Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla M12 Released
Cyrrin writes "M12 source is up on the Mozilla ftp site. Binary builds should be appearing RSN." I've been playing with the pre12 builds all week and let me just say wow. It's getting faster and more stable. It's really exciting to see it all come together and climb out of the vapor. The preferences dialog is really slow, but progressive page rendering is fast. Good job to everyone involved, and welcome to the home stretch.
> Attempt to understand from someone else's perspective.
Quid pro quo. I would for once like the MS-bashers see things from a home user's perspective. From an IT manager's perspective. From a non-tech perspective.
I'll settle for an objective perspective.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
disclaimer: I already know the USA law bans export of non-trivial crypto, and products with "hooks" for crypto to be installed.
Is Mozilla's plugin system sufficiently generic and capable to allow a full featured binary crypto plugin to be made? Has it been deliberately crippled to prevent this? Will it be necessary for someone in a sane country to set up a builds-with-crypto system and maintain a set of patches against the main source?
And what happened to the "cryptozilla" project?
I'm not a web designer but aren't there standards out there? Just because Netscape or Microsoft comes out with gee-whizbang custom styles for thier browsers doesn't mean you choose which one to use, don't use either.
Lars -
This may not be true for much longer with WINE. I believe they can finally run IE, although trying to do much of anything with it crashes it. But they're getting closer.
I don't have enough disk space. The source itself takes up something like 200 megs, and I've found you need at least another 100 to get the build to complete. Not to mention installing the bloody thing...
I guess I'm not an `average' developer, though, since disk space is one of the most plentiful things around these days.
Sigh. I knew I should have bought a bigger hard drive. I'm such a cheapo.
...our problem lies in version number. Who cares is one is 4.5 and the other is 6.0? Linux is at kernel version 2.almost4 - a bit shy of the Win98 4.10.1998 or Win2K. But does anyone say Win9* is better than Linux because it's got a bigger version number? Heck no - Linux has demonstrated marked superiority way back. Kernel developers only look to versioning for their own benefit - not to impress the market and generate sales. Netscape/Mozilla would be smart to do so as well. A great product at version 2 will always beat a crappy product at version 5. The ONLY reason the public looks to version numbers as a deciding factor on who's further along is because the industry fed them that idea. Both M$ and Netscape became so interested in beating each other's version number that they threw quality out the window in favor of cheap and unstable gimicks. That's why there had to be a Mozilla in the first place - Netscape sucks. But then IE sucks more. Hopefully, the guys at Mozilla can weed out all the crap and reformulate a real web browser that doesn't pander to such petty and assinine competition as version numbers. I admire how Linux follows a meticulous versioning scheme and sticks to it regardless of what anyone else is doing. It seems everyone else looks at their competition and alters their versioning to compete with them. That breeds confusion and ultimately a crappy product and poor customer confidence. Now if we can just get back to conforming to standards, we can end this browser war crap and choose one or the other over preference and quality rather than being forced to use one or the other due to some proprietory feature. Okay, where'd this soapbox come from?
That way, you can turn features off to save size. Mark
IE is not "just a COM component", it is a compilation of many COM components which can be reused very easily (that's why the executable is so small for such a large program). Anyone can incorporate a fully featured HTML viewer in their application, and, they can use that same component from several different languagues. This binary reusability is important, because it means a VB developer can use the spell checking from Word or the HTML viewer from IE, both of which are most likely written in C++. Now, the VB developer can do what they do best (drag little boxes around on pretty forms) and the C++ programmers can do the heavy work.
I'm not saying that Mozilla isn't reusable or anything like that, but you do have to give Microsoft credit for COM, which is really a very nice solution to a difficult problem (OLE and cross language component building).
My other
OK, I'll post the URL for adzapper since I just looked it up.
http://www.halcyon.com/adamf/adzapper/
Right on. What Netscape fans need to realize is that many of the IE-only sites will open up to them once Mozilla/Communicator 5 is released.
This is especially true with DHTML and Javascript based sites. (I know, keep them off the Internet, but it can be useful for intranets.) Nobody is writing any code for Netscape 4.x because Netscape has announced they are dropping support for the proprietary Netscape DOM with v5. Presumably, the IE DOM is close-enough to being standards compliant that Netscape 5 will just work (or only require minor modifications).
...the glory of alpha software. It's the only software that is honest about the fact that it WILL crash and be buggy (as opposed to people who lie to you and say it's stable - not to say any names because I don't want to hurt Bill Gates feelings).
The problem, my fine feathered friend, is that a lot of folks prefer to download the binary or don't know how to compile the source. Those folks are going to be slamming the server for no good reason.
Or in VirtualPC on a Mac.
Constitutionally Correct
At least in lynx keybindings mode, you can use < and > to scroll left and right, respectively. I forget what the "w3m native" binding has for that. Also moving the cursor around off one edge or the other will also scroll.
DNA just wants to be free...
Illegal HTML should trigger an automatic mail message to the offending site.
You're view of only 'the product' is far more sad, if you ask me.
Would you buy a pair of "better" sneakers if you knew that NIKE was using cheap child labor in a third-world country to build them?
Would you buy "better" lumber if you knew it was old-growth wood from the rain forest?
If you were alive 200 years ago, would you buy Plantation cotton from the American south, which was harvested by slaves, or maybe buy slightly less-quality cotton grown by free workers?
The political agenda behind the product often matters, as you can see. If we aren't willing to stand up for what we believe in, we may as well not be human. Try taking a stand for once, and follow what you believe in. You may feel pretty good about it.
"In a world without walls, who needs Windows" - Someone from LinuxToday
make world, not war
What are you, an IE cheerleader? IE only has market advantage due to Microsofts leveraging the browser into the OS, NOT because it's of better quality. And Microsoft reinforces IE by introducing proprietory standards that have nothing to do with open standards and making sites un-navigatable by Netscape. Is that who you want to support? The bully on the block? Hey, Netscape sucks too - they both suck. I feel like I'm in a voting booth at a presidential election trying to figure which candidate I hate less. Only by a strict conformance to the standards and open submission of new technology to a central, impartial standards commitee rather than aggressive implimentation sans a standards commitee can the consumer be fairly treated. But, oh no, that would mean each of the competitors would have to actually compete by making a better product than by leveraging cunsumers. We can't have that, can we? We can only hope that a proliferation of open source and standards conforming browsers will saturate the market and push crap like IE out of competition or force IE to actually conform. Likewise to Netscape. I make a living solving peoples IE problems and ultimately converting them to Netscape as the lessor of two evils. But both are evil and self serving and sans any consideration for the consumer. Both are more interested in one-upping each other with unstable gimmicks, proprietory standards and version numbers than actually producing something that impartially serves the needs of the consumer. The internet is supposed to be open, but nowadays Netscape browsers can't navigate IE sites and vice-versa in some instances - lines have been drawn and have reduced the internet to a war-zone. If it continues, people will get disgusted and go back to watching television instead. Maybe that's what we need - a vast exodus from the internet.
Clue: the size of the binary is what's important. ( though I suspect that Mozilla isn't that small )
Answers:
1. Because diffs are a pain in the ass for a product in continuous development. Perhaps if you volunteer to write a script they can stick in their automated build, they'll support it, otherwise use CVS to get updates.
2. Crypto is regulated by the stupid US export control laws. It's highly likely that someone familiar with SSLeay or another free crypto library will retrofit it to Mozilla when it's sufficiently stable to do so.
So what happens when AOL/Netscape decide to take mozilla and roll it into a big happy Netscape 5?
Oh well, it will be nice to see IE have some decent competition again.
--WooooHoooo--
other than the name calling, i agree. most linux users want the most out of the programs on thier box, and they have that ability. "./configure; make; make install" is so easy, and it lets you build it on your own system with your own compiler, most binary releases are 386 optimized for widespread compatibility, a user can say, use pgcc and a pentium class processor and get noticable speed increases using his own home-rolled binary. the use of rpm's has made it easy for users to install binary only stuff, i remember the day when binary only releases were looked down upon, and avoided at all costs!
Lars -
My software engineering textbook (Ian Sommerville)defined an alpha release as the acceptance testing for a bespoke system developed for a single client. Whereas beta testing is a term used for a system marketed as a softare product to be tested by potential users who agree to use the system.... Anyway, any testing release of Mozilla, in my view, would be called a beta not an alpha.
:)
But that book is entirely about making software to sell, as that definition shows. There's no way to directly apply it to open source, since the lines between users and developers are blurred.
BTW, that has got to be one of the worst textbooks I've ever been subjected to. I think I gave up on trying to stay awake reading it in about the second week of classes, so I'm focusing on the lecture notes.
______________________(
Speaking of Opera, a version 3.61 for Windows was released yesterday. There isn't a list of bugs fixed from version 3.60, but one visible change is that there's no toolbar in full screen mode any longer. You can download the update from the Opera Software website.
Opera is a great browser for power users. (There are quick keyboard shortcuts for everything, and commands to do things like open pages in the background, or display a window of all the links on a page.) It also has far and away the best style sheet support short of Gecko. However, the Linux/X11 port is still in development.
Agreed. Although aside from eesh there isn't a way of starting and stopping e sessions, and I've not seen any multiple session management utilities for e (correct me here?) I like firing up Opera and having effectively three home pages, without worrying about WM sessions. I try and stay away from e session management, preferring gnome-session. Who logs out of X anyway? :)
...you apparently don't spend much time on the web - what with everyone configuring their websites for one browser or the other... There is no such thing as conforming to an open set of standards when it comes to the internet, no matter how much we like to kid ourselves. It's one big free-for-all with each browser developer demanding exclusivity on the internet by introducing proprietory and non-conforming standards.
User controlled markup: Opera puts the controls back in the hands of the user, while the other browsers give the content creators absolute power. For example, Opera has the "scaling" ( magnification ) feature , and lets you control the rendering of the logical markup tags ( via a user supplied style sheet ). This together with the small footprint makes it a winner. I've played with the windows version, and will purchase the linux one as soon as it's out ( crossing my fingers that it will be as good as the windows version ).
Hmm, I am both home user and IT manager at different times. I am not a programmer. The only argument I ever hear from pro-MSers is that MS offers support. Have you ever called MS for that great support? How's about a $240 per incident charge? Yeah, they've got TechNet, the oversized, overpromoted, underachieving online help database. Come on now, how often can you plug in a problem, actually get a hit, and then find something other than "this is a known issue." Many people seem to have ignored the fact that, starting with IE4, IE became a forced integration into Windows. I cannot say that I like Windows, especially because of the ubiquitous BSOD, but I dislike even more being forced to use somebody's browser to look at the files on my hard drive. How dare they? As an IT manager, I dislike being forced to use one product simply because I purchased another. How would you like to buy a new car that could only be purchased with a 2 ton trailer permanently attached? Would you like to tow that extra weight around? MS should not force me to use their 2 ton trailer with an already sluggish vehicle called Windows. My opposition to MS, even at a more basic level than name calling, is that their products do not perform as advertised. MS only seems to care about getting out the next version, which is always just a prettified and dolled up instance of the old version, so that they can make that next dollar. Yes, that is good capitalism, but at some point they will be burned, and burned severely, for not producing quality. I have managed to crash my Linux boxes a total of twice in the 2+ years I have used Linux. Windows crashed twice in the first hour after I ran setup. I could not even begin to count the number of BSODs, fatal exceptions, and miscellaneous system failures I have seen on Windows PCs. While IE is not quite as unstable as Windows, and I will grant you that IE 5 is less unstable than IE4 and earlier, I have seen IE crash way more times than I would like. I have yet to crash Netscape on Linux. And even if I got sick and tired of using Netscape, here's the real kicker.... I CAN UNINSTALL IT. Many less complaints would be heard if MS would allow people to get rid of IE and not be forced to pay for its development. Instead, MS puts out FUD screaming about how IE is a tightly integrated application that is a fundamental part of the underlying code of the advanced performance blah blah blah. Bullshit. It's a web browser. And yes, I know, if I don't like it, I can buy a Mac, or install Linux, FreeBSD, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. But what if Joe HomeUser is too scared of Linux to install it. He wants his little Windows box so he can sit and go frag crazy playing his little shoot 'em up games, but he doesn't want IE. He prefers Netscape, or Opera, or even NCSA mosaic. Anyone who sticks up for MS on this issue, which they have the right to do, is just wrong. I dislike the DOJ and the federal gov't, but for once, mind you once, they are the lesser of two evils. MS should not be forced to split up, or disband, just to stop cramming IE down the throats of folks who don't want it.
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
It would be interesting to see Gecko embedded in a text-only browser. Lynx is nice and all, but would it be possible to get "real" layout with text, color (on displays that support color), etc? That would rock. Often I just want to skip all the graphics, animations, and other junk and get to the content.
The Opera for Linux team might have something similar in the works. We'll have to see.
Constitutionally Correct
Considering M11 was almost good enough to replace Netscape 4.61 as my primary browser, M12 should be an impressive sight to see.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Speaking of Opera, a version 3.61 for Windows was released yesterday. There isn't a list of bugs fixed from version 3.60, but one visible change is that there's no toolbar in full screen mode any longer. You can download the update from the Opera Software website.
Opera is a great browser for power users. It's the fastest browser around, lean enough to fit on a single floppy, has so many keyboard shortcuts you hardly need a mouse, and supports more CSS than anything short of Gecko. You can toggle off images per window, open pages in the background, or call up a window listing all the hyperlinks on a page.
There are many features of Opera I'd like to see Mozilla adopt. I'm looking forward to the X11 port, which is still in development.
People need some clues here. Embedded systems have resource constraints and the highest demands are placed on memory use. The memory footprint (code+data) is going to become the bottleneck.
The original poster is wrong because it is the compiled binary that executes. The source footprint is meaningless and typically grossly overestimates the generated code size. The poster quoted above is also wrong because download size underestimates the actual memory footprint; the distribution is compressed to around 50% of the executable format.
Finally all of these are only static measures of the code size and they make no indication of how much memory will be used once the program executes: eg size of data structures and allocation patterns.
BluesPower
user ftp
pass ftp
Anonymous didn't let me in either. don't know why.
I didn't know this. Do you have a reference?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
If everything works out OK, we get Opera 4.0 beta this week as well, and Konqueror is getting stylesheets last I heard - Q1 2000 is looking good. :)
-- Einar
I believe that mail/news was working in M11, but much of the user interface in still not hooked up to the code. In other words, the menus may not do anything, but if you can edit the prefs.js file, you can do nearly anything.
Either way, stay tuned for M12 and later releases.
I think it's because artists got involved. HTML had some nice, simple editing functions, but then, over time, appearance became more important than content.. (if you doubt it, go to http://www.compaq.com and try to find anything....)
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
The recent discussion on what constitutes a Mozilla alpha seems a bit academic now. I've also been trying the recent nightly builds, and stability has been improving rapidly.
My definition of an alpha is when the product is close to feature complete. Mozilla is almost that, and once the major bug fixes are done it's beta time - possibly with M13? It certainly looks that way.
I'm looking forward to replacing Communicator with Mozilla once and for all. Then I'll be down to just two applications that rely on Motif - one of which I'm rewriting to use GTK+ (the moxfm file manager), and another that will prbably have to remain a Motif app (NEdit).
Chris Wareham
So you can totally overhaul the look of the browser and add buttons that do all kinds of funky things, including what you describe. And it won't require any "real" programming skills-- XUL is a combination of XML, Javascript and CSS.
Once you create the button, it'll work on all platforms too! Check out http://www3.sympatico.ca/ndeakin/mozilla/xultu/con tents.html for an XUL tutorial on building UIs.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Next time you decide to post, remember the difference between your totally content-free post and the one above by Nerds. Nerds' post has actual information in it, yours is just flames. His is worth reading, yours is useless and only points you out to be a child (mentally if not chronologically). Taking 30 seconds to back up your statements would have made a world of difference.
Just another attempt to increase the signal in Slashdot's daily signal-to-noise battle.
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
Suprisingly it is pretty small. The packed-up nightly builds which include all of the .sos for browser (with debugging symbols!), mail, news, etc, plus a lot of images, scripts, and demo pages, are about a 5MB download. Do a non-debug build, omit the mailnews libraries (leaving just the browser and some other stuf), and leave out all the demo images/html, and I think you're left with something pretty embeddable.
DNA just wants to be free...
As of 08:43 -0600, source tarball only, no binaries.
There's a bug report in for that, number 18172. It appears to be some weirdness in the XPCOM code, and I've compiled it on my 3.3-S box with the stock gcc and gotten the exact same crash. The code in question is gcc-inlined assembler, though, so it's a bit over my head.
-lee
Is it really helpful to post an announcement like this before it's entirely ready? Yes, the M12 source is up, but none of the binaries are yet, much less mirrored to other sites.
Couldn't this sort of announcement wait until the mozilla.org announcement is made? I don't imagine they'll delay an announcement unnecessarily, and driving traffic to their FTP server prematurely might not be appreciated...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I see your point, but many of us continue to visit slashdot because it reports news as it's happening or before anyone else noticed it happened.
Here's what it sounds like you're saying: Slashdot users are oveloading the ftp servers so that the developers can't get any work done. Please don't announce things before they're ready for to be consumed by the general public.
Does this mean that slashdot community is no longer the developer community?
maybe slashdot is now where all the journalists of the world come to get an interesting topic for their next article or news story.
I have no respect for your HO now.
Wow, now THAT'S cutting edge! You've got a build that won't be out for 8 days! Is time-travel one of the new Mozilla features, or did you do that part on your own?
(sorry, I had to say it)
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
go to the site www.nedit.org. it is _already_ released under GPL. cheers to the power of the Linux user community! -- a sign that we _are_ winning :) b
I'll admit, sometimes it's hard to endure a short-term inconvenience (it's going to be a little while before people stop using NS 4.x and stop complaining about how much your page sucks) for a long-term benefit. I certainly thing decent CSS support is worth biting the bullet for, though.
DNA just wants to be free...
I'm using Linux now -- RedHat 6.0.
Netscape is *too* buggy. All I want is a web browser that works! I use it because I don't have an option.
Anyway, I wanted to try M12, but... it's source.tar.gz file has more than 20Mb!!! Isn't it *TOO* much???
:-(((
Style sheets let people choose to use a page how they want. Remember seperating content from design? That's the whole point of CSS. Agh!
21MB of source! Um... Should my browser really be larger than my operating system kernel? Should my browser really be bigger than my windowing system?
Hate to break it to ya, but an unziped linux-2.2.13 source tarball is about 64MB.
XFree86 3.3.5 source tarballs added together (X335src-[1-3].tgz) ungziped and added together are, 160megs of source.
Mozilla is just a light wieght for what it does. :)
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/r eleases/m12/
User controlled markup: Opera puts the controls back in the hands of the user, while the other browsers give the content creators absolute power.
I agree that the user should always be able to override styles set by the content author, but it is worth noting that other browsers can do the same or similar.
In Netscape 4.x, it is under Edit -> Preferences, go to "Fonts" and "Colors", and set to "Use my settings/Override document".
In Mozilla, you will find similar options under the "View" menu.
Under MSIE, the settings are scattered through out the "Internet Options" dialog.
Nothing currently in production is as easy or as complete as Opera's settings are, though.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
It may seem trivial, but I'd love a right click "print frame" option.
And, as long as I'm posting, it would be much appreciated if there was a nice browser only binary available.
I hope to use the mail client & full blown from home. But a nice browser only for here at w@rk, behind the firewall on NT, where I do much of my browsing would be great.
I was about to say I'm pleasantly surprised, but M12 turned the tables and bit me on the nose. I am impressed so far (on Win98). The speed is good, initial stablity seems good. It seems much less erratic at loading sites (or not as the case was). My main complaint sofar is the interface - I'm trying to tab between text boxes to enter my nick and password and this text, but it didnt work properly. It tabbed away somewhere completely unexpected on the page, and wouldnt go to the correct box that I wanted to tab to. Also, selecting text (mainly in the address terxt box at the top) doesnt seem 100% correct. If I try to select the whole address to delete it, it doesnt alwas select all the text - similar to early releases of KDE's KFM Browser. Is Mozilla using its own widgets? Apart from that, Im initially happy. Running it for a longer period will be more indicative of its true quality, but that will take time. I may try to use M12 as my main browser for a while.
Now here's a piece of software that really deserves the nickname "Krash".
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done. a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp. b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using. c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos. d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily. e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate. Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on! The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
"The difference between theory and practice is small in theory and large in practice..."
Mozilla is too buggy and too heavy. It would be better to restart from zero.
I have used Opera, it was nice, light and cool (although I don't like its MDI interface), but it has a nasty little problem: it's not free as free beer or free speach.
I haven't tried Konquerror yet. I hope it will be better than Mozilla. If it is lighter and has less bugs, I'll use it.
Meanwhile, the fact is that Microsoft is miles ahead of any other browser.
That's all that IE is anyways. An up-to-date crutch to use while waiting for Mozilla.
:-)
"MSIE is great! I used it to download Mozilla!"
Ah, I eagerly await the day.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I dunno. Sounds like the way it runs under Windows on my machine :p
Sorry--wrong formatting choice! Repost.
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done.
a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp.
b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using.
c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos.
d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily.
e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate.
Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on!
The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
"The difference between theory and practice is small in theory and large in practice..."
______________________(
No one is interested in your personal experiences with Windows and "BSOD".
We all know that Windows crashes every second of every day. Thats why millions of people and thousands of businesses use it every say. Havent you heard? They all want to throw their money away.
Money talks, bullshit walks. You sir, are bullshit.
click where you want to cut off the URL. shift-end. delete. return. done.
---
END OF LINE
Could someone statically link M12 against glib2.1 and make it available? I still run glibc2.0 and would not like to break all my applications by upgrading.
Download and install glibc 2.1 binaries in some out-of-the-way place (/usr/local/lib/glibc-2.1/ for example).
Then use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to add said directory to the path the dynamic loader will use, before running Mozilla.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Wrong.
Most people who have been Linux users for any significant length of time have realized the benefits of installing binary packages. I learned years ago how annoying and time consuming it can be to keep a non-package based system up to date over the long term.
Yes, the configure/make install process is usually fairly easy (with some exceptions), but that isn't the point. Installing from source is easy, but uninstalling or upgrading becomes a major PITA unless you have a package system keeping track of versions and dependencies. Eventually, you'll get to the point where every time you need to upgrade a library you'll end up spending a lot of time determining which other programs & libraries depend on it and where all of its files are.
If you really want to waste time, try manually upgrading your system from source the next time a new libc or libstdc++ version breaks compatibility with practically everything you have.
If you want a Pentium optimized system, try Stampede or Mandrake. I personally like Stampede because it is pretty bare bones and isn't clogged with tons of scripts for system admin/config.
Bottom line: If installing everything from source makes you feel 31337, go for it. But the rest of us have better things to do with our time.
I ran into the same problem when I was doing some web design a few years ago. I discovered the hard way that Netscape and IE use different baselines for setting indentation (one uses the left edge of the page, the other uses the left edge of the main body text). The solution that worked for me was to create two different style sheets, one for Netscape and one for IE, and drop a tiny JavaScript into the page itself that queried the viewer's browser to determine which it was and then loaded the appropriate style sheet. Worked great.
Dav2.718
Awww crap! The minute after I submitted that post above, M12 started to crash and has done so consistently since then. I take back everything I wrote above - M12 is a definite improvement but it still crashes A LOT!!!
They are so nice. And dont forget the combobox and bottons too.
:)
Themes ? nah... too slow...
People often say that kde is too windoish..
But what about GTK ? Isnt too motifsh?
C'mon . Am I asking too much?
--How many newbies U suported today?--
"w3m is a pager/text-based WWW browser. It is similar to Lynx, but has several features Lynx doesn't have. It can render tables, frames (by converting frames into tables), display a document given from standard input, and is small."
.jp/~aito/w3m/eng/
http://ei5nazha.yz.yamagata-u.ac
I've downloaded it before: it works well. The page isn't responding at the moment, but you can download it at ftp://ftp.umlauf.de/pub/w3m/
"I'd bet $50 that you run a distro. Pussies like you usually run redhat. Compiling things is too difficult?!? you can't type "./configure;make;make install"?"
A rather eloquent illustration of why Linux will
not reach the end user consumer anytime soon.
Think outside the [linux] box, you "pussy."
-thomas
MS didn't have time to get a browser to market, so they contracted with Spyglass. But when MS "bundled" the browser, they screwed Spyglass out of their share of what they expected to be large royalties.
Spyglass is so put off by what MS did, they don't even list IE as one of their accomplishments.
Source: http://www.kmfms.com/
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
I don't think reading the RFCs is very important here. All that work has been done by the OpenSSL folk already. It should simply be a matter of making a new protocol handler, based on http://, that uses a different port and wraps the network socket with SSL.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
"a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like 'skins' on WinAmp."
You think...
"b) Application developers aren't going to start
building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like
Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using."
First of all, what makes you assume that Mozilla (or anyone for that matter) won't provide binary versions of the Mozilla rendering engine, using COM, to make it just as "easy" to use as MSIE's renderer? They'd be stupid not to.
Second of all, what makes you think it's easy to
use MSIE's rendering engine? It's not just a DLL
that you can install on the client. They are
required to install MSIE in order to use it (which
is why things like Eudora and Quicken require MSIE
to be installed). Microsoft did this on purpose,
of course, not because of some technical requirement. But still... "easier" is very debateable.
And finally -- there is a HUGE perk of using the
mozilla rendering engine: It will be available for
a huge number of platforms and have better standards support (based on what they've said and
done so far).
"Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily."
Who uses ActiveX, aside from Microsoft and perhaps
some of their lackeys?
"IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate."
Now ask yourself WHY they "dominate," and who
dominated the market before them. You might start
to wonder if the tide can turn. You'd be crazy to
think it cannot.
"But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft..."
As fast, perhaps not. As good? PUHLEEEEEEZE!
Who do you think created 90% of all Microsoft
products? (Hint: not Microsoft.) Think "acquisitions, licensing, and buyouts."
-thomas
when will an official stable release be out ?
Because Mozilla does not and is not likely to ever reach the convenience and niceness of my current browser on my current platform. Sure my current browser has problems, but only minor problems compared to Mozilla. Other than that it's stable and not bloated and it actually works on my system.
> 1. Because diffs are a pain in the ass for a product in continuous development. Perhaps if you volunteer to write a
> script they can stick in their automated build, they'll support it, otherwise use CVS to get updates.
I dunno about it being a pain in the arse...It took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to do a diff suitable for patching, and another five for my machine to run through and do it...
who's gonna spend ages downloading 21Mb of source (and one or more hours compiling) when they can spend 20-30 minutes downloading a 5Mb binary that's ready to use out of the box? (lets also not forget the disk space requirements for compilation, memory requirements, etc...)
not everyone is interested enough in mozilla to do all this.
A few of my friends and I have been wondering how to compile mozilla and get the icons at the top, the mail client, the right-click menu, etc. When compiling mozilla we can only seem to get a base, skeleton browser which isnt something we want to use on a daily basis...
I'm sure a few people are wonedring this besides me...
Geoff
I would like to say -- "Get a clue" :)
Although the complete source code package has a size of 21 meg, this includes a lot of stuff. It includes all the OS specific trees, e-mail, editor, newsreader, front-ends. Embedded applications won't need nearly all that code. Probably only need gecko, and a few other modules, and gecko is under 2 meg.
So, what do you think *does* compete in the embedded market now? If you say IE, I'll scream...
-BrentDefinitely! I won't be using Mozilla much until I can either do that or disable image loading entirely. And no, I also haven't been able to get Mozilla (19991214.M12pre) to work with junkbuster, either.
Actually, I think on browsers there ought to be separate, one-click buttons, which will either disable animated .gifs, or disable image loading. I don't want to have to descend through 3 levels of hierarchical menus to change these settings.
Well, this is the first Mozilla build that I have been able to use to post to Slashdot. It was giving me a little trouble a minute ago, but now it seems OK. Way to go, Mozilla! M11 was unusable for me... This seems to have come a long way in terms of stability and usability. I'd say this qualifies as an "alpha" release, personally. I can't wait till it gets that final polish, and speeds up a bit. I must say that page rendering is way better than Communicator 4.7x. That's one thing that IE has over Netscape. Memory caching seems good, too... Netscape has a horrible caching engine, it seems. Anyway, I hope this becomes the fast, stable, Open Source browser I have been dreaming of! Go Mozilla!
The important thing right now is to get as many developers as possible building the source. If you're a developer and you're just downloading the binaries and maybe sending in the odd bug report, you're kind of wasting your talent don't you think?
You know, I'd love to contribute code to Mozilla, but I'm currently bound by an Intellectual Property agreement that does not leave me free to work on Open Source projects at will. I'd like to see this changed, but you know how lawyers are...
As for getting developers to build the source, it's too late to be helpful for M12. If you want to provide valuable feedback for the M12 milestone (or any other), you should be building the source from CVS or nightly snapshots. After they post the final M12 source (as they appear to have), your build results are of limited value -- they would have to be fixed in M13, not in M12.
As such, what purpose is served by slamming the FTP servers to grab the sources, especially when most people want the binaries? Granted, it's better to build the source yourself and debug problems, but if you're looking for binaries, an early announce of M12 when only sources are available doesn't really help anyone.
And if you are building the sources and helping directly, chances are you would have noticed this without Slashdot's help.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
No. The announcement can't wait until there are binaries. *ANYONE* can generate binaries from the source.
Why wait for binaries to make an announcement?
What platforms do you think we should wait until binaries exist for before something is announced? If there's no unixware binary or no intel solaris binary or no sparc linux binary, should we wait?
Why wait for a webmaster to update a website when the files are on ftp?
I'm suggesting not posting an announce of "Mozilla M12 Released" when the release isn't finished yet. While the source code is up, the full release includes binaries for several platforms. Finding bugs in this source release wouldn't help M12 binaries much if this is the final cut.
Believe it or not, there are many people who would rather download the binaries because they don't have the time to build and debug it themselves, but they still want to be involved and report bugs if they find any.
When an announcement comes from Mozilla.org that the release is ready, then the announcement should be posted. Posting it earlier only drives load to the FTP servers by people hoping the binaries will appear any second. (Note that ftp.mozilla.org is hovering around its maximum number of users now.)
Methinks it would help if large Open Source projects would send "press releases" to Slashdot and Freshmeat when ready, and if editors could refrain from posting premature announcements...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I can't program a lick, but I am trying to do my part by using the milestone releases and finding bugs. Unfortunately, the last two (M11 and M12) aren't even stable enough. I can load a page or two and then boom, it dies and dumps core. I don't believe all the posts claiming stability for an 'hour or two' or especially 'days'. I deleted the old registry and profiles along with the /package directory each time before unpacking and running. Seriously, I want Mozilla to succeed, but I can't help but dread that it is supposedly this close to alpha and it crashes so much. I'll keep playing with it, but I'm not confident.
Amen!!! Preach it, brother!!! Yeah! Yeah!
God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ --1Thes5:9
There are still problems with some screen updates but it is faster than M11 and finally it's available
as an RPM.
I consider this my Xmas present.
Mark
Ladies and gentlemen in the Slashdot audience, this is why people think we're kooks.
I'm impressed with the M12! It's fast! Not only the screen drawing, but also the GUI itself! For the text drawing, it's really fast. But.. For images, I can't figure out which is faster, IE or Mozilla. ( Mozilla seems to be faster. ) What I don't like about the M12, is it's UI-look. I once saw a screen-shot of the Communicator 5.0. I think 5.0 is better. According to the www.netscape.com screen design, it seems to me that the design of Mozilla becomes the release version of Mozilla. (Hmm.. 5.0? ) Well.. anyway.. if there are skins available for the Mozilla, my next browser will be the Mozilla!
I like Links. Like w3m, it has real layout with table support and color; it also has incremental rendering, background downloading, mouse support, and various other niceties. I prefer its UI to w3m's, but that's a matter of taste.
I found an intresting thing.
Although text loading (HTML) is a lot faster
than the Netscape Communicator 4.7, but image
loading is slower. So.. the finishing of loading by Mozilla M12 is almost similar to that of NC 4.7.
And.. why "tab" doesn't work for move onto next "text area" when I wrote with Mozilla?
M11 works fine with adzapper. BTW, adzapper is much better than junkbuster. Junkbuster is pathetically slow.
Read this post to netscape.public.mozilla.wishlist to see how you could do it in the M8 milestone.
...is that it doesn't render tables to actually fit my screen...on a standard 80x25 console, it doesn't work. The tabes/frames come out larger than the screen, and I can't scroll around to see them.
It seems that one great side effect Mozilla has had is pushing lots of open source OS's hard to fix various problems that they've had. A few months ago we saw a problem with threads and glibc on Linux that Mozilla exposed hardest and best.
Now, according to bug #14676, Mozilla has exposed some trouble in FreeBSD's dlopen() which has subsequently been fixed, making FreeBSD a better OS.
Mozilla is a Good Thing(R). :-)
Let me guess, your a real man. You code in emacs or vi. Well under X I'd rather use NEdit anyday. Rather than having to learn the archane syntax and multi keypress commands of emacs I'll stick with an editor that lets me get real work done quickly.
...
And on the console I'll stick to vim. Loads up fast on the overloaded servers I telnet to. Doesn't require ridiculous amounts of resources and disk space like emacs does.
When I want to learn another Lisp variant (I already know Scheme thank you very much), I may give emacs another chance. Until then
Chris Wareham
Check out bug 17325. Then make an Bugzilla account and vote for this bug. As you can see, the slowness comes from incremental reflow and yet not optimized table handling. They have checked in some new code to improve it but it's not yet optimized.
You can also change settings to control incremental reflows. Slashdot is still a pain to read but it should help with other sites.
It doesnt have the same windowing scheme like other browsers, it opens up one big window, and then has smaller windows inside its workspace.
This is something that I have to say that I just find annoying. Having one big window just makes it harder to click quickly to other programs. The taskbar in Windows or the Mac's Finder menu help, but don't make up for the waste of screen real-estate by non-essential backing store.
My IE config uses one small bar across the bottom for address information/status bar and two thin bars across the top, one for menus and buttons, the other a nice long address bar. Opera uses twice this space.
The biggest problem with Opera is that it doesn't to table background colours (not even with stylesheets).
The nice thing about Mozilla (to get back on topic) is not only that it's multi platform and open source, but it's very configurable. I'm on a laptop with a small screen, I want every pixel of real-estate I can get. The start menu and similar bars already use enough (I hate things that move when I'm trying to concentrate elsewhere, so I've turned all popupness off). Oh yeah, and it follows standards better than anything else available. I had great fun with M11 for a while, but fell back to IE/Opera.
The download manageris kind of neat. All of your file downloads open up into a smaller window that shows the status of each..
IE4 for the Macintosh had one of those, and I'm sure I've seen other browsers with them too. Kind of handy, but hardly a new idea.
sorry, binaries are not the cause for dll hell. Instead, those who decided to use over-use libraries to modularize their program are the ones to blame. It creates unneeded dependencies, which are just waiting to fail. Imagine every application required that it make rpc calls to ~3 servers each. Sure, you save a little space on your harddrive, but would you trust that those servers would always be up and running?
Avoid dynamic linking! Unless its a "system lib" (ie: came with targeted system) or its a very widely used library (gtk is sorta like this), use static linking. It wastes (not really all that much) space, but damn... i'll pay for the larger harddrive to just have reliable apps that WORK!.
Don't count on it. This morning when I checked, ftp.mozilla.org had 9 different binary distributions online, and the mozilla.org website does indeed have an announcement about it. Now it is appropriate to consider announcing this on Slashdot.
Nevertheless, don't just assume all mirrors are up-to-date immediately; not all mirrors have any special access. When I checked this morning, the following mirrors appeared to be up-to-date:
So, I found 4 current mirrors. But the other 7 mirrors sites I reached were out of date. (And many listed mirror sites no longer appear to have mirrors -- the mirror list needs to be updated, it would seem.)
The moral of the story is that mirrors don't magically have the data, sometimes you have to give them some time -- and if you don't drive the load to the original source, the mirrors will work better for everyone...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Here's what it sounds like you're saying: Slashdot users are oveloading the ftp servers so that the developers can't get any work done. Please don't announce things before they're ready for to be consumed by the general public.
:-)
Does this mean that slashdot community is no longer the developer community?
No, I'm saying any developers who are interested enough will already be tracking what's going on, and an announcement like this serves more to pull in people with a more casual interest -- those people would be better served by announcing it after the binaries most of them want are available, right?
For developers willing to make a more serious contribution, let's hope they're already using the CVS server and building every day and fixing bugs so the lazy masses can benefit from their efforts!
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I have a glibc2.0 (I think) RH5.2 system. Mozilla runs just fine for me o_O (last nightly build I tried was last week)...
maybe you should download it and try it out, you might find it just works...
> Next time you decide to post, remember the difference between your totally content-free post and the one above by Nerds. Nerds' post has actual information in it, yours is just flames.
His was also wrong
Off the top of my head, I can think of several components that make up IE, all of which can operate independently. There's the renderer and the HTML/XML parser, to name two, then there's the container. COM components themselves don't even *have* titlebars, that's still a MFC Application thing.
But in Slashdotland, it's not about being right, it's about having information. Any information, right or wrong, as long as it bashes MS. It's not one bit different from the mass media trough all you god damn phonies look down on.
News for nerds indeed. I'm going to have to look into calling myself something other than a nerd.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
well... last time i tried to build mozilla, it took 2 hrs, and then i ran out of harddrive space.. (needed some 300 megs to build) so, for just taking a peak at an alpha program, the bins are much smaller and faster to get.
One thing that has to change in Netscape / Mozilla, is the speed. Go to freshmeat with netscape, and witness with pain the slowness with which the page is rendered. MUCH faster in IE.
Netscape is also TOO unstable, it can be made to crash just by switching between different netscape windows while loading them fast enough. I still like netscape better than IE, but I can certainly see why lots of people prefer IE under Windows.
Hopefully, and this is my belief, all this will change with Mozilla (once ready). With a fast, stable, clean and small (well..) browser, the free OS'es will have gone a long way towards the desktops.
// Simon
Illegal HTML should trigger an automatic mail message to the offending site.
I know nothing about IE so I don't know who's right or wrong. The point is that he put information in his post, you didn't even try. If you had put the info in the post I'm responding to in the other one, everybody would have been better off. The best thing about forums like this is that many people put in different bits of information and then others pick it apart, add new information, etc, to add to the whole.
I think you're right about some people in the Linux/geek/whatever community that it's all about bashing MS but that's not true for everybody. Some of us actually want to learn and while I might not like IE, I'm all for learning about how it works from people like yourself that do know. It might take a second longer to add something to the conversation rather than just flaming but it makes everybody better overall.
I hear on the grapevine (actually at www.nedit.org) that NEdit 5.1 will be GPL'd and the next step is to make it a GTK application instead of Motif. Fantastic news if you ask me - nedit is the most kick-ass text editor on Unix IMHO.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I don't know about Gecko, but I know QNX had a really nifty demo that booted, ran a minimal windowing system and tcp/ip stack with ppp support and a small browser. And it all fit on a floppy. I really respect the people who designed and built that OS.
Don't Panic...
It has the Gecko rendering engine that fits on a 1.44 meg floppy disk. Even my *CAMERA* has more memory!
I guarantee on my small insignificant life that you will be delighted with the new functionality, stability, and efficiency in M12. It still eats RAM like a mother, isn't luxuriant-feeling like IE, and falls over every once in a while, but it's well behaved, significantly more responsive-feeling, and handles far more page/frame/ecmascript/java issues... As an added bonus, the Win32 version can find and use all your old plugins, like Flash!
For the uninitiated, let's run down a few facts.
*************************
Mozilla is licensed under the Mozilla Public License, which is certified Open Source.
Mozilla has nothing to do with Netscape whatsoever, except for a majority of the authors, the backwards-plugin functionality, and the fact that Mozilla will be incorporated into Netscape 5.
Mozilla is quite modular.
Mozilla is completely cross platform. If the OS exists, Mozilla will probably have no problems running on it.
Mozilla is a very insanely complex program, which is probably why it doesn't have a lot of outside hackers. It's not a weekend project, and the codebase is enormously sophisticated.
Mozilla will do to-the-standard CSS1, HTML4.0, DOM Level 1, XML, a great majority of CSS2 (although this is not promised), and the latest bastard variant of Javascript.
Mozilla will not have crypo. That's for binary-only vendors, or your own project.
The entire UI (ENTIRE) will be themeable. So if you don't care for the UI, don't bitch, because theme support is coming soon, and you will be able to write your own.
Mozilla is going to be large because that is how it is. Don't bitch about bloat, because none of the weekend-project HTML widgets your favorite toolkit sports are able to do everything Mozilla does yet.
Mozilla is not going to force any particular Java Virtual Machine, HTML editor, or mailer on you. Although the comes-with editor and mailer are extremely nice this time around.
Mozilla will be a compile-it-yourself type thing if you so desire.
Report any and all bugs to bugzilla.mozilla.com. Please follow the bug submission guidelines. A shitty bug report is worse than none at all, and wastes developer time.
If you wish, you can do hourly downloads of binaries, weekly downloads of tarballs, or up-to-the-minute CVS of mozilla.
You will be delighted with mozilla. If not, use something else.
-troll taker
Interesting. But it doesn't support style sheets, etc. Simple table layouts are nice, but tables-for-layout is something I try to avoid anyway. It really doesn't give the author much influence over appearance in the way the text-Opera does.
Constitutionally Correct
1. It is way, way, way more stable, and is reaching the point where I can go for around 1.5-2 hours without a crash.
2. The speed of the rendering is much faster, the incremental reflow is much better, and can be tuned with some pref editing, and the scrolling no longer has that ugly grey! :-).
I'm happy to say, that the day the stable Mozilla is released, it'll make us all proud. The amount of fixes and speed increases seem to be accelerating quite quickly.
Congrats to the mozilla team.
Please remember to post bug reports too =]. They say on the page, that finding and documenting the bug is half the work.
Lucas
A late reply, so it might nat get read :)
CSS is a big thing - it has the ability to define EXACTLY how things are layed out on a page, etc. This is where the problems lie, becasue current browsers don't support this precision.
That being said, CSS is still GREAT for defining fonts, body colors, etc. All it requires to make changes across an antire site (that might be 200+ html files) is changing it in a single place. CSS also has the ability to do relative font sizes based on the user defined prefered size - That is great becasue it still allows people to control their text so that people with bad eyesite can still read the web page.
So, you're right - I could make webpages that are totally unreadable by people who use browsers that don't support the STANDARD. But, they can be used in a controlled manner to make the maintanence of sites much easier and not impede people whose browsers don't support them.
... that you run a distro. Pussies like you usually run redhat. Compiling things is too difficult?!? you can't type "./configure;make;make install"? goddamn windows pussy.
Still krashes when viewing /... :(
./configure)
./mozilla http://www.slashdot.org ./mozilla-bin http://www.slashdot.org i lla/dist/bin / dist/bin / bin n /home/otis/.mozilla/otis - notes/m12.html
(RHLinux 6.1 X/GTK/GLIB stock, built with RH6.1 default compiler settings and
a smidge of output:
[otis@marvin bin]$
.//run-mozilla.sh
MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME=/vol/0/tools/misc/mozilla/moz
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/vol/0/tools/misc/mozilla/mozilla
SHLIB_PATH=/vol/0/tools/misc/mozilla/mozilla/dist
LIBPATH=/vol/0/tools/misc/mozilla/mozilla/dist/bi
MOZ_PROGRAM=./mozilla-bin
MOZ_TOOLKIT=
moz_debug=0
moz_debugger=
nsNativeComponentLoader: autoregistering begins.
nsNativeComponentLoader: autoregistering succeeded
nNCL: registering deferred (0)
nsUnixToolkitService: Using 'gtk' for the Widget Toolkit.
nsUnixToolkitService: Using 'gtk' for the Gfx Toolkit.
NS_SetupRegistry() MOZ_TOOLKIT=gtk, WIDGET_DLL=libwidget_gtk.so, GFX_DLL=libgfx_gtk.so
initialized appshell
ProfileName : otis
ProfileDir :
GFX: dpi=96 t2p=0.0666667 p2t=15 depth=16
WEBSHELL+ = 1
Opening file cookperm.txt failed
Initialized app shell component {4a85a5d0-cddd-11d2-b7f6-00805f05ffa5}, rv=0x00000000
Initialized app shell component {18c2f989-b09f-11d2-bcde-00805f0e1353}, rv=0x00000000
WEBSHELL+ = 2
Got the event queue from the service
Calling gdk_input_add with event queue
Note: styleverifytree is disabled
Note: frameverifytree is disabled
Note: verifyreflow is disabled
nsXULKeyListenerImpl::Init()
warning: property locale.all.ET_ET already exists
warning: property locale.all.ET_ET already exists
nsCollationUnix::Initialize mLocale = C
Start reading in bookmarks.html
Finished reading in bookmarks.html (139708 microseconds)
WEBSHELL+ = 3
Setting content window
browser.startup.page = 1
startpage = http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/release
136725216 : Focus occurred on: Window with an HTML doc (happens twice)
136725216 : Focus occurred on: Window with an HTML doc (happens twice)
WEBSHELL+ = 4
Gtk-CRITICAL **: file gtkwidget.c: line 1507 (gtk_widget_hide): assertion `widget != NULL' failed.
Gtk-CRITICAL **: file gtkwidget.c: line 1424 (gtk_widget_show): assertion `widget != NULL' failed.
Gtk-WARNING **: invalid cast from (NULL) pointer to `GtkMozBox'
Your Working Boy,
Could someone statically link M12 against glib2.1 and make it available? I still run glibc2.0 and would not like to break all my applications by upgrading. Thanks
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
You probably tried to log in at times when our max users limit was still 256 users. We didn't expect this many users hitting ftp server same time. I raised the limit to 512 and also fixed some I/O problems we experienced with this heavy load.
Risto, Mozilla.org sysadmin
You probably tried when ftp server was full. I had to raise the limit from 256 to 512. Never expected this high demand.
Risto
I have played with the latest nightly builds and everyday they are getting better. Also the Linux version has the wheel mouse support in...so therefor I have been using Mozilla over Netscape 4.7. The wheel scrolling option is just awesome when browsing web-pages! So how many people wanna put money on Opera releasing a beta today or tomarrow? This is gunna be great. Anyway I hope the Mozilla project and Opera projects do well. I sure am looking foward to them and also looking foward to products that will allow us Linux users to create Flash Webpages!
Natas of
-=Pedophagia=-
http://www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Also Admin of
http://loki.linuxgames.com
You could pronounce this as "So web designers will be able to produce standards-complient pages that work with anything.
When we built our College's web page earlier this year, we decided to go all out with style sheets and reduce the style markup in the HTML as much as possible. While IE rendered it reasonably well (with some irritating margin bugs which forced us back to tables anyway), Netscape made a horrid mess of it.
What we have now is a massive compromise with tables everywhere just to make things hold still as the page gets resized.
Every web designer who actually writes their own code rather than using the output of some braindead bloatware (use view source more often to be horrified) has been waiting for Mozilla just so that they can have a reference base to see how their page is supposed to look, before back-compatability cludging it.
If only Netscape/Mozilla had picked up the standards clue earlier!
I would like to have an option or something to stop the animation of banners, like the ESC key in netscape.
;-)
This is why I did not use the M11 Release
But I hope M12+ will...
Not to bash Microsoft for being Microsoft, but they're mindshare of IE is growing terribly fast. Communicator is buggy and lacking in features. They really need to get a rock solid product out the door and never look back.
Mozilla needs to penetrate a market where people are using the browser which ships on their system. Every killer feature in Mozilla will eventually be cloned in IE, and accordingly "incorporated into the OS."
Why do I care? Because no company should control the web. The more browsers, the more reasons to only design standards-compliant sites. More and more sites are cropping up which do not render or function properly under Netscape. It is only a matter of time before people start asking me "It is slower, more bloated, less stable than IE and it fails to render pages properly... why on earth are we still using it?"
Even Slashdot with its massive table format, is much faster rendered under IE than under Netscape.
21MB of source! Um... Should my browser really be larger than my operating system kernel? Should my browser really be bigger than my windowing system?
I have a lot of respect for Mozilla, but I have to say: isn't it about time to fork the code-based into several smaller projects?
It would be nice, for example, if the mail handler were a separate program so that any mailer could (ab)use the same API in order to replace Mozilla's default. Or, is this already possible with the plug-in API?
MS10 didn't run very well on a NT4-sp3 system. it crashed within minutes. I didn't want to try MS11. How is your experience with MS12: will it run for more than one hour without a crash?
Is anybody successful in making JAVA work (on NT)? I tried tonight's build (I don't think it is that much different that M12), copied npjava*.dll files from the JRE (1.2.2) to the "plugins" directory, but nothing interesting happens (ony an applet frame is displayed). Am I missing something obvious here ?
MS10 didn't run very well on a NT4-sp3 system. it crashed within minutes. I didn't want to try MS11. How is your experience with MS12: will it run for more than one hour without a crash?
For some reason I seem to remember around the time they were first working on Gecko that there was talk of the entire browser fitting on a floppy. It was supposed to be incredibly fast, small, and stable. Now all I hear about it is that it's slow and bloated.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
I have to say, Mozilla is looking very nice these days. Can't wait to see it installed as the default browser in AOL 6.0 (are you listening, Steve?). It's quite usable on Linux now, though I still can't specify the font and font size I want to view pages with.
I can't imagine Mozilla immediately killing IE due to the 'it came with the computer' factor, but hopefully it'll at least keep the browser market somewhat balanced.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I compiled it this morning. It rocks.
The announcement was a little quick off the mark - binaries are due to be posted within the next couple of hours - but Mozillazine (great site) has news of M12 binaries for Solaris and RPMs for Red Hat
The speed at which Mozilla has come along recently is something else. If this isn't alpha, then it is damn close. Download, enjoy, and report those bugs!
Dave
--
First of all, kudos to the developers!.
second, a litte offtopic:
There is on feature I want in a browser and still haven't seen anywhere.
I want a button that goes to the main page of the website.
e.g. when I'm browsing http://www.foobar.org/foo/bar.html and I press this button the browser has to go to http://www.foobar.org/
does anyone know if there is feature like this in Mozilla ?
this would save me a lot of time re-typing the adress in the location bar or searching for the 'home' button on a website.
---
anybody else having this problem?
Opera 3.61 is a minor update that provides greater stability and a few improvements:
- Opera 3.61 now works very well with Sun's Java plug-in version 1.3.
- Two security certificates have been updated--see our VeriSign certificate rollover page for more information.
- Cache handling has been improved.
- Memory usage has been greatly reduced. Useage of Windows resources has also been reduced.
I've just installed it now (while using IE to write this) and the installer is rather clueless about the start menu (wanted to create yet another program group) but apart from that went fine. It feels slightly faster, but this could just be a placebo effect, and I haven't done any real testing.The installer is 1.3 Mb in size (seriously small for a browser) and a registered version costs $35US or $18US for educational users. The pricing information for bulk purchases are also available. They explain why it's commercial. Hey, it convinced me to buy a copy - at this stage any decent browser competition is good.
I work for a software company that sells a web-based training package. If we could recoup all of the hours we've lost to trying to deal with and work around Netscape's totally botched stylesheet support...
Is there supposed to be better support in Mozilla? Any experiences to share?
Who cares about binaries? The source is your master. Without source, you're dependent on the same libraries and other sysconfig matters that the people who did it are. Binaries are what got us into DLL Hell and other insanity. JUST SAY NO
I installed KRASH and noticed that konqueror has an Up arrow that brings you up one directory in the hierarchy. Pretty nifty.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Fact is, Microsoft makes the superior browser, hands-down. Just because it's made by Microsoft is an insane excuse to bash it (but try telling that to you Linux zealots) Until Netscape gets off their butts and gets something done, IE will be the browser of choice - BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST.
In Netscape 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0
I think they're putting a lot of eggs in the Mozilla basket, and putting minimal resources towards fixing Communicator 4.x.
Like they said they would. It's a committment to open source. Something we've been asking for for a while.
Don't give them a hard time about it.
Mozilla requires Java 1.3 for it's OJI (Open Java Interface). Currently Java 1.3 is available only in beta, but that should change before mozilla is released.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Whoops(!)
/. or \. (???)
I forgot to ad some HTML tags to that last message...
I'll try and remember next time
() Is it
But I couldn't get it to compile out of the box, even with the IDL libraries installed. However, I did track down a binary RPM and all went smoothly. Still, the memory footprint and CPU usage are excessive for day-to-day use. A couple of pages takes up a whopping 30 megs of RAM! Lots of debugging code, I'd imagine. There's still plenty of minor glitches, but nothing that should be too difficult to fix.
I wonder if Opera will make it out before xmas for a comparison...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Does anyone know if there will ever be an Irix binary for any of the stable releases? There are nightly builds, but I have never seen a binary of a stable release.
Thanks,
Chris
You know, I've never really looked into the RFCs on SSL and https. Is anyone following Mozilla closely enough to know how hard it is going to be to get crypto into Mozilla after the fact, either by licensed RSA implementation "plugin" (ugh) or by use of some compatible, patent-free, open source library developed outside the United States and thus not subject to our boneheaded crypto export restrictions?
I realize that this is a complex question...
I'm sorry, you have the wrong room. The BSD flamefest is three doors down on your left. :-)
Just compiling and seeing if its working, that is at least compiling clean, isn't helpful tinderbox takes care of that automaticly.
But yes, on any release, be it a kernel or a new redhat or mozilla /. should have a 48hour embargo on publishing it, unless they get permision from the maintainers of course.
1. For a 20+ megs distribution, you'd think they'd throw out some diffs of the source so you'd only take about 3-megs from them...not the full 20.
2. Why won't crypto be included? To me, ssl is a core functionality of a browser, as any purchases I make using a credit card better have ssl.
Netscape is horrid with standards compliance, as earlier posters have stated. IE 5, and to a lesser extent 4, are quite good with supporting HTML 4.0 and the CSS1 (Cascading Style Sheets) specifications. Most of the sites I've seen with "IE only-looks bad in Netscape" only post that because their style sheets are CSS1-correct but Netscape has lots and lots of problems with some of the features in the style sheets. You may want to check out The Little Shop of CSS Horrors for a great demonstration of cross-browser compatibility.
what an asshole. Does compiling source make you feel like a big man? Binaries make almost everyone's life easier. You, on the other hand, amke it difficult.
Curious as to what options everyone is using to compile mozilla with, and what might be a good idea to have on and what might not be a good idea to have on. Thanks. "If at first you DO succed what the hell is the color of your rabits foot!"
... is allowed right now. I wonder where people are grabbing the code from, it doesn't seem to be available.
- sigs are for wimps.
No. The announcement can't wait until there are binaries. *ANYONE* can generate binaries from the source.
Why wait for binaries to make an announcement?
What platforms do you think we should wait until binaries exist for before something is announced? If there's no unixware binary or no intel solaris binary or no sparc linux binary, should we wait?
Why wait for a webmaster to update a website when the files are on ftp?
here's how it works:
- developers write code and check in changes to source control
- interested parties check ftp sites or cvs and download snapshots. Read Changelog. Compile. Provide feedback. Repeat as often as time permits.
- developers/testers know well in advance of any official announcement when a new milestone is near *BECAUSE THE DOCS SAY WHAT WILL BE IN NEXT MILESTONE*
- developers announce on slashdot for the benefit of the testers who may not be able to build snapshots, but are interested.
- slashdotters download src code and compile to get optimized binaries that take full advantage of their system libraries and architecture.
I would never prefer a binary for something that I could easily build from source. The only times I get a binary are when it's for an OS that I don't have a nice development machine, or for something hard to build like X11.
You: You can simply resize the main Opera window and then re adjust the smaller web page windows inside the main window, or even maximize the web page you're most interested in.
That's fine until you open another window without the windows taskbar (OK, I'm being operating specific and pedantic here) knowing about it. This means that to switch between pages, I have to use the internal page switching mechanism of the software rather than the familiar ALT-TAB or start-bar click.
Yes, CTRL-TAB works fine for switching between them, and after a while it would become a habit if Opera was all that I used. It's switching habits between different programs on the same operating systemthat's the problem. Opera is not following the "usual" behaviour of programs in this environment (Windows).
I have the same problem with Textpad (which I love using, it's a breeze to use). Textpad at least provides an visual tab system which allows quick switching of documents as well as CTRL-TAB, but I still have to think, after first scanning the ALT-TAB list or the task bar for that other document I know I have open.
Sub-windows and CTRL-TAB for switching are an established part of the user interface too, but one that is used for switching between things in the same context. I consider two different web sessions to be different enough contexts to require greater separation.
I also frequently have a layout something like this (ascii art alert):
+-------------------------------+
|+----------------+ |
||browser1 ||
|| |--+ |
|| |||
|| |----+|
|| |||
|+----------------+ ||
||x| ||
| +---|browser2 ||
| +---------------+|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where x might be a telnet session or a text editor where I'm copying and pasting bits and pieces, or even working on HTML which I'm then viewing in the browsers. With Opera, this is impossible.
Enough rantage though. What it boils down to is that I find applications with thier own backing space to be vastly annoying. They don't need to own the screen real-estate outside their own windows. I actually prefer the Mac's model (apart from allowing an application to be open without needing a window to be operational or a big backing thingamy) over Windows.
You: It looks to me like you're really looking for something negative to say.. especially with [statement about how download manager has been done before]
I think that download manager is a nifty thing, I was just pointing out that it's not a big factor in the decision I make when it comes time to pick a browser for today's slashdot read. The big ugly buttons at the top of Opera, the whole "double document" look and the smaller viewable area on my already crowded laptop screen are the big factors.
Random back on topic. Mozilla won't have these problems. Yay.
Hell yeah an application should be bigger than the kernel! The kernel's not supposed to be the shopping mall you stick all the stores in, it's supposed to be the layer of foundation you put under your house. Same goes for the windowing system.
While you have a good point about forking into smaller programs-- the thing is, it already IS. You *can* compile the various components separately if you know what you're doing, and I imagine that this 'know what you're doing' part will become easier for developers as Moz approaches a release.
I like the idea of MDI for the download manager/saving dialogs
I don't like MDI for the actual browser
I like to have netscape spread between 3 or 4 different virtual desktops sorted by topic.
I generally have a slashdot/news screen with a few windows, some documentation in another, and such, for me MDI would be a major problem.
http://www.mozillazine.org/
I always see a "wait for the mirrors" article posted to every announcement like this, and it always gets moderated way up high. Maybe because it seems helpful. Well, actually what you're doing is insulting somebody's intelligence.
The Mozilla build team is experienced enough to figure out for themselves when to post the source - copies of the build probably went out to the mirrors before being posted on the mozilla site. By the time binaries are available the slashdot effect for the sources will have subsided. They know what they're doing.
The important thing right now is to get as many developers as possible building the source. If you're a developer and you're just downloading the binaries and maybe sending in the odd bug report, you're kind of wasting your talent don't you think?
For anyone who hasn't built it yet... the source download is 20-something meg, but it expands to 130 meg or so, then inflates itself to over 600 meg by the time it's finished building, so you'd better have a nice round gig free. The build takes about 45 minutes.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Browser != HTML engine.
Mozilla as a browser will not fit on a floppy. Various Mozilla technology components, such as the Gecko rendering engine, most likely will.
You don't really think that Nokia, who IIRC expressed interest in using Mozilla on a wireless device, will be using the same Mozilla browser as it's assembled on Linux and Win32, do you?
No, they'll prolly be using a version of the HTML engine, with a new browser wrapped around it.
I pulled down a pre-M12 nightly last week and for the first time, Gecko nailed ZDNet pages properly.
At last, some hope that it will be an acceptable mainstream browser. And, oh, at least on Win32, the XUL widget stuff is suddenly many orders of magnitude faster. Still a bit awkward-looking, but it's pretty much as fast as native dialogs.
It's still months away from being a product, but it's clearly turned the corner. Now if they can work on usability, especially in terms of plugin/embed support, etc., they may yet have something interesting indeed.
It was buggy and unstable (considerably more so than 4.61), so yes, but the bulk of the difference between M11 and M12 is supposed to be bug fixes, so that should be less of a problem.
Other than Lynx, there's no released browser out there that's free of major problems. I use Netscape because I need inline graphics and ECMAScript, and it sucks less than the alternatives. I plan to switch to Mozilla (or some other Gecko-based alternative) as my regular browser as soon as the bug fixes get it to the right point where I can use it and still get all my work done.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
You hate to see a better product succeed just because of your political agenda? Pretty sad if you ask me.
Sorry, but when I read "climb out of the vapor", I couldn't help but think of the legendary Mist Demons on Plateau. (Larry Niven, _A Gift from Earth_ IIRC)
Not really. A web browser is a commodity product. Like bread. You buy one brand of bread one week, but another brand the next week. Nothing keep you using one brand of bread over another expect your own preference. It's the same with a web browser. There is no technical reason forcing you to use a certain web browser. Use IE this week, Mozilla the next. Even if IE had 100% marketshare, it wouldn't mean anything when Mozilla was released.
I agree with you about MS FUD though. They'll try to milk as much from IE as they can. DIE, baby, DIE!!
-BrentRemember, application is luserspeak for cheesy, expert-hostile, overly-menufied bloatware, just as bloatware is hackerspeak for whizbang, k3w1, inscrutably complex, non-automatable application.
I still have a couple of CSS layer bugs open, but otherwise it is super.
The real problem is going to be updating your website to be standards compatible (for Mozilla) and still support older browsers in some way.
I know there is not much for backward compatiblity, so be prepared. I would dump 100% support for 4.0 browsers gradually.
EverCode
I got my source at ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/packages/infosystems/WWW /clients/Netscape/Mozilla/mozilla/releas es/m12 :)
sorry for no html link, i suppose i could look at a little html for that, but like I said, I already got mine
The Cryptozilla project compiled SSLeay into Mozilla. The whole process took 15 hours. Their site seems to be down at the moment but here's a Wired article about it.
Of course, Emacs does do a lot more than Mozilla.
Define your HTML version. If you define it as transitional, the browser will be more forgiving.
ZDNet has finally done this:
That is why their site now looks good in Mozilla.
E
EverCode
peace
______________________(
There is on feature I want in a browser and still haven't seen anywhere. I want a button that goes to the main page of the website.
e.g. when I'm browsing http://www.foobar.org/foo/bar.html and I press this button the browser has to go to http://www.foobar.org/
does anyone know if there is feature like this in Mozilla?
I would love it if someone implements a "standard links" toolbar similar to the one in iCab that uses the properties set in the LINK tag -- there's a "home" button that takes you to the link defined as "home" by the LINK tag, a "next" button for the "next" link, etc.
It's not quite the same thing as what you describe, but it'd be a lot more useful (assuming everyone starts using the LINK tags). For example, what would be the "main page" of the photo gallery at my home page at http://members.xoom.com/trentc/pictures.html? Would it be:
http://members.xoom.com/
or
http://members.xoom.com/trentc/?
Jay (=
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
With after it
EverCode
I just built the UNIX/Linux version and am very surprised/disapointed to find that after an hour and a half of compiling, the entire mozilla directory sucked up over 740M of my hard drive. Is it me or is this a little large for a freakin' web browser?
--
M11 didn't have this working.
FWIW, in the Windows world there are no new newsreaders being produced. Agent and Gravity are in legacy mode and IE and NN have conquered all else. I'd like to try Opera, but finding email and newsreader programs (other than those mentioned above) that work with it is hard.
HTH. HAND.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
No wonder Microsoft wanted to see Netscape dead. Microsoft has everything to lose if the world will collectively embrace a new, standards compliant browsing platform. Mozilla will provide just that, and like M12 is starting to show, offer an additional bonus: it's quickly becoming the absolutely best browser out there.
Sooner than you think, the Mozilla 1.0 release will be in the hands of anyone that's interested, in complete source form. This WILL spawn zillions of of new, Mozilla-based browser version. They will have minuscule market shares at first, but that's when the big players will enter: Computer manufacturers will start making browsers to bundle with their machines, application developers will start integrating browser features into existing apps, big corporations will create custom browsers for internal use.
Each of these new browsing platforms will make little difference on its own, but grouped together, they will create a single, compatible, cross-platform application environment that is based on accepted industry standards. Mozilla will be the catalyst of life in this expanding pool of diverse browsers, and together the pool will quickly challenge Internet Explorer's position as the dominant browser.
There will be no reason to ponder if Compaq, Dell or Apple will include the Netscape Communicator or Microsoft Internet Explorer with their machines. They can and will roll their own, emphasizing their brand's unique selling proposition through innovative, custom features and look-n-feel.
How will that be possible? Luckily, it's a certainity that Microsoft will be barred from forcing their distribution channel (OEMs) to distribute Internet Explorer with other Microsoft products. This will level the playing field and launch wide-scale Mozilla-based browser development.
The emerging new browsers will share an API that is the W3C standards suite, and in this Microsoft-vs-the-world situation Microsoft will witness their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy becoming a public relations nightmare. Eventually Microsoft has to follow suit and develop a standards compliant browser. When this is realized at Redmond, it may very well be that the company will even switch to use the Mozilla layout engine as a goodwill stunt.
Consequences: Microsoft will lose some of the applications barrier to entry they've so feverishly protected all these years. Faced with this reality, they will even claim that the barried never existed. The Open Source camp will rejoice, but only to see Microsoft products grow their market share by sheer inertia.
Marko
Disclaimer: my crystal ball was being polished, so I had to pull this out of my ass. Sorry.
Marko Karppinen
...until Microsoft gets off its butt and releases a Linux version of Internet Explorer, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE IT.
So lick my balls.
Wow interesting comments. So you'd hate to see a good product succeed? I think the only FUD-spewing zombie I see here is you my friend.
They knew all along that cludging standards and implementing their own half-assed versions would make it more difficult for the end-user, but they did it anyway for the same reason all software companies make their own proprietary file formats, etc. They wanted to lock the end-user into using only Netscape. Yes, some of it had to do with general coding laziness, and some of it had to do with not wanting to have to wait for the various international bodies to shove stuff through committee and release a spec, but most of it was classic monopoly-building strategy.
What they didn't count on was MS coming along and being better at this game. MS and monopolies -- you'd think they could've seen it coming.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes