No not really. Mozilla has an embedding distribution already. It wouldn't take much for the Galeon folks to use or tweak that, stuff it in an RPM and ship it with Galeon. In fact if anything, it's easier to maintain because they control exactly what goes in it rather than relying on the mozilla 0.9.6 distribution.
Re:Why is full Mozilla also needed?
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
If Mozilla is also needed, it is because the galeon folks haven't got their shit together and produced their own RPM containing just the libs they need. This isn't hard to do.
Re:Why aren't there more rendering engines?
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
HTML in all its forms, and the number of sites that break those standards, plus supporting GIF, JPG, PNG, CSS (1&2), DOM, Javascript, HTTP/HTTPS/FTP protocols, plus rendering all of the above acceptably is NOT easy.
Any one could knock up an HTML parser in a couple of days but feed it some of the shit living out on the web and it soon be on its knees whimpering.
The Gecko engine is meant to eat anything approaching standards conformance for breakfast which explains why it's so large. To be sure some of the largeness is attributable to a Mozilla perennial favourite - bloat (inefficient structures, duplicate strings, overuse of inlining, overuse of XPCOM etc.) but the code is pretty lean.
You're right, RMS is passionate about what he does but unfortunately that is not necessarily in the best interests of GNOME. If GNOME intends succeed it does not help it to be encumbered by politics with RMS foaming about this or that and generally killing the fun of working on the project. KDE will have no such encumberances and is likely to storm even further ahead.
If this sounds like an odd stance, consider what state Linux be in if Linus had given RMS control of it. I suspect it would be wallowing in obscurity much like GNU HURD is nowadays.
GNU carries some weight, but there are plenty of examples of projects that are just GPL'd (not owned by the FSF) or use an alternative licence altogther. In fact, GNOME's "arch-rival" KDE is GPL and if anything is even more popular than GNOME.
There is even a case that being GNU anything puts a major dampener on any project, precisely because it drags a whole bunch of political baggage with it.
I know I would have serious concerns about working on any project owned by the FSF.
Mozilla milestones have a much, much lower quality threshold than NS releases. It means if you use 0.9.5, or 0.9.6 etc you'll get cutting edge features but more bugs guaranteed.
NS 6.2 has been in continuous testing for months after the 0.9.4 branch it's based which means it's much more stable.
might be great if you're using some decrepit HTML2.0 site that makes use of it but since the vast, vast majority of sites have never even hear of it I doubt it will be a great loss to many. And seeing as the patch to incorporate was large and had performance issues, there was no way Netscape could have justified the risk or delay by including it.
Re:Netscape advantages over Mozilla?
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 2
Aside from the cited commercial features, NS 6.x is always, always more stable than any milestone including the one it's based off because it's hammered that much more.
So if you value stability over cutting edge, use NS. It won't be cutting edge but that's not too big a deal for most folks.
Milestones and nightlies also have far more bugs. So it's a simple choice, a stable branded browser, or an non-commercial buggier but more recent browser.
It won't necessarily slow things down and if it does it'll be for the right reasons.
One of the principle goals of Mozilla is to produce an application platform for developing applications just like this. It goes without saying that the more disparate kind of apps you have hammering away on this platform, the more robust and stable it becomes.
So if it does slow things down, it's only because it's finding bugs that would otherwise bite later on.
That depends doesn't it? Someone might install Moz or NS 6.1 from a magazine CD, make it their regular browser and then assume that it's somehow inferior because of this message.
It is also worth remembering that AOL is dumping IE for Gecko and perhaps MS is pre-emptively doing this to put a spanner in the works; to stop people from moving from the MSN service over to AOL.
Unfortunately this "technical incompatibility" argument doesn't hold water because both the Win32 and Mac versions of IE work. This immediately rules out any of the usual spiel of the site using ActiveX/DHTML etc. because Mac IE is pretty standards compliant. If Mac IE can render the site then there's a good chance that Mozilla could too.
This might allow people determined to get in (who would be that desperate?), but the vast majority of users will assume incorrectly that they must "upgrade" even when no such upgrading is necessary.
Mozilla is more than capable of handling any standards compliant markup you throw at it so the whole thing stinks of anti-competitive behaviour.
Much though I don't like this, I have to say it has one positive benefit - I don't have to look at their stinky site or inadvertantly make them money by clicking on one of the adverts. I wonder what all their advertisers think of all this?
MSN.com is accesible via IE on Win32 and the Mac. The very fact that the Mac version works proves that this blockage has nothing to do with the site containing controls or much IE-proprietary markup. If it did then the Mac IE wouldn't work would it?
In fact when I save the source of the page served up to my Mac IE here, I can see that it's pretty bog-standard XHTML but otherwise nothing special. So much for MSN.com needing a "browser upgrade".
Sorry, but apart from a few extra semicolons and brackets I think you'd find that writing Javascript is no harder than writing VBScript. Both offer the same roughly the same set of features.
And it's subjective which is easier since a lot of people would be more comfortable with the C/C++/Java like syntax in JS.
Either way it all boils down to this - Javascript (or I should say ECMAScript) is a industry standard, universally recognized as the scripting language for client-side web work, whereas VBScript is a proprietary language that only runs in a single browser. Unless you're developing for that one browser, I see no reason for using VBScript.
Someone tell me why *anyone* would want to use a disposable digital camera that costs twice as much as a conventional camera and where the resolution is so laughably bad as to be useless?
I had been using 9.x since I got my G4 but I installed v10.1 today. My first impressions are pretty mixed.
Yes it looks purty but I don't think it's any easier to use. In fact compared to 9.x the desktop metaphor is just plain retarded. I'm sure there is a strong voice somewhere in Apple insisting the dock should do everything. This voice is wrong; many Mac users like having icons strewn about the place so the dock should not be so integral. I also don't like that some context menu options like "Make Alias" are missing in certain view modes in finder and you can't label stuff anymore. I also don't think much of the Classic mode - it works, but seems to be an entity in its own right with little attempt made to share settings or account info between Classic or OS X.
Application wise, you get pretty much the equivalents of Mac OS 9 plus a few Unix style monitoring tools. No great shakes, everything seemed pretty much to work as expected. The DVD player is a major improvement over that piece of shit that OS 9.x touted, but still suffers from a minimalist UI. Quicktime still nags you to upgrade to pro - a major disencentive to ever use it again. iTunes is a nice new app for playing MP3s.
Aqua looks lovely but hogs CPU and offers few innovations beyond the old classic look. I would have preferred a incremental UI upgrade. I also wonder WTF Apple is doing by "hardcoding" all these colours and that damned brushed metal look - haven't they heard of customisation? I think this hardcoding will bite them as apps are likely to be skinned to look like Aqua which is all well and good until Apple go and change the L&F once more - UI hell will ensure just like on Linux.
On the other hand, OS X is Unix underneath (BSD in fact) and seems a lot more stable than OS 9. I did hang it pretty convincingly once and had to reboot but normally I could recover with the ALT+Apple+Esc. It's worrying that I've had to do this quite a bit during setting the machine up. I also finally figured out to enable the root (because it's disabled by default) so I was able to drop to a console and install a few GNU tools that I like.
So all in all a mixed bag. Stability good, usability bad. The desktop is a major, major step backwards. Personally I wouldn't recommend it to a traditional Mac user unless they're clamouring for the Unix stability. Wait until 10.5 or 11 even.
You misunderstand my meaning. I'm saying "salted the earth" because presumably the purpose of these stego searches is to expose or at least disprove how stego is being used to nefariously hide terrorist communications and so on.
Future searches will find that very difficult because publicity from the first search has meant (in all likelihood) that thousands of new stego images have sprung up, effectively making new searches pointless. Yes you'll find stego but it wouldn't prove or disprove anything except that people are having fun downloading and trying out stego software. In other words, the publicity from the first search has salted the earth for future searches.
Given the publicity that the first stego search got, I wouldn't be surprised if you ran the test again that it would find thousands of stego messages out there.
No doubt a fair proportion of them contain spook words too.
Au contraire, Mozilla is extremely portable, but that doesn't mean it compiles out of the box on some arbitrary new platform. In fact, you'd be extremely lucky if any software this complex would build and work without some changes.
Even so, most (i.e. 99%) will compile with no problems, but there is stuff such as the low-level XPConnect assembly stubs that is platform specific; someone will have to port the existing FreeBSD stubs (if they're in anyway similar) or write some new ones. There are likely to be configuration issues to ensure it builds with the switches in the portable runtimes library and the crypto too.
Either way it represents a modest, not insurmountable one-time amount of work. If OpenBSD wants it, all the code is there. Mozilla.org simply doesn't have the resources to support every platform in existence. If the OpenBSD community wants Mozilla, someone will have to step forward to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
No not really. Mozilla has an embedding distribution already. It wouldn't take much for the Galeon folks to use or tweak that, stuff it in an RPM and ship it with Galeon. In fact if anything, it's easier to maintain because they control exactly what goes in it rather than relying on the mozilla 0.9.6 distribution.
If Mozilla is also needed, it is because the galeon folks haven't got their shit together and produced their own RPM containing just the libs they need. This isn't hard to do.
Any one could knock up an HTML parser in a couple of days but feed it some of the shit living out on the web and it soon be on its knees whimpering.
The Gecko engine is meant to eat anything approaching standards conformance for breakfast which explains why it's so large. To be sure some of the largeness is attributable to a Mozilla perennial favourite - bloat (inefficient structures, duplicate strings, overuse of inlining, overuse of XPCOM etc.) but the code is pretty lean.
This is a cross-platform C lib and networking runtime. It's production quality and free. See mozilla.org for more info.
If this sounds like an odd stance, consider what state Linux be in if Linus had given RMS control of it. I suspect it would be wallowing in obscurity much like GNU HURD is nowadays.
There is even a case that being GNU anything puts a major dampener on any project, precisely because it drags a whole bunch of political baggage with it.
I know I would have serious concerns about working on any project owned by the FSF.
It's not what XUL is supposed to do, it is what XUL does do.
Perhaps I should have said far more annoying, crasher bugs but the point still holds.
Mozilla milestones have a much, much lower quality threshold than NS releases. It means if you use 0.9.5, or 0.9.6 etc you'll get cutting edge features but more bugs guaranteed.
NS 6.2 has been in continuous testing for months after the 0.9.4 branch it's based which means it's much more stable.
might be great if you're using some decrepit HTML2.0 site that makes use of it but since the vast, vast majority of sites have never even hear of it I doubt it will be a great loss to many. And seeing as the patch to incorporate was large and had performance issues, there was no way Netscape could have justified the risk or delay by including it.
So if you value stability over cutting edge, use NS. It won't be cutting edge but that's not too big a deal for most folks.
Milestones and nightlies also have far more bugs. So it's a simple choice, a stable branded browser, or an non-commercial buggier but more recent browser.
One of the principle goals of Mozilla is to produce an application platform for developing applications just like this. It goes without saying that the more disparate kind of apps you have hammering away on this platform, the more robust and stable it becomes.
So if it does slow things down, it's only because it's finding bugs that would otherwise bite later on.
It is also worth remembering that AOL is dumping IE for Gecko and perhaps MS is pre-emptively doing this to put a spanner in the works; to stop people from moving from the MSN service over to AOL.
To hell with them I say.
Mozilla is more than capable of handling any standards compliant markup you throw at it so the whole thing stinks of anti-competitive behaviour.
Much though I don't like this, I have to say it has one positive benefit - I don't have to look at their stinky site or inadvertantly make them money by clicking on one of the adverts. I wonder what all their advertisers think of all this?
In fact when I save the source of the page served up to my Mac IE here, I can see that it's pretty bog-standard XHTML but otherwise nothing special. So much for MSN.com needing a "browser upgrade".
It's a bastardization of the proper spelling. Or should that be bastardisation?
And it's subjective which is easier since a lot of people would be more comfortable with the C/C++/Java like syntax in JS.
Either way it all boils down to this - Javascript (or I should say ECMAScript) is a industry standard, universally recognized as the scripting language for client-side web work, whereas VBScript is a proprietary language that only runs in a single browser. Unless you're developing for that one browser, I see no reason for using VBScript.
Someone tell me why *anyone* would want to use a disposable digital camera that costs twice as much as a conventional camera and where the resolution is so laughably bad as to be useless?
Hi, can you raise a bug on the Mozilla issue if one hasn't been already?
Thanks
Yes it looks purty but I don't think it's any easier to use. In fact compared to 9.x the desktop metaphor is just plain retarded. I'm sure there is a strong voice somewhere in Apple insisting the dock should do everything. This voice is wrong; many Mac users like having icons strewn about the place so the dock should not be so integral. I also don't like that some context menu options like "Make Alias" are missing in certain view modes in finder and you can't label stuff anymore. I also don't think much of the Classic mode - it works, but seems to be an entity in its own right with little attempt made to share settings or account info between Classic or OS X.
Application wise, you get pretty much the equivalents of Mac OS 9 plus a few Unix style monitoring tools. No great shakes, everything seemed pretty much to work as expected. The DVD player is a major improvement over that piece of shit that OS 9.x touted, but still suffers from a minimalist UI. Quicktime still nags you to upgrade to pro - a major disencentive to ever use it again. iTunes is a nice new app for playing MP3s.
Aqua looks lovely but hogs CPU and offers few innovations beyond the old classic look. I would have preferred a incremental UI upgrade. I also wonder WTF Apple is doing by "hardcoding" all these colours and that damned brushed metal look - haven't they heard of customisation? I think this hardcoding will bite them as apps are likely to be skinned to look like Aqua which is all well and good until Apple go and change the L&F once more - UI hell will ensure just like on Linux.
On the other hand, OS X is Unix underneath (BSD in fact) and seems a lot more stable than OS 9. I did hang it pretty convincingly once and had to reboot but normally I could recover with the ALT+Apple+Esc. It's worrying that I've had to do this quite a bit during setting the machine up. I also finally figured out to enable the root (because it's disabled by default) so I was able to drop to a console and install a few GNU tools that I like.
So all in all a mixed bag. Stability good, usability bad. The desktop is a major, major step backwards. Personally I wouldn't recommend it to a traditional Mac user unless they're clamouring for the Unix stability. Wait until 10.5 or 11 even.
Future searches will find that very difficult because publicity from the first search has meant (in all likelihood) that thousands of new stego images have sprung up, effectively making new searches pointless. Yes you'll find stego but it wouldn't prove or disprove anything except that people are having fun downloading and trying out stego software. In other words, the publicity from the first search has salted the earth for future searches.
No doubt a fair proportion of them contain spook words too.
Even so, most (i.e. 99%) will compile with no problems, but there is stuff such as the low-level XPConnect assembly stubs that is platform specific; someone will have to port the existing FreeBSD stubs (if they're in anyway similar) or write some new ones. There are likely to be configuration issues to ensure it builds with the switches in the portable runtimes library and the crypto too.
Either way it represents a modest, not insurmountable one-time amount of work. If OpenBSD wants it, all the code is there. Mozilla.org simply doesn't have the resources to support every platform in existence. If the OpenBSD community wants Mozilla, someone will have to step forward to support it.