, but how much of that is due to people like me who have an old system (333MHz Sun Ultra10) still in use that use 4.7 due to its relative speed compared to newer browsers? I've tried Opera and Mozilla/Firefox on that system, it's pretty slow.

And will AOL users get this browser as their default, or are the business units of Netscape and AOL that separate? The anti-phishing features, if robust, would be a geeksend to the masses.

- Leo

Blacklisting ActiveX - Backwards!

[DevolvingSpud]

It seems to me that it would be much, much more secure to allow the user to whitelist sites they wanted to use ActiveX on. For example, Windows Update, and my stupid online paystub page.

I only have a handful of pages that I *need* ActiveX on, and the rest can go pound sand.

Solves the problems of Netscape having to maintain the lists, too.

Re:Blacklisting ActiveX - Backwards!

[Anonymous Coward]

and my stupid online paystub page.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Java browser.

[Klivian]

As for Mozilla in java i don't know. But Sun released a, at least prof of concept, java based browser back with the first java releases. Not sure if it's developed anymore. Don't remember it's name either, but I remember a friend demoing it back in '96-'97. Same one who showed me NSC Mosaic in '93:-)

Re:Java browser.

[stoborrobots]

That was probably Hotjava ... It has been EOL'd now...
http://java.sun.com/products/archive/hotjava/index .html

As a side note, the current version of the Java FAQ lists the current version of HotJava as 1.1beta1...
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq.html#A6

Re:Java browser.

[Klivian]

Jepp, HotJava it was:-) The FAQ is dated too, your first link say version 3. That's in Sun-speak probably 1.1.3 or 1.3 for us mere mortals. I actually downloaded it to try, for fun. Sadly it only shows the splashscreen and hangs with an exception:-( Most likely because I have too new java version(1.5) and I don't feel like downgrading.

People are being too hard on AOL/NS

[oboylet]

I think people are reacting too harshly to this.

I can understand why some people are angry at AOL, and why all of NS's exemployee's are still peeved at them. However, from what I've read NS8 will use a tweaked version of the Gecko in Moz 1.7.5/FF1.0 and anything that might increase the marketshare of standards-based browsers is a good thing. And if AOL can use its muscle to drive even 2% of users over to Gecko, it will be a huge accomplishment.

And I think NS8 represents a challenge to IE users, not existing Firefox users. I don't see it as stealing marketshare (or even potential marketshare) from Firefox, and even if it does, its still less marketshare for IE. Netscape, if managed properly, presents another flank in the battle for desktop browsing. They are allies, people, not the enemy. Sure, they could be doing some things better, but let's give them a chance to win over some new users before we hang them out to dry.

And to those who would say that AOL should give more to the community, we shouldn't forget that they did pour a shit tonne of loot into NS/MoFo. There are plenty of reasons to be pissed at AOL/NS, but we shouldn't attack them for this.

Re:People are being too hard on AOL/NS

[Anonymous Coward]

Something else to consider is that Netscape is billing itself as an ISP now and advertising fairly frequently on TV. If Netscape sends you a CD including a copy of Netscape on it, it can only be a good thing. Many people will blindly install whatever's on the CD since it's what their ISP said they should use.

death spell for IE

[Anonymous Coward]

This gives IE's market share the rest. Netscape and Mozilla browsers will certainly become an excellent entry point for those people who were still using Windows to switch over. Lately I keep seing Firefox and every desktop and people who used Windows for years are suddenly running rather advanced distros like Gentoo without even asking me for help! What is this world coming to?! :)

Re:i dont get it -- Correction

[stu42j]

Netscape release the source in January 1998. AOL bought Netscape in November 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicat io ns_Corporation

Windows Update

[tepples]

If it has ActiveX, you'd think it would work with Windows Update, which it doesn't

Windows Update uses not only ActiveX controls but also client-side scripts in the VBScript language.

which is the only reason for keeping IE around, IMHO.

Users of Windows operating systems don't really need Windows Update anymore. Turn on Automatic Updates for the critical updates and service packs and get the redistributable packages for everything else.

Re:Windows Update

[ruiner13]

"Turn on Automatic Updates for the critical updates"

Um, no... why don't I just give MS my admin login while I'm at it?

Re:Windows Update

[Joe123456]

Thay may have a back door that that can use

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Mozilla Suite has all of that as well. Where do you think NS got it from? The whole point of Firefox is that it doesn't have tons of stuff like the Suite does... it's a streamlined browser. Being faster is why it exists."

It exists ? Where ?

ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[tepples]

The whole idea is to pressure sites to clean up their code, make it standard, and stop using ActiveX.

How do you make a Direct3D game load from a web site without loading through an ActiveX control? What about client-side apps that access the file system, such as an ActiveX virus scanner?

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[shadowzero313]

Get a real virus scanner. It's just as free, doesn't use evil ActiveX, and will work when your system is too fucked to get online.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[Anonymous Coward]

> How do you make a Direct3D game [cartoonnetwork.com] load from a web site without loading through an ActiveX control? What about client-side apps that access the file system, such as an ActiveX virus scanner?

D3D Games from websites: "Why the fuck would you want to?"
Virus scans from websites: "Why not just have them download and run the fucking executable?"

ActiveX: A virus of a solution still looking for a problem.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[sremick]

How do you make a Direct3D game load from a web site without loading through an ActiveX control?

You don't. You use something that's actually cross-platform and isn't Windows-specific. Not all internet users run Windows (I sure don't). It's the internet, not the Wintelnet.

What about client-side apps that access the file system, such as an ActiveX virus scanner?

They shouldn't. That's not the place for such things. Convenient? Sure. Worth the price? Hell no. There are far better ways to scan for viruses than to give websites full access to every file on your computer.

An analogy would be saying that unless you leave your doors unlocked at all times, how is the cable guy going to fix your TV? Or the telephone guy fix the static on your lines? Or the furnace guy fix the boiler? Sure, we get robbed ever week... but we've GOT to leave our house unlocked for these other things.

And some of us run operating systems that don't get viruses anyhow.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[toofast]

What about client-side apps that access the file system, such as an ActiveX virus scanner?

Maybe we wouldn't have as many viruses if browsers couldn't do what they wanted with the filesystem?

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[Anonymous Coward]

> Virus scans from websites: "Why not just have them download and run the fucking executable?"

Because that's exactly what the fucking virus scan does.

Jesus, if we left it to you, we'd still be mounting tape reels.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[Anonymous Coward]

> Virus scans from websites: "Why not just have them download and run the fucking executable?"

How is this more secure? The OCX is just like an EXE with a different loader and entry point. But Microsoft screwed up the execution, so you can't stomach the concept. What a silly bunt.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[Hobobo]

"You don't. You use something that's actually cross-platform and isn't Windows-specific. Not all internet users run Windows (I sure don't). It's the internet, not the Wintelnet."

I hate to break it to you, but everyone who counts uses Windows. You can use all the Linux you want, but it doesn't make sense for companies to accomodate to less than 5% of the market.

Re:ActiveX to load a Direct3D game

[sremick]

I don't care if 95% run Windows. If that 95% are doing something wrong in their implementation of an idea, then it's still wrong.

And by the way, I don't run Linux. And not running Windows doesn't imply Linux. There are Macs, which are the primary platform of many schools and families I know. And personally, I don't run MacOS or Linux... I run FreeBSD.

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[KarmaMB84]

On top of that, it has unpatched security flaws.

Re:Browser Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this comment get modded redundant? I for one think adding more security to Netscape will make Microsoft do the same. Lets face it IE is still used on 90% of the computers world wide.

"building". Yeah, sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rebranding is the word, methinks.

First things first

[jalefkowit]

Based on the interface I saw in the preview version, it might be better if they concentrated on not sucking first.

The "Netscape Browser Preview" had the most God-awful UI I've seen in a desktop app in a long, long time. It was like they went out of their way to avoid learning the big lesson from the success of Firefox (which was keep it simple, stupid), preferring instead to chrome it up six ways to Sunday.

They even pushed the menu bar over to the right side of the screen -- in complete defiance of the way every other app does it. Who goes to look for "File", "Edit", etc. over there? Nobody. So there's years of muscle memory that you have to un-learn to be productive with the thing.

Their ActiveX "solution" sounds similar. Why go to all the trouble of keeping blacklists, etc. when there is a much simpler and easier for users to understand solution at hand -- just leave ActiveX out of the default install altogether, and offer it as a plugin. Users who need ActiveX for vertical apps are also likely to have sysadmins handy to keep their network secure, so installing a plugin is no big deal. Everybody else, why do they need ActiveX? The only ActiveX control I've seen in mainstream use in years is FilePlanet's download manager, and they offer standard downloads for the ActiveX-challenged, too, so you could ditch ActiveX without too much pain there as well.

Somebody put a silver bullet in the zombie corpse of Netscape already before it embarrasses its legacy any further...

ie with spyad

[RedLaggedTeut]

Well I have one such blacklist installed, and I must say it is awfully big, it takes minutes to open the "restricted Zone" settings in ie.

I'm not sure the concept works.

One question...

[HerculesMO]

WHYYYY????

licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a licensing thing. Netscape can use components like Gecko, but they can also throw in other components which are not free... The reverse does not hold...

Re:Netscape is so 20th Century

[naylor83]

I have the same feeling, although if they do succeed with this Netscape 8 hybrid thing (and they keep Gecko as default) it could be a good thing.

Open Zee Eyes

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Someone once referred to this as a big game of chicken. Netscape loses by blinking and putting in ActiveX. This removes a lot of the pressure sites have to wake up and stop making their pages IE-only.

Since no one uses Netscape anyway (come on, this is not a troll, it's a reality), I don't think this has effect at all on anything. I continue to be surprised that AOL has anyone at all working on a browser that they refuse to use or promote. Is it charity? Contractual? Who knows, but Netscape is a non-player, and so a non-issue in any way.

Re:Open Zee Eyes

[DesScorp]

"Since no one uses Netscape anyway ..."

Not even remotely true.

"I continue to be surprised that AOL has anyone at all working on a browser that they refuse to use or promote."

I can't argue that AOL's strategy with Netscape has been maddeningly inconsistant; it would indeed be nice if they would use the Gecko engine as the standard in their own product.

"Who knows, but Netscape is a non-player, and so a non-issue in any way."

Netscape is now the standard browser throughout my workplace, and is the browser that I and colleagues recommend when businesses inquire about alternatives to Internet Explorer.

Here's where I prove how psychic I am by predicting your question; "Why don't you just tell them to use Firefox?".

There are a number of reasons, some that won't make sense to you in the strictest technical sense, but are are business realities nonetheless. For one, when a business finds out that Firefox comes from a "non-profit volunteer cooperative", they automatically freeze up, and say "no thanks". Like it or not, businesses are label whores; they like products from "real businesses". Tell them the gecko-engined Mozilla browser is released by a team of volunteers, and they flinch. Tell them the gecko-engined Netscape browser is released by AOL, and they trust it. Never mind it's practically the same browser. Doesn't matter. Commercially released software is safer and superior in the minds of the business public. They don't care what's underneath. They care who's putting it out there.

I consider Debian vastly superior to Red Hat in almost everything, and yet Red Hat, which is horrendously expensive and bloated, continues to be the business standard when it comes to Linux in the workplace. Because when you buy it, it's coming from a company with business-supplied support and warranties. You can tell them Debian is better, and then tell them it's free-as-in-beer. The next question is "who gives a warranty on it and provides support?". When you tell your boss "no one" and "public user forums", you're likely to be thrown from his office.

As much scorn as Netscape gets here in comparison to Mozilla and Firefox, if a business wants a "commercial alternative", where do you point them? Opera? In my expierience, Netscape 7.X works pretty well, which wasn't always the case with pre-1.0 Firefox versions.

I realize I could be a Firefox cheerleader, but I'd just be butting my head against the wall. The main goal is just to get users off of IE, and if Netscape is the easiest and most acceptable way to the boss to do it, so be it.

Re:Open Zee Eyes

[NutscrapeSucks]

The main goal is just to get users off of IE, and if Netscape is the easiest and most acceptable way to the boss to do it, so be it.

Netscape 6/7 has all of a 0.5% marketshare going for it after 4 years. Firefox has around 5% after a couple months. Netscape couldn't even get people off Communicator 4, much less IE.

Maybe your boss responded to the Netscape brandname, but mine have tended to run for the barfbucket.

Re:Browser Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with both posters. This will only help in security and advancement of other browsers. Once Microsoft sees the broswer war is heating up again with both Netscape and Firefox. They will have no choice but to add the same kind of security as Netscape has.

Business models

[tepples]

D3D Games from websites: "Why the fuck would you want to?"

To advertise to children. The Kids Next Door game is based on a TV series, which is supported by TV advertising.

Virus scans from websites: "Why not just have them download and run the fucking executable?"

A downloadable version of the online virus scanner would compete with the retail version.

Re:Business models

[XanC]

To advertise to children.

I think you just lost your argument...

Re:Business models

[sremick]

A downloadable version of the online virus scanner would compete with the retail version.

Meanwhile, unintentionally-installed ActiveX trojans and spyware are competing with legitimate user-intentioned use of their own computer.

Like the other person said: download a real offline scanner and use it like a normal person. They work better anyways. In addition, more and more scanners have to run in safe-mode anyway to catch things, as the crap sneaking in via ActiveX is getting smarter at hiding itself.

Games have been downloaded and run for a long time before ActiveX, and even before the web. We don't need ActiveX making it easier for people to hose their computers by blowing security out of the water and keeping the naive end-user from realizing what they're doing.

The fallout isn't worth the benefits. The real-world example in this post-ActiveX world has proven that already. Now 80-90% of all Windows PCs are infected with spyware/adware/trojans/viruses/etc. The cry of "well now at least we can play games online!" falls pretty weakly compared to the mess it has created.

Hopefully not another slow Bloatware from AOL

[Hail2TheRedskins]

Hopefully they didn't take the sleek and streamlined engine from FireFox and sandbag it with additional components you're forced to install (and useless AOL tie-ins). That's personally what killed Netscape 7 for me.

Admin access

[tepples]

[I'd rather not turn on Automatic Updates]... why don't I just give MS my admin login while I'm at it?

Doesn't the ActiveX control in the Windows Update site also need to be run as a member of Administrators?

Re:Admin access

[Scherf]

Doesn't the ActiveX control in the Windows Update site also need to be run as a member of Administrators?

Well, if it updates the Operating System I hope so...

The problems with Java 3D

[tepples]

You use something that's actually cross-platform and isn't Windows-specific.

Which acceptable cross-platform standard for 3D games exists? Java 3D may not qualify for at least three reasons: 1. it has a different enough programming model from OpenGL and DirectX that the cost of attracting developers familiar with the scene graph model may be too high, 2. the Java 3D extensions require a recent JRE, which the parent may not know how to install, and 3. the native side of the Java 3D extensions may not be implemented well if at all on popular residential computing platforms other than Microsoft Windows and possibly the latest version of Mac OS X, giving little or no real portability advantage.

unless you leave your doors unlocked at all times, how is the cable guy going to fix your TV?

The solution here is called whitelisting, and Firefox has already implemented it for XPIs, which are its equivalent of ActiveX controls.

Re:The problems with Java 3D

[sremick]

Which acceptable cross-platform standard for 3D games exists?

If none exists, and there's demand, then one should be developed. The solution isn't ActiveX though, anymore than the solution to getting more fresh air in your house is to use a few kilos of TNT to blow out the wall.

Web browsers are for viewing content. They aren't front-ends for gaming. If you've already got a binary that only runs on that one OS then it should be downloaded as any other executable and run independently of the browser. At least then the user is conscientious of the action and should realize better what it is they're doing.

The problem with ActiveX is it blurs the line between a safe activity (reading) and an unsafe activity (running programs). Users that would never knowingly download a program and run it because they are too nervous will never think twice of playing some ActiveX game.

And yes, XPIs are by-default restricted to ONLY work from update.mozilla.org and flat-out fail if they are from anywhere else. IE's defaults for ActiveX are quite a bit different...

Only a beta on feb 17

[Espectr0]

TFA says that NS8 wont be released that day, at least not in final form as the /. headline suggests. Only the second preview will be released

Re:Only a beta on feb 17

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't February 17th the release date of Windows 2000? Not that it matters or it's relevant at all, it just rang this bell...

tmegapscm

ProPolice/SSP

[Handbrewer]

Is ProPolice/SSP compatible with Windows? Are there similar compiler extensions for windows? Because it would be obvious to compile Firefox/Netscape with these to atleast harden them against overflows from malicious code. As far as i remember i compiled my firefox under Gentoo with -fstack-protector and it worked fine, but i wonder if i can cross-compile firefox to windows under Gentoo. Anyone knows anything about this?

Re:New Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, stupid mod. Overrated is to be used when something has been modded up. This has not.

Maybe offtopic would have been more... correct.

Great!

[SNES Chalmers]

I can't wait till this comes out... I can see it now, "Available for direct download or on 8 DVD-ROMS."

Email client?

[skt]

Does anyone know if it will have an email client or is this anti-phishing stuff just for webmail? Are they are also including a modified and rebranded thunderbird? The story makes it sounds like this is just the web browser and not the suite..

Sludging Your Sludged Sludge-marks.

[Dark Coder]

As a vulnerability analyst, your computers will be dead quicker on the basis of your "sludge" statement than ANY of my computers in my server room would first fails (HW or SW).

I wouldn't throw ActiveX as far as I can see. It is the favorite of crackers and is considered by many in the IT security industry as inherently "dangerous regardless of settings."

So, I simply kill off ActiveX (aka use another OS flavor) so that I wouldn't have to "keep my enemy closer.".

As for non-IE plugins, at least, the end-user has control with its selection.

A bad non-IE plugin will get reputated off the plugin list. A bad IE plugin is stuck with you forever (despite the repeated and failed patching).

Good Luck on your high-risk endeavors, Dr. Xym.

Re:Sludging Your Sludged Sludge-marks.

[DrXym]

Sorry you are wrong. It isn't dangerous "regardless of settings". ActiveX controls are DLLs and nothing more. If you restrict their use, they're no more dangerous or different from any other DLL, plugins or 3rd party helper apps included.

The issue is how they are installed and deployed. Assuming your browser is in a whitelist mode (as I described) they are absolutely no worse than any other means of rich content.

The rest of your issues can be applied as easily to plugins, extensions or anything else. I can *trivially* write an extension that does something bad to your system including dump out a trojan somewhere. Just because Firefox offers an uninstall option makes no odds if the extension has already delivered the payload.

Re:Sludging Your Sludged Sludge-marks.

[c0p0n]

But ActiveX *is* dangerous. It's a technology embedded on the very inner workings of the operating system (there's only one ActiveX - the one provided by M$) so any flaw on the technology affects the OS itself. Firefox execute its extensions inside a jail without real access to the OS. Sure, there were (and will be) flaws on the Firefox model... it's just that is harder to bork the OS working this way than working the ActiveX way,

Re:Sludging Your Sludged Sludge-marks.

[DrXym]

Of course its dangerous, but only when in its promiscuous settings. As I said, a control is just a DLL - it's how it gets on your machine that is the danger. If you lock down ActiveX to a whitelist, it is absolutely no different from any other kind of rich content helper, plugin, codec, 3rd party app or anything else that the user might run to play / render content from the web. Let me repeat - ActiveX controls are just DLLs. Netscape plugins are just DLLs. The differences boil down to how they get installed and API calls. Nothing else.

Extensions are not DLLs but they are very powerful objects. There is no "jail" for an extension. An extension is a chrome overlay - privileged Javascript and XUL that Firefox executes with the same permissions as the rest of of its chrome. It's not like page content where the Javascript is limited to certain DOM calls. Privileged JS can call any XPCOM object running in Firefox that has a scriptable interface and there are literally hundreds of them. Do you know what XPCOM is? Cross-Platform COM - a technology derived from COM (or ActiveX as its more commonly known). I'm not besmirching XPCOM (it's great), but you're complaining about ActiveX when Firefox is built on something very similar.

So your extension has hundreds of XPCOM objects to choose from, create and call. Want to create a file? No problem. Want to read a file? No problem. Want to grab a payload from somewhere? No problem. Want to redirect the user through your own associates links? No problem. Want to read the registry? No problem. There are XPCOM objects for all of these things and more, and Firefox won't lift a finger to stop an extension from using them.

This is the problem. People believe Firefox is inherently safe and ActiveX is inherently unsafe. Neither situation is true as will become more apparant as Firefox's popularity grows and it becomes a more inviting target.

The truth is that "secure by default" is the pressing concern. All extensions, controls, plugins etc. should be installed solely by the consent of the user, and by default not even that. I believe by default that Firefox / IE should be locked down so they only accept a small handful of well known and trustworthy plugins / controls. If the user wants to install something else they should have to go to their prefs and loosen the browser up before it will assist them in installing it. I.e. the browser should protect the user from him or herself. This might be a modest inconvenience but it minimises the attack surface - if only 1% of your users are vulnerable to attack it is still a hell of lot better than 100% being vulnerable.

I thought they were re-branding themselves.

[krgallagher]

"Netscape is building Netscape 8 "

I thought they were rebranding themselves as an ISP. In fact I thought it was kind of a neat idea. Play off a respected name that has been out of the market long enough to be less than familiar. Oh well ...

They will use Firefox

[BobPaul]

In November, Netscape released the first test, or "alpha," version of its new browser based on Mozilla's Firefox software.

I'd bet it is based on Firefox. If you remember, though, the alpha they released in November was based on Firefox, but had extra code to allow a user to selectively utilize the IE viewing engine to load a page (right click and hit "View like: IE" or "View like: Netscape", where "Netscape" meant Firefox .9 or whatever it was based off of.)

This is probably the same thing, but maybe more transparent and with more controls, or more likely it IS the same thing. Remember, that was an alpha, which means after beta testing it could be released in a month.

It's too bad that Alpha was ass ugly (more screen shots)

I'm not sure what Netscape 8 will look like, but I hope to god they get a better skin loaded before launch date...

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[gelfling]

As opposed to what?

Re:A little slower than Firefox but much more soli

[sremick]

There was no NS5

Actually, there was. I had it. It sucked.

It was originally the next generation evolved from NS4. It looked mostly like NS4. Netscape opened the source. And is was a mess. Mozilla took one look at it and realized they'd do better to start over.

Which they did.

The Wrong Approach?

[suwain_2]

Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies.

This idea has some merit, but

• Those on the blacklist might sue, and possibly even have a valid case.
• I don't like the idea of a third-party dictating what sites can and can't do in my browser.
• It won't work. As soon as badsite1.com is blacklisted, they'll move over to badsite2.com. True, this becomes cost-prohibitive, but it's only $6.49 worth of cost-prohibitiveness.
• Are you really "focusing on security" if you still allow the same 'exploits' unless the site is on a blacklist? Isn't the 'right' approach to blacklist everything unless you whitelist it?

Wake me up when they get around to emphasizing...

[Kazoo the Clown]

performance...

Netscape exec: Ohhh so thats what they wanted.

[mnmn]

Firefox was exactly what I wanted. A while ago, the options were limited to 3 bloated browsers (mozilla taking the extreme end of the spectrum), and a fast commercial one... Opera. I'd have issues installing or compiling Opera on AIX or Solaris on x86 etc, and wished there was a free Opera sourcecode somewhere.

What kills me is how in the world did companies like Netscape miss what the public wants? They made netscape communicator, a monolith for people who only wanted yahoo.com to come up faster. Next they made netscape 6, then 7, never slower or smaller. IE was competing with Opera easily since you have to purchase opera, and IE is free for the most part.

Mozilla was a joke. Period. I always thought mozilla was an org of programmers with itchy fingers who just wanted to make an OS-in-a-browser.

Someone grew brains there.

As a diehard Netscape user, this ends it for good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been using various versions of Netscape since 1996. Up until 2001, I exclusively used Netscape browsers. But now that they are adding ActiveX, I will no longer install or use any future versions. ActiveX is one of the top reasons why I detest IE with a passion. It is shameful to see this day come.

R.I.P. Netscape. I will still occasionally use Communicator and the 7.0x releases, but I can now finally conclude that the Netscape browser I once knew is dead. It is a sad day. Long live Firefox!

Pardon my ignorance...

[MeridianChild]

This is my first post here, so if this comes out looking funny...tough. :)

Anyway, here's my question: Do these companies really make a lot of money doing this?

Obviously there's some money to be made in licensing and advertisements...but can it really be that much, when the vast majority of the users of your main product (i.e. average schmoes, such as myself) acquire it for free?

Now, I loved using Netscape through the years (except for 6, that crashed just too often), ever since I downloaded version 1.2 from my university's computer lab. But for all the time I've spent using their products, they've never seen a dime from me.

So, what am I missing? How do Netscape and the others make all this money (or, how does Microsoft make even MORE money) that must obviously be the catalyst to these famous browser wars?

Enlighten me...

-MeridianChild

Troll?

[game kid]

I don't consider that a Troll; I'm not confused or angered. These days a lot of the talk and news is about IE and Firefox, and I've heard more about them, the older Mozilla, Opera, and even Lynx more than Netscape these days (I have noticed a college counselor using NS though). As TFA says, Netscape (which the older Mozilla was based on) based the beta of NS 8 on Firefox--aside from added anti-phishing (which is big and necessary), it seems somewhat redundant now.

I think Netscape will be teh leading browser again though; version 8 just might do that, especially with their somewhat confusing "Internet Service" ads on TV at the same time.

You mean Netscape is still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow I didn't realize that

I want to see AOL/NS open the IE linkage bits

[jonwil]

I want to see netscape/AOL release the code to the bits that let you use IE rendering engine alongside GECKO, along with the list of whitelisted-to-run-in-IE sites.

B/C Nets-crap comes with AOL ADS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah!

Re:View as IE

[hoovernj]

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/8291/netscape81wm.png

I can see you have a business degree

[Cap'n Steve]

I like your "Screw the users, we'll remake the Internet however we want and they damn well better thanks us for not giving them the features they want" strategy.

Re:I can see you have a business degree

[sremick]

I guess I missed the part where users asked for a security hole in their web browser the size of a semi so that they could play games online without having to do that pesky click to download first? Where they also asked for the worldwide epidemic of spyware, adware, and viruses which has resulted?

Good business for the people selling the antispyware/antivirus software maybe...

I still don't get why Firefox > Netscape

[Cap'n Steve]

This isn't a troll, I'd really like someone to explain it to me. The only advantage I see is the user-created extensions. Other than that, Firefox just seems like Netscape with more bugs.

activex

[torrents]

trying to achieve a secure environment is really pointless if activex support is present in any form... does anybody really believe the folks at m$ have not been trying to solve their activex problem for the past decade... (don't answer that)

MPL vs GPL

[sean23007]

Does anyone else see this as an interesting side effect of the Mozilla public license? Yes, Firefox is open source, but the license states that a business can take the code, alter it, and not redistribute. So now we have Netscape doing exactly this ... and some of the features are pretty cool. It would be very useful to be able to render certain sites with the IE engine; then there would be absolutely no reason to run IE ever again. Would it be possible to run Windows Update with the new Netscape?

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing ... they may not have done it if they had to open the source. But it still is interesting.