Slashdot Mirror


Firefox-Based Netscape 8 Beta Goes Live

pigmelon writes "According to BetaNews, 'America Online's Netscape team has opened its doors to the public, releasing the first beta of the revived Netscape Web browser. (screenshot) Based upon Firefox, Netscape version 8 focuses on security and user privacy, and supports rendering with both Mozilla's Gecko and Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser engines.' Before downloading the beta, remember that it uses Firefox 1.0, which contains some vulnerabilities."

13 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Extensions by BobPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately you can't install extensions cause they all say they don't support Netscape.

  2. Merged Menu Bar by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing caught my eyes is the merged top menu bars, so the page title and file menu options are on the same line now.

    Is there such plug-in for FireFox?

    1. Re:Merged Menu Bar by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Funny
      Is there such plug-in for FireFox?
      No, but for a similar effect you can pick up your keyboard, and bludgeon yourself in the face.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  3. LOUD by captnitro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jesus, that screenshot is like the browser version of my grandfather's "retirement shirts". Except, only if he lived inside Spencer's Gifts, and was a science fiction drama from 1963, and had ADD. And rabies.

  4. Custom widgets by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 5, Insightful


    What's so wrong with using standart window captions, buttons and so on? There's a reason for that: consistency ammong applications.

    Leave themes and eye candy for the OS level, and obey it if present; but please, not a single application should implement it's own custom UI controls, that's just wrong.

  5. My eyes! The goggles do nothing! by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy crap! That has to be the worst browser interface I've ever seen. Awful color scheme, buttons everywhere, three different input bars (one for searching, one for addresses, and one for "shopping"?; worse, the most important bar, the address bar, is too small to show even the domain portion of a normal URL, and is not in a properly prominent position), funky menu positioning (by putting the menu in the title bar, I suppose you can no longer grab that part of the bar to drag the window), etc. Netscape really needs to invest in some competent UI designers ASAP.

  6. Had to use a screenshot with Microsoft Headline... by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, so who's the brainiac that figured it would be a good idea to take a screenshot with a "Microsoft is making progress" headline/news item?

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  7. The goggles! They do nothing! by evn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just when you think the Internet can't get any uglier or more difficult to use we get another browser with piss-poor interface.

    Why the heck do I need the weather below my address bar?

    Why is the menu bar over by the close/minimize/maximize widgets (don't miss click the help menu or your window will vanish to the task bar)?

    I /love/ the way they use completley non-standard UI elements throughout and the grace us with the standard windows scroll bar on the right.

    I think i'll leave my family/neighbors/girlfriend with Firefox or Mozilla thank-you. They may not be the perfect interface but they're an order of magnitude more useful than this monstrosity.

    And no, it doesn't run on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or anything but Windows. I guess that's a good thing in this case.

  8. Who cares? by tevenson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone please explain to me why, if you knew of the existance of Firefox 1.0 (or 1.0.1 now), you would still choose to download a bastardized version of it from Netscape?

    Let's be honest. You're going to get the same rendering engine (at least for the most part, probably with more problems though) but with a bloated skin, no theme support, no extension support, and the Netscape icon.

    I think it's totally worth it, ha.

  9. Re:why? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is the advantage of a separate browser? Why not make an AOL theme for firefox, drape it with AOL extentions/plugins and just use firefox?

    Supposedly the netscape version has built in the IE rendering engine for compatibility, while still maintaining the security of Firefox. We shall see. This may mean a browser that is vulnerable to every exploit. If done properly, however, it could be a very nice feature.

  10. And so it comes full circle. by Caspian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Netscape releases source to Netscape browser, which by that point really sucks.
    2) This source spawns Mozilla, which becomes pretty good.
    3) This source spawns Firefox, which becomes even better (and actually popular)
    4) Firefox gets used as the basis for a new Netscape browser, which (if the screenshot is any indication) really sucks...

    There is no "5) Profit!".

    The sad thing is that a lot-- and I mean a lot-- of users (particularly Windows-only folks, which is still 90+% of the population) think that the only two browsers out there are IE and Netscape. When I say "I don't use IE", I sometimes get a response like "So you use Netscape?"

    Netscape's name-brand recognition among the great uneducated masses of Internet users might actually convince millions of otherwise-competent people to use this abomination.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  11. Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? by erikdalen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the problem is a bug in firefox. it not caused by slashdots fucked up html code. you can get the same display bug on a fully valid html document. they have examples in the bugzilla. and it's already fixed in cvs.

    --
    Erik Dalén
  12. Return on investment by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, agreed -- the UI is pretty over-the-top. I won't even argue that.

    However, I think that the general attitude on ./ is that Netscape has somehow "wronged" the Firefox team and the Firefox community by releasing this product, or that they don't "deserve" to rebrand firefox in such a way. I probably wont use it (the GUI hurts), but I don't have a problem with Netscape/AOL releasing it, considering:
    Netscape not only opened the source code, they also provided manpower, hardware , and cash. AOL was the single largest donor to the Mozilla foundation (2 million cash, but also assets such as webservers and bandwidth). Without Netscape and AOL, Firefox would not exist.

    Netscape is abiding by the mozilla public license, right? If so, what's the problem? Why do so many open source zealots villify large corporations for engaging in behaviour that is expressly condoned (even encouraged)?

    Though standards zealots will disagree, at least some people will like the dual rendering engine feature. So it's not like they didn't bring anything to the table and shamelessly replaced all the firefox logos with netscape logos.

    Isn't this really an open source success story? "If you open the source code to your product, other developers will extend it and improve it in ways that you couldn't dream of (let alone afford), and you will be free to incorporate these improvements back into your product!". Isn't this the return on investment that the OSS community talks about?
    Netscape's name-brand recognition among the great uneducated masses of Internet users might actually convince millions of otherwise-competent people to use this abomination.

    If we're talking about the same uneducated mass of Internet users that were convinced to use IE because of Microsoft's brand recognition, isn't that a good thing?