Netscape 8.0 Released

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

Comments

Based off of firefox

[thundercatslair]

So do we actually need a netscape now? I used too use it untill they released 7. It was probably the worst browser I have ever used.

Re:Based off of firefox

[fastfinge]

First off, bolting onto other browsers is *always* a good thing for accessibility. If I am bolted on to firefox or Internet Explorer, when a security fix comes out, I get it as soon as the devs of the mainstream product release the patch. The fact that it is a mainstream product means this will be relatively soon. If an exploit is found for Joe's Accessible Web Browser 2.3.9, I am at risk until Joe gets around to fixing his code. This will probably be a lot longer than when firefox does so.

Second off, if a website deviates from a standard, it means the standard doesn't work. In the current market, companies can't afford a standard. Just think how long any improvement would have taken in the early years of the internet if Microsoft and Netscape had had to agree on every new feature and how it would work before it got added? We'd still be in political meetings today. How do you think a website like launchcast should code the website in order to both satisfy the drm, have all the features they have now, and work as quickly? I don't think it can be done while strictly following the w3. If a user doesn't follow standards for his website (IE nested tables or something), it means either that the standard is flawed in being overly complicated, or in not providing an obvious way for the user to do what he or she wants. I'm blind, as you guessed, and acutely aware of standards. However, I have found that for every spare time hobby website I do, I have to disregard the standards entirely. Why? It takes me something like eighty times as long to create a standards compliant page, some in understanding, but mostly in *typing*! I find it outragious that a user is expected to memorize, think about, and specify doctype at the top of every single html file he or she creates. Once that's done, then you get the fun of meta-tags. If you want to create an rss link, then you get the fun of a bunch of other xml thingies for autodiscovery. We're not even going to get into how non-intuitive the slashes in tags like br are for the standard user. Ever tried to explain this to someone you were teaching html? You eventually end up giving them a bunch of things in a text file to copy-paste (like meta tags and doctype), and answering "because that's the way someone or other decided to do it." to almost all other questions. It seems to me that recent versions of html add nothing in usability and much in complexity.

I have discovered that what the open source community means by "it isn't standard" is usually one of the following:
1. It's not done *my way*, and I don't like the other way.
2. They didn't do it the way I decided to do it.
3. It uses DRM or is otherwise proprietary, and they won't let me play.
4. It does something I didn't allow for because I never thought of it or didn't feel like it. I'm not going to fix it now because not doing that is part of the standard.
5. It has trivial errors that could be easily and transparently worked around by my software, but I'm not going to because I like punishing users in hopes that they'll learn.

I realize minimal standards are required to ensure a lack of anarchy and allow for universal access, but most "standards" seem utterly arbitrary. Is it true that we can't nest tables (I've spent enough time on this, I refuse to go look it up)? Why on earth not? Was that slash in the br tag really required for anything, or is it just that programmers like xml better? Could a renderer really not hack it without knowing the doctype, or is it that that would take some extra coding smarts that nobody really wants to create? Will the world come to an end if people don't bother with meta tags? Maybe I'm just a dumb shit for having to ask, but I'm reading and posting on slashdot, and I've honestly spent time thinking about this stuff. How far does that put me above most average users? If I can't get it, how can we expect everyone else writing websites for minimum wage to figure it all out?

There's still a market, believe it or not

[MarkEst1973]

My wife works at the EPA where they have an IMB/LotusNotes/Netscape solution on all desktops. She's running Netscape 7, I believe.

I, personally, question the time and money required to put out a new version of Netscape when there's a perfectly kickass Firefox to use, but my opinion is moot. There's still a market for Netscape, albeit a small one.

rating system?

[Hell O'World]

From article: site rating system called "Trust Ratings" which is driven by lists of sites provided by our trusted security partners.
Who are these "trusted security partners" and why should I trust them?

Full Circle

[Anonymous Coward]

So we have come full circle again looking at the source code on which the various browsers are based:

(Mosaic->)Netscape->Mozilla->Firefox->Netscape

had enough of Netscape

[jgionet]

Now that FF is out and kicking ass I don't see any reason why anybody would want to run Netcape. It was slow loading in the past and it'll be slow forever. It's too bad really.. but I think Netscape is dead.

Why the hell...

[jevring]

...does netscape automatically render pages known to e "safe" with MSIE?
I thought the whole point of not using MSIE was to NOT use it.
I mean, when I use netscape, I want netscape, not some other substandard browser running things in the background.
This will cause a shitstorm for developers running netscape.

Trust Rating

[lheal]

Too Microsofty. Yuck. TFA says they have a database of sites that are either good or bad. I hope the phishers don't learn how to use disposable domains! (What's that you say? That's what they do now?)

But this may appeal to someone. Let's see: they have to be clueful enough to want something other than IE, and clueless enough not to want Firefox or Opera. Pretty slim pickings.

I guess there's still something left to the Netscape name as a brand, but they're quickly killing it.

Am I Alone in Appreciating New Release?

[syntap]

I personally appreciate the release because the BHB's I work for all happen to like Netscape, but balk at having me install something called "FireFox" that they have never heard of. Now I can say "New Netscape version is here" and all of the sudden they are off either 4.x or the bulkier Mozilla and can now be basically on the browser I wanted them on in the first place.

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities

[Khyber]

Ahh, yes.. "Mostly Secure"

I've sent a report to Mozilla concerning what may be yet another exploit. As mentioned before in previous comments (Recently in the FF vs Opera story) I am now 100% sure that there is still a security hole in Firefox that is allowing pop-ups, pop-unders, and SOMEHOW is allowing Spyware to get in on one's machine. It's been narrowed down to either Flash, or an exploit in how FF renders HTML. I've been getting calls recently from people whose computers I've repaired, or reinstalled everything on, they're still getting spyware, as well. Hopefully Mozilla will figure this out, by testing FF with the same sites and settings I've been using/set on other computers. Once I get a reply, I'll give further details.

Re:No thanks...

[Hank Chinaski]

yes it is. both hilarious and true.

It WAS good...

[Khyber]

Then I rendered a site known for unwanted installation of spyware using the IE engine. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? If you use the IE rendering engine on a non-trusted site known for installing spyware w/o permission, it gets in. And the pop-up/pop-under blocking is still ineffectual.

*sighs and wipes Nutscrape off the computer*

Outdated

[CastrTroy]

When visiting Netscape.com, I got a nice message saying that my current browser, Firefox 1.04, is out of date. They said I should download Netscape 8. Which is based on Firefox 1.03. Does anybody else see a problem with this?

Re:No thanks...

[Gopal.V]

At least they based Netscape 8.0 on Gecko (with an IE rendering option). Earlier rumours said that 8.0 was going to be based on Internet Explorer. It would have been the ultimate irony.

Browser is the The Platform - expect new IE versions to have a .NET controls integration built into. (integrating that in Mozilla - either mono or dotgnu would be inviting a patent lawsuit).

Re:No thanks...

[Matrix9180]

the flash tour says that "trusted sites" will be rendered using the IE method "for better compatability". so the rumors were right :-\

/. Editor tweeked the submittal a bit ...

[xmas2003]

People sometimes wonder if the /. editors even look at the submitted articles ... and I can say in this case that is definitely true. What I originally submitted late last night was "The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, although the "Download Now" page currently says "Netscape Browser 8.0 is Coming Soon!" so kudo's to Zonk who actually checked the link and modified the posting appropriately.

BTW, the first sentance was originally "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that AOL will release Netscape 8.0 - also being reported at BetaNews and a growing number of sites." ... but he changed that to CNet which has the 5 page review ... the Firefox 1.03 reference is from BetaNews.

Finally, I had added this closing statement/question "While Netscape was the dominant browser years ago, it has faded dramatically ... does this release have significant enough features such that end-users will give it another try? Time will tell." ... and I personally think it's a bit too little too late - Firefox works darn well for me, and with the iview extension, I have one-click access to IE if need be. But the browser wars are far from over as IE7 appears to be copying many of Firefox's features, plus Opera and Safari continue to get good press ... so time will tell!

Re:No thanks...

[hey!]

Yah, me too.

But pesonally, I don't have a problem with somebody trying to build a value added browser.

You and I may be into to the level of control we have over Firefox, but the average person without a geek support team is going to pretty much use the browser out of the box and isn't going to have the goodies we searched out and installed. It's the difference between painting the pinstripes on your car yourself or getting them as part of a standard trim package from the manufacturer.

Heck, I'm a happy user of several Linux distros,even if Linux From Scratch would give me a Linux installation perfectly suited to my needs. The thing is, the difference between what I can get in Mandrake and what would be perfect for me isn't worth the amount of trouble it would be for me. That's the way most people are going to feel about browsers.

Re:No thanks...

[Bedouin X]

For me, the best feature is the per-site controls of various technologies like Java, Javascript, and Active X. That and the engine switcher are two very compelling features.

Now if I could only use the Web Developer extension...

Re:No thanks...

[leonbev]

Believe me, this is a GOOD idea. I've tried converting tons of non-technical people to Firefox, but many of them end up switching back when they can't use a few sites that was designed to only work with IE. Yahoo's LaunchCast and Messenger avatar customization sites come to mind quickly, as do a few online banking and eBay auction tool sites.

Re:A million web developers just cried out in horr

[Zildy]

They certainly aren't instilling a lot of confidence in their own code base. Netscape 8 switches to IE rendering when visiting www.netscape.com.