Netscape 8 Breaks IE XML

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has alerted users that Netscape's latest browser appears to break the XML rendering capabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Dave Massy, a senior programme manager for IE, warned users in a blog posting that after installing Netscape 8, IE will render XML files as a blank page, including XML files that have an XSLT transformation. What a week for Netscape 8.0; first the browser needed several fixes hours after its release, then it was discovered that without IE installed, Netscape 8.0 will not install, and now IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work."

Comments

Does anyone use it?

[coop0030]

I haven't tried out Netscape 8.0 (Firefox is fine with me for now), but what are some reasons people are switching to Netscape 8.0?

Does anyone have any stats on how many people are even using it? What are the website statistics showing?

To me this sounds like Netscape ran into a "too little, too late" situation with their newest iteration of their browser.

Re:Does anyone use it?

[Will2k_is_here]

I work the helpdesk part time at my University.

Users have used Netscape since NS 4 days. They don't feel comfortable trying anything else. NS7.2 tells them they have an outdated browser so they just upgrade. That's why they download it.

Re:Does anyone use it?

[McGiraf]

I see no reason to use netscape since mozilla came out and now i use firefox.

I think Netscape it just mozilla a few (minor) versions back + netstcape "branding" modifications.

But i could be wrong, I did not used it in a while, I have note even seen it installed anywhere.

I'm wondering why they even bother to release it instead of promoting mozilla and/or firefox, seems like a waste of energy to me.

Re:Does anyone use it?

[mrbcs]

Agreed. I still use Netscape 7.2 on a win98 box because firefox seems to crash on me quite a bit. Gonna try updating the os to something a little more current and try again.

I tried the mistake called Netscape 8 the other day. It didn't last an hour. Back in the old days.. I used netscape 4.08 for years because it was the only one that was stable for me. I actually still use it a bit now and again, but it has tons of problems now.

Re:Does anyone use it?

[jeff_schiller]

http://www.mcomi.com/EN/17/technologies/softdev.ht ml "Netscape had used Mercurial for a smaller project in the past, and based on that positive experience, chose them as a development partner for the Netscape 8.0 browser release. They did an excellent job, working under short deadlines and with complex requirements. Mercurial was a source of product innovation, as well as an excellent development shop. As a result of this experience, a number of other divisions of AOL are contracting with Mercurial for further work." Jeremy Liew, GM, Netscape.com (a division of AOL)

I guess Jeremy is now thinking "where's that Backspace button?"

Re:Does anyone use it?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I'm afraid it's worse than simply "a waste of time". Apparently, Netscape 8 incorporates the IE rendering engine, and uses it by default for "trusted" sites. This is a seditious act by AOL to tie the Netscape brand to the Windows platform, and shits on the web standards the Mozilla team has worked so hard to support.

Now that Netscape 8 has been shown to corrupt IE installations, Microsoft can make statements about how alternative browsers are a security issue. Thanks a lot AOL. Netscape would be better off dead and buried.

Re:Does anyone use it?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

They're just trying to address one of the major complaints that people have had about non-IE browsers.

The complaint that it's not IE? Why even bother then, everyone capable of running IE (Windows users) already have it. Running IE with a different skin is no different than firing up iexplore.exe.

Since you didn't grok my comment about web standards, I assume you're not a developer. Here's the deal: IE is not very good at supporting web standards like CSS, PNG, etc. It also encourages sloppy markup. By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code. At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.

Even with Firefox having a 10% marketshare, there is still the entrenched concept of there being two browsers: IE & Netscape. What happens when Netscape has, essentially, become just another IE wrapper? Nothing good can come of this.

Remember the deals AOL made in the past to keep their icon in the Windows default install. I sense something similar is afoot.

You're outta here!

[TripMaster Monkey]

1. Netscape browser needed several fixes hours after its release.
   
2. Netscape browser will not install unless IE is installed.
   
3. Installation of Netscape breaks IE.
   

Back in the day, I was a big Netscape fan, and I waas really hoping that this new release would bring them back as a player, but enough is enough, guys. Three strikes, and you are OUT.

One more thing...
<zealot>
Firefox rules...IE sucks...let's fight!
</zealot>

^_^

Re:You're outta here!

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

You're thinking that Netscape 8 breaking IE is a flaw, while it's clearly a feature. Hence, #3 is not a strike, it's a home-run.

Finally, IE the way I want it.

[yotto]

*IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work.* /me runs out to install Netscape 8.

Un(evil)

[xbhatti]

Having a hard time. Who is evil here?

Re:Selective Slashdot Acceptance

[TommydCat]

If I recall correctly, your submission came up as a blank screen...

And you're too slow!

[Spy der Mann]

I stopped using Netscape after AOL bought it! Kept using NS4.7 (and later IE), until Firefox appeared.

Repeat after me: Netscape, Is, Now, Just, A, Brand.

Re:And you're too slow!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're the jerk that makes my boss require me to make netscape 4.7 compatible web pages. :p

So it breaks IE????

[darkonc]

I think I'll just quietly install NS8 on all of my clients' boxes before they fix this 'feature'.
No need to tell them about it, though... Just leave them using Firefox.

Microsoft did the same thing with IE 4.0

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new. When IE 4.0 first came out for Windows 95 and NT in 1997, it broke Netscape so it would not run at all. Even worse, if you attempted to uninstall IE, then NOTHING on the PC would function. Nothing short of a reformat would fix the mess. For this reason (and others) I vowed to never allow IE to infect any PC I care about.

It's amazing how quickly everyone forgets the IE 4 chaos....

Sounds like yet another...

[Anonymous Coward]

instance where an arbitrary and totally meaningless deadline for launch wrecked havoc on software.

Releasing Netscape based on Firefox 1.03 after 1.04 was available with important security fixes was completely idiotic if a key differentiator of Netscape is supposed to be superior security!

And then releasing an updated version within 24 hours based on 1.04 to show the world they could simply have delayed the initial launch by a day in the first place proved their mismanagement (any excuse about changing to 1.04 being complex and delaying the launch too much went out the window).

Now their bragging rights about being able to switch betweeen IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?

Not Netscape-specific but for software in general...Managers, get a clue, if you don't like deadlines given by engineers then remove features until they can provide timeframes that are acceptable. And you engineers that are too cowardly to say "No, that cannot be done by that time unless we eliminate/postpone some of the requirements" get some balls.

Could it be true?

[jeffphil]

!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN :)

just some info...

[Run4yourlives]

the New netscape is owned by AOL, and really has nothign to do with Mozilla... that connection has long ago been severed.

I lot of folk in this thread seem not to realize that.

The biggest unanswered question is...

[guttergod]

If it already is broken, do you *really* break it?

Re:robust opsys layout and design - ayup

[gunnk]

You *could* screw up a *nix system with a bad installer, but it is harder to do for a couple of reasons:

1 -- you usually only need to run the installer as root if you are doing a system-wide installation. If it is just for you it is easier just to install it in your home folder. Personally, I do that fairly often. I have an updated version of whatever I was installing in my space and can fall back on the system-wide version if I foobar it somehow.

2 -- *nix apps are generally more self-contained than Windows apps. The fact that much of the configuration information for Windows programs resides in the registry is just asking for problems. For example:

If program A uses protocol X and program B does so also, installing B may change registry entries concerning protocol X so that they match its needs. Program A stops working with protocol X.

The *nix tradition of self-contained configuration files avoids the collisions that can arise in the registry.

So again, YES, it is possible for an installer to completely wreck a *nix box BUT it is much less likely.

Smells funny...

[FhnuZoag]

Really, just looking at the Microsoft Fanboys referenced in that article.

"Internet Explorer (7?) is all I need."

"Honestly, the rubbish you [Microsoft] have to put up with... my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7"

Yes, people, we are eulogising about software that hasn't even been released yet.

I thought the point with Netscape is that it is meant to be an IE-replacement - hence the render using IE engine feature. Whether it respects an obsolete, badly coded application it is designed to get rid of is kinda irrelevant.

Obviously, this is a bug that needs to be fixed, but let's not start burying Netscape yet. More competition is always good.

No big deal

[dtfinch]

IE already renders a great number of XML pages as blank, without the help of Netscape.

Gentoo uses a sandbox

[MarkByers]

Gentoo installs first in an isolated sandbox (a fake root) which prevents a malicious installation program destroying the system. When the installation program is complete, portage finds the files which were installed into the sandbox and copies them across to the real system, keeping a note of which files belong to the packages, so that they can easily be removed later.

So although the problem of installing packages without wrecking your system has been solved already.

Out of interest, how do other distros approach it?

Re:Smells like hypocrisy!

[Ersatz Chickenweed]

That's right; WMP contains a search-and-destroy component that disables unapproved AV apps

Kinda reminds me of back in the day, when I was a lowly tech-support person at a small, "national" ISP (we used UUnet's POPs)...

We used to routinely--and by routinely, I mean that they constituted at least 75% of our calls--get a lot of people calling in with the same problem: they could dial into AOL just fine, but their computer couldn't successfully negotiate a connection with our (UUnet's) modems. It would just break down during the handshaking process and give one of several predictable errors.

Well, it turns out that whatever AOL was using in their specialized dial-up adapter broke the standard windows dial-up adapter. As soon as you nuked and reloaded the standard MS-provided Dial-Up Adapter from the Windows CD (a process I could still do in my sleep to this day, I've done it so many hundreds of times), those people could connect to our (UUnet's) POPs just fine. But guess what: if those people EVER dialed back into AOL--even if they just attempted to dial and then aborted the process--it would immediately re-break the standard MS-provided dial-up adapter and they'd soon be back on the phone with our tech support people.

Now fast forward to today, and who owns Netscape? Oh, that's right... it's AOL, so I guess this is just a more modern interpretation of their same old slimy tactics. What scumbags and/or incompetents they are.