Well most bugs can be attributed to "sloppy coding". Sloppy coding does not mean trouble for future versions - bad architecture does. That's why Mozilla is a near entire rewrite. It bodes well for future versions.
Moz is currently partially using GTK but it is moving towards its own widget set before release which is fully styleable using CSS unlike other widget sets.
Most of this could be added using Mozilla's scriptable skins so you could you "expert chrome". As to whether the back-end supports this yet, I don't know.
There are plans to eventually allow this sort of thing to be defined permanently on a site by site basis too (post initial release I think).
I'll submit bug reports on these things since they make a lot of sense.
The new widget set is there so form widgets can be styled as per CSS as they should be. That is not fluff, that's an essential browser feature.
First beta is about resolving all major usability issues. Whether or not the font is included in this I don't know.
There are many things like you mention that ppl want, and they will be implemented, but a lot of people who do would implement them are hanging back for beta or release. Be patient.
FreeBSD is not a supported platform, yet they do try to work on specific BSD problems. If you don't like it, maybe you should fix it? How do you know about the quality of the Mozilla code?
Do you think it would be easy to enforce the rules if everyone had one?
> and there are no wankers in the air.
But there would be if everyone had personal flying transportation.
> Planes are adequately separated > and vertically spaced... shall I go on.
I was not talking about planes as they are now. I was talking about a world of personal flying devices. I'm quite happy with the assertion that it is safer to be in a plane than a car nowadays.
> If I were driving and yanked the wheel to the > right at top speed, what would happen?
Depends. If I was in a personal flying device and veered right, I could easily hit people in the next lane to the right. But you're right in that there's no fixed obstacles - though the penalty for a crash is likely to be more severe.
What I mean is that, all other things being equal, planes are more dangerous than cars - obviously. The factors that I mentioned would no longer apply if cars were replaced by air cars. Hence, the fact that planes are safer now is irrelevant.
Other people have already questioned the feasibility of having large numbers of people doing this.
I think what has to be realised, is that we can do this, or some sort of flying car, but it will require at least some computer control.
One way is "roads", ie a certain height and position can only go a certain way. I think planes already work like this. The computer will need to stop people doing stupid things like going into another road. It would also make it easy enough to avoid massive training programs.
Shortly after, we'll get people building titanium roofs to withstand the crashes from these things. =)
I'm not fond of the license because of bias, but you're just as free to contribute your stuff under the MPL, which I think is similar to BSD/XFree, although don't quote me on that. I never suggested you should use the NPL, when the MPL is unbiased. =) I prefer the GPL too. However the existing Netscape written codebase (and even some non-Netscape written codebase) uses the NPL.
I'm pretty much a Mozilla advocate. The license is free, and I find that the most important thing. So it's not the best, but the vibe around the Mozilla project is truly amazing, it is moving so fast, and the technology is so amazing that I help out where I can. Something that Sun could only hope to achieve with the SCSL.
There's been plenty of discussion of separating the Mozilla Browser/MailNews/Editor etc into different programs at some point in the future, definitely post v5. Whether it'll happen, who knows.
In that situation, each of these would be different programs anyway, so the real benefit is being able to use the mozilla architecture for networking, HTML display, UI layout, etc.
Strangely enough, yes. There is already some sort of plaintext editor required for message composition, so the current builds have a "plaintext editor". Whether that will stay, who knows?
Licenses like these are a threat to the free software movement and anything that doesn't conform to the accepted definition of free (ie DFSG or OSD) should be shunned.
The NPL is totally free to my knowledge. It's DFSG-free and it's free as far as I'm concerned.
The only objectionable clause I'm aware of is that it's like the BSD license for Netscape and quasi-GPL for everyone else. Both of these licenses are free. So while it might have a bias, it's still totally free. You're free to not like it, but you can't go around calling something non-free just because you don't like it.
There have been a number of bad licenses I've heard of, eg SCSL, early APSL, etc. The NPL is notable in that is is free. The open source definition was the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and as far as I know, still is.
You can certainly in terms of license terms, but you need a lot more than just releasing your source code. After all, proprietary companies release their source code to other companies... The real point is the spirit, and to my understanding of the SCSL, Sun basically retains control. Just making the licensing terms similar to a free license and adding a clause that closes it down doesn't make you any closer to free software in spirit than a proprietary license. I admit it's something, and there are many questionable free software license clauses and issues, but the issue is still a wide chasm of philosophy between the two. The analogy is not perfect, but I certainly think "close to open source" does not describe the SCSL. I don't think it's even possible to be "close".
Having read some of Edward De Bono's work, this doesn't suprise me. Advertising would be a place where lateral thinking should be valued highly.
Lateral thinking can be as simple as concept juxtaposition, or in this case, replacement of a concept with something else representing it. This is a pretty simple technique, as are most lateral thinking techniques. They don't seem too hard to do on a computer given some effort.
I think it's important to note that these are just ideas that come out of a lateral thinking session, and like all ideas, they then have to be filtered through a human's logical thinking processes, just the same as these computer-generated ideas do.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily bode too well for ad brainstormers.
Just don't use packet writing software with CD-RWs. I've had the experience of getting a blue screen (back in my Windows days) and trashing all the data on the disk. I wasn't impressed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the rationale for not GPLing is that they needed to right to link in proprietary code, eg encryption.
Well most bugs can be attributed to "sloppy coding". Sloppy coding does not mean trouble for future versions - bad architecture does. That's why Mozilla is a near entire rewrite. It bodes well for future versions.
Moz is currently partially using GTK but it is moving towards its own widget set before release which is fully styleable using CSS unlike other widget sets.
Most of this could be added using Mozilla's scriptable skins so you could you "expert chrome". As to whether the back-end supports this yet, I don't know.
There are plans to eventually allow this sort of thing to be defined permanently on a site by site basis too (post initial release I think).
I'll submit bug reports on these things since they make a lot of sense.
Well, do something about it. Test it with Mozilla and file bugs at bugzilla.mozilla.org.
Real support for PNGs is coming. Full alpha is due before beta from a non-Netscape developer.
See mozilla.org for a rewritten browser architecture that will eventually do this.
Netscape are not going to implement any major layout engine changes in the 4.x line. That's what Mozilla is for.
The new widget set is there so form widgets can be styled as per CSS as they should be. That is not fluff, that's an essential browser feature.
First beta is about resolving all major usability issues. Whether or not the font is included in this I don't know.
There are many things like you mention that ppl want, and they will be implemented, but a lot of people who do would implement them are hanging back for beta or release. Be patient.
FreeBSD is not a supported platform, yet they do try to work on specific BSD problems. If you don't like it, maybe you should fix it? How do you know about the quality of the Mozilla code?
> they're actually enforced on all planes
Do you think it would be easy to enforce the rules if everyone had one?
> and there are no wankers in the air.
But there would be if everyone had personal flying transportation.
> Planes are adequately separated
> and vertically spaced... shall I go on.
I was not talking about planes as they are now. I was talking about a world of personal flying devices. I'm quite happy with the assertion that it is safer to be in a plane than a car nowadays.
> If I were driving and yanked the wheel to the
> right at top speed, what would happen?
Depends. If I was in a personal flying device and veered right, I could easily hit people in the next lane to the right. But you're right in that there's no fixed obstacles - though the penalty for a crash is likely to be more severe.
What I mean is that, all other things being equal, planes are more dangerous than cars - obviously. The factors that I mentioned would no longer apply if cars were replaced by air cars. Hence, the fact that planes are safer now is irrelevant.
> You are 10 times more likely to die on the
> road on a ten minute trip to the airport than
> a 12 hour flight to Europe
Only because there are a lot more cars on the road, and planes have trained pilots. I doubt that cars are inherently more dangerous than planes.
Other people have already questioned the feasibility of having large numbers of people doing this.
I think what has to be realised, is that we can do this, or some sort of flying car, but it will require at least some computer control.
One way is "roads", ie a certain height and position can only go a certain way. I think planes already work like this. The computer will need to stop people doing stupid things like going into another road. It would also make it easy enough to avoid massive training programs.
Shortly after, we'll get people building titanium roofs to withstand the crashes from these things. =)
Err, someone doesn't have to be "out to get you" to be a threat to you.
I'm not fond of the license because of bias, but you're just as free to contribute your stuff under the MPL, which I think is similar to BSD/XFree, although don't quote me on that. I never suggested you should use the NPL, when the MPL is unbiased. =) I prefer the GPL too. However the existing Netscape written codebase (and even some non-Netscape written codebase) uses the NPL.
I'm pretty much a Mozilla advocate. The license is free, and I find that the most important thing. So it's not the best, but the vibe around the Mozilla project is truly amazing, it is moving so fast, and the technology is so amazing that I help out where I can. Something that Sun could only hope to achieve with the SCSL.
There's been plenty of discussion of separating the Mozilla Browser/MailNews/Editor etc into different programs at some point in the future, definitely post v5. Whether it'll happen, who knows.
In that situation, each of these would be different programs anyway, so the real benefit is being able to use the mozilla architecture for networking, HTML display, UI layout, etc.
Strangely enough, yes. There is already some sort of plaintext editor required for message composition, so the current builds have a "plaintext editor". Whether that will stay, who knows?
Licenses like these are a threat to the free software movement and anything that doesn't conform to the accepted definition of free (ie DFSG or OSD) should be shunned.
The NPL is totally free to my knowledge. It's DFSG-free and it's free as far as I'm concerned.
The only objectionable clause I'm aware of is that it's like the BSD license for Netscape and quasi-GPL for everyone else. Both of these licenses are free. So while it might have a bias, it's still totally free. You're free to not like it, but you can't go around calling something non-free just because you don't like it.
There have been a number of bad licenses I've heard of, eg SCSL, early APSL, etc. The NPL is notable in that is is free. The open source definition was the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and as far as I know, still is.
Do you often find yourself rocking back and forth to relax? I'd like to test this theory ...
You can certainly in terms of license terms, but you need a lot more than just releasing your source code. After all, proprietary companies release their source code to other companies ... The real point is the spirit, and to my understanding of the SCSL, Sun basically retains control. Just making the licensing terms similar to a free license and adding a clause that closes it down doesn't make you any closer to free software in spirit than a proprietary license. I admit it's something, and there are many questionable free software license clauses and issues, but the issue is still a wide chasm of philosophy between the two. The analogy is not perfect, but I certainly think "close to open source" does not describe the SCSL. I don't think it's even possible to be "close".
To my knowledge they haven't open sourced anything, SCSL is not open source.
Am I the only one who thinks "pretty close to open source" is like "a little bit pregnant"?
Having read some of Edward De Bono's work, this doesn't suprise me. Advertising would be a place where lateral thinking should be valued highly.
Lateral thinking can be as simple as concept juxtaposition, or in this case, replacement of a concept with something else representing it. This is a pretty simple technique, as are most lateral thinking techniques. They don't seem too hard to do on a computer given some effort.
I think it's important to note that these are just ideas that come out of a lateral thinking session, and like all ideas, they then have to be filtered through a human's logical thinking processes, just the same as these computer-generated ideas do.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily bode too well for ad brainstormers.
Just don't use packet writing software with CD-RWs. I've had the experience of getting a blue screen (back in my Windows days) and trashing all the data on the disk. I wasn't impressed.