Yes, I have to agree. My amiga was as fast as any system made yet in terms of the windowing. It never slowed up, never ground down. Given that it did what it did as fast as it did it, I can't see how any OS can be faster in terms of user interaction than it was.
Well, I didn't have any problems causing a truly bad slowdowns with for example running DeliTracker and using pseudo-14 - bit playback for 16/32 - channel modules with some back-then-neat visualising genie running. That was on A4000 with 68040/25 MHz...(which I still have and even occasionally use) And of course a workbench with eg. 64 colors using AGA was a very easy way to cause major GUI slowdown. It's not a bad machine for its age, but even a lightweight OS can't 100% prevent slowdowns if the running tasks are heavyweight for the hardware.
I, for one, has yet to be happy with the capabilities of on board audio under linux. I'm not sure if it's a driver problem or what, I've tried both oss/free and the alsa drivers, and I've yet to get any onboard sound chip to play two sounds at once aka hardware mixing. (for instance, play an mp3, and hear icq sounds at the same time).
Don't know about any onboard sound chips and their drivers, but that works nicely for me with SB Live! and the free OSS driver. No ESD or anything like that running.
You still can log remotely and reboot your machine, of course, but forget about keyboard, mouse and video.
Or log remotely and run startx to restart X if losing the text consoles until reboot does not bother you. You might also have some success with restoring the consoles to life with svgalib tools.
1.0 comes out - you guessed it, mozilla still just shows me the blank screen on that page: https://easyweb.tdcanadatrust.com/
Umm, works for me and displays a login page. Can't test further myself, because I'm not the customer of that bank.
I suppose if all you ever go to is slashdot and google, then mozilla is probably fine for you. But to say that this pile of crap is ready for the mainstream market is the funniest joke I've heard today. Give it maybe 5 more years and it will get to where IE is today (and I am not talking about market share).
So you find one page that does not work for you (but seems to work for me and to someone else in this thread) and you judge Mozilla to be pile of crap because of just that? I think I browse pretty much and see pages that are useless with Mozilla quite rarely. Pretty quick judgement...
I have seen all the browsers you mention crashing several times, including IE. Congratulations for your extremely good luck. All of them have also misbehaved at some sites. There's no such thing as a perfect browser, thus it's good that there's choice to find the browser that causes the least amount of annoyance for your particular browsing preferences, be it Mozilla, IE, Opera or something else.
Hell, it makes you feel old when 512Mb is being bandied around as the standard memory size. I remember getting all excited about a 512k(!!) trapdoor expansion for my Amiga, for which I paid 100 quid for.
I remember buying 3 kilobyte memory expansion cartridge with some new BASIC commands (the Super Expander) for VIC-20. I've forgotten the price, though. Anyway, it was nice to have more than 3584 bytes for BASIC programs available;) (and some seriously nice graphics commands to improve the rather lacking CBM Basic V2.0). Funny, it doesn't feel like almost 20 years have passed since that; I still have that machine and the cartridge around, although I haven't switched it on for a long time to see if it still works.
Whew. You could perhaps divide your text into several paragraphs, it's a bit heavy to read all that banged into one gigantic block of text;)
a) startup time is HUGE.
Starts in about two seconds when run at the first time at my machine. For me that is pretty meaningless, because I keep the machine running quite 24/7 and thus have restarted Mozilla about three or four times during the last month anyway to upgrade between various builds.
Then you mention that CSS is far away from completed. While it's true that there are quite a few CSS bugs present, I'd like to see some reasons why it's inferior compared to other products. If it's not, it doesn't do worse than any other product and does not deserve to be the specific target any more than the CSS support of any other browser. What are the standards which it has specifically lacking support?
What does entry e) in your list mean? Examples?
I do not imply that Mozilla is perfect, but IMO as an alternative browser choice, I think that it's definitely not a failure technically.
Horribly so. Opera has a brief loadtime on my Win98SE/AMD 1.33Ghz/256M memory home machine, but Moz takes a relatively long time to load.
Why should I care about the loading time of Mozilla; it's been running since 2nd day of this month, around 7 days now, so the few seconds that starting it are quite much lost in the around 86400*7 seconds that have been passed since;)
We still have Netscape 4.7x on our desktop computers. For people who are not 'heat seekers', reliability can be important.
I think that the MTBF for Mozilla exceeded that of NS4.x last year (that was mentioned in mozillazine or something), so on average it should actually be more realiable...
Folding@home is actually trying to help cure diseases. Seti@home is chasing noises in space. I would much rather cure the diseases personally.
Do you suggest that you know somehow that seti@home may not produce in any case either directly or far more possibly indirectly information that can be useful and eventually applied to enchant the quality of our everyday lives? If so, I'd say that it's a quite bold claim. Yes, folding@home quite possibly provides results that can be applied in short term practically, but that does not make it automatically more worthwhile project.
Why, pray tell, would you try to submit an audio codec to the Internet Engineering Task Force, or the World Wide Web Consortium? Why not submit it to one of the 'really well known' and yet APPROPRIATE standards bodies?
Yes, they should submit to the Microsoft, the standards body that has done good work to correct Kerberos, HTML and several other standards from their initially flawed state;)
You should check out Planet Potion [pouet.net] from Mekka Symposium 02 [demo.org], Germany. This is the winner 64kb intro for Amiga which has an advanced 3d engine, speech synthesis (vocoder style) and lots of other effects perfectly blended together and synched with the music (the music is awesome considering it's 100% generated with code). All in less than 64kb of course.
Erk. The divx pretty much blew my head away. Even keeping in mind that it needs some pretty non-average Amiga to run, it was definitely more than impressive. Although not as heavy-impacting as the C64 case, I recommend seeing that for any Amiga old-timer.;)
Actually, NS4.x does not by default ignore CSS, which is a pity. Pity, because its implementation of CSS is truly so buggy that it's worse than non-existing implementation would be; some things work OK but many (most?) things work quite totally unlike they should. Because of that, if I'd still use NS4.x (which I do only rarely now, mostly to see how the page looks on it compared to Mozilla), I'd keep CSS turned off; like I said, the weird effects caused by the bugs are often worse than having no CSS at all.
To be fair, I think the CSS support on NS4.x was quite rushed job, so I guess it could be even worse than it is.
*spoken by someone who basically gave up trying to get toggling of a field's visibility to work, and are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
Heh. Good luck trying to do that. If the method used to recognize browser is to use the user agent string, changing it to resemble IE is rather trivial and does not need anything like recompiling the software. But I'd rather recommend to first ensure 100% that it's really a fault in the standard compliance of Mozilla (of course perfectly possible). If it turns out to be so, file a bug into Bugzilla (takes about five minutes of your time), be happy with the knowledge that the bug will eventually be sorted out and perhaps meanwhile add a warning for those people who seem to be using Mozilla/NS6.x about the bug, something like "The browser you are currently using has potentially trouble displaying (whatever it can't display properly), proceed at your own risk".
Quite a bit more useful than trying to block everyone with Mozilla/NS6.x and does not take much time to do. Customers with M/NS6.x who see a nice little warning are also probably less annoyed by this approach, I think. Of course, I may miss something and be horribly wrong.
Since there's not exactly been an abundance of actual observations, I'll throw my own: I saw the comet for first time at the beginning of the month (5.3.) with binoculars. Back then XEphem(a really nice program) estimated its brightness as 5.42 magnitudes; my own estimate was somewhat less, somewhere between 5.5 and 6.0 magnitudes but it's of course difficult to do this for nebulous patches of light compared to stars.;)
Since that I've seen it three times (it's been horribly cloudy in Finland during this month!), and only at last week I managed to see the tail faintly. Today weather has been nice, so maybe now I can make another observation.
I'm a bit pessimistic as far as seeing it without binoculars goes for myself; living at the edge of city means some light pollution and its nebulous appearance definitely does not make things easier. (For comparison, persons with good eyesight should be able to see stars of magnitude 6 with naked eye under good conditions and the brightness of comet should be now around magnitude 4.)
And as for Windowmaker Blah Blah Blah -- I used to run Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (112MB, SCSI-2, Matrox Mystique) with all the desktop goodies and object support, and after it finally finished booting, it was just fine for an end-user or webdev system. Linux GUIs on the same box are good for an xterm and that's about it.
Bah, I used Windowmaker and Afterstep with P133 and 64 MB of RAM for about one and half year, definitely with more heavy applications than xterm and the GUI was perfectly OK in speed. The limitations with something like GIMP were the amount of RAM and the speed of operations of the program itself, not the responsiveness of GUI and the same pretty much applied to other programs. I still use only Windowmaker even with this 1+ GHz, 512 MB machine and do not intend to switch to KDE or Gnome; WMaker is perfectly OK for my needs, while someone else no doubt wants to use KDE/Gnome in addition to bare windowmanager
The person is a fool. If he used a slower CPU to do his comparison or ran on less than 64 meg of memory hed see that mozilla is 500% slower than Netscape 3.0.1 for many tasks.
And NS3.0.1 probably does 500% less work than either Mozilla, any NS6.x, IE5 - 6? Compare the amount of supported standards and features; obviously they won't come as free.
Fuel-air explosives don't affect a very substantial area, when compared against a nuke.
Well, eg. the aforementioned small pox laboratory isn't probably size of a few square kilometers;)
The point about fusion bombs is interesting, though. I know of course about their existence but not enough facts to have a real opinion about their long-term effects vs. the fission-based bombs. Then again, assuming that long-term effects are minor, would those be used instead of fission bombs, or would "we don't care, everytone there is a demonlike sick pig, nuke'em all!" - attitude condem the next generation to enjoy leukemia...
Third, which nation is going to attack the USA with nuclear weapons??? Sorry, only terrorist groups could do that, even Saddam is smart enough to not do that. And nuclear weapons will only help the terrorist in their try to present themselves as VICTIMS.
Then again, you are expecting that all terrorists are rational and logical;) Sooner or later (hopefully later) a sufficiently lunatic instance of terrorist class will manage to surpass all logic and try what happens when a noticeable portion of city X is blasted...
But when it comes to deterrence, it's helpful if your deterrence does NOT include weakness like insisting on not damaging major cities.
But my point was that I think usage of nukes can be definite overkill - usually destroying most of the city and causing long-term suffering isn't needed.
The long-term effects of radiation aren't as bad as some people would have you think. It doesn't take thousands of years to make the area liveable.
Well, I think that something affecting people for tens of years after the incident is still bad. And there's still the effect of fallout; it's not especially nice to live near a border of some country and notice one day that someone bombed a city on opposite side of the fence, and now wind is blowing a nice radioactive fallout right across people who aren't event citizens of the target country...
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
How about fuel-air explosives? They aren't especially discriminating weapons; used in something like Bagdad there would be quite huge civilian causalties, but I think (I'll take corrections gladly if I'm wrong, I'm definitely not an expert of FAEs;) that the long-term effects would be considerably more minor and there would still be enough heat to roast quite a few viruses or bacteria? Innocent people would still get hurt, but at least the long-term sum of damage to civilians would be somewhat smaller than using nukes.
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
How about using firepower that does not contaminate the target area for a large time, nor rise up radioactive dust that does not honor country boundaries much and so on? That's what I hate about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ; these will cause longer and more widespread suffering and damage than just to a certain spot for much smaller time. Isn't the point of military operations to harm the opposite military, not their descendants and people tens or hundreds of kilometers away?
Can you imagine wearing glasses or goggles that, when looking at a person, a built-in display would tell you everything you wanted to know about that person?
I wonder how long it would take for someone to create a little nice program that can approximate how the person would look without clothes and run it on the goggles;)
's not even playing the same game, and it's ludicrous to say that "GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop." If you think that, you've never really used Photoshop.
It's ludicrous to say that it's impossible. Not extremely probable, but it's not realistic to say that it can't happen in any case ever.
Flame all you want, IE gets the job done for free, nicely, and without having to recompile. Oh, and it _never_ crashes on me. Moz crashes hourly... (as did NS 4.7 just about)
Then use a few minutes of your time and send bug reports, unless you already have done so? Personally, the only site I've had problems recently has been Dicetales, which will bang even 0.9.8 at the RPG list selection, though the fix has been checked after that; recent nightlies work just nicely with it. The uptime for my Mozilla seems to be about 2 days now, with 9 open documents, so it's not been exactly idle.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I have to agree. My amiga was as fast as any system made yet in terms of the windowing. It never slowed up, never ground down. Given that it did what it did as fast as it did it, I can't see how any OS can be faster in terms of user interaction than it was.
Well, I didn't have any problems causing a truly bad slowdowns with for example running DeliTracker and using pseudo-14 - bit playback for 16/32 - channel modules with some back-then-neat visualising genie running. That was on A4000 with 68040/25 MHz...(which I still have and even occasionally use) And of course a workbench with eg. 64 colors using AGA was a very easy way to cause major GUI slowdown. It's not a bad machine for its age, but even a lightweight OS can't 100% prevent slowdowns if the running tasks are heavyweight for the hardware.
I, for one, has yet to be happy with the capabilities of on board audio under linux. I'm not sure if it's a driver problem or what, I've tried both oss/free and the alsa drivers, and I've yet to get any onboard sound chip to play two sounds at once aka hardware mixing. (for instance, play an mp3, and hear icq sounds at the same time).
Don't know about any onboard sound chips and their drivers, but that works nicely for me with SB Live! and the free OSS driver. No ESD or anything like that running.
You still can log remotely and reboot your machine, of course, but forget about keyboard, mouse and video.
Or log remotely and run startx to restart X if losing the text consoles until reboot does not bother you. You might also have some success with restoring the consoles to life with svgalib tools.
1.0 comes out - you guessed it, mozilla still just shows me the blank screen on that page:
https://easyweb.tdcanadatrust.com/
Umm, works for me and displays a login page. Can't test further myself, because I'm not the customer of that bank.
I suppose if all you ever go to is slashdot and google, then mozilla is probably fine for you.
But to say that this pile of crap is ready for the mainstream market is the funniest joke I've heard today. Give it maybe 5 more years and it will get to where IE is today (and I am not talking about market share).
So you find one page that does not work for you (but seems to work for me and to someone else in this thread) and you judge Mozilla to be pile of crap because of just that? I think I browse pretty much and see pages that are useless with Mozilla quite rarely. Pretty quick judgement...
I have seen all the browsers you mention crashing several times, including IE. Congratulations for your extremely good luck. All of them have also misbehaved at some sites. There's no such thing as a perfect browser, thus it's good that there's choice to find the browser that causes the least amount of annoyance for your particular browsing preferences, be it Mozilla, IE, Opera or something else.
Hell, it makes you feel old when 512Mb is being bandied around as the standard memory size. I remember getting all excited about a 512k(!!) trapdoor expansion for my Amiga, for which I paid 100 quid for.
I remember buying 3 kilobyte memory expansion cartridge with some new BASIC commands (the Super Expander) for VIC-20. I've forgotten the price, though. Anyway, it was nice to have more than 3584 bytes for BASIC programs available ;) (and some seriously nice graphics commands to improve the rather lacking CBM Basic V2.0). Funny, it doesn't feel like almost 20 years have passed since that; I still have that machine and the cartridge around, although I haven't switched it on for a long time to see if it still works.
Whew. You could perhaps divide your text into several paragraphs, it's a bit heavy to read all that banged into one gigantic block of text ;)
a) startup time is HUGE.
Starts in about two seconds when run at the first time at my machine. For me that is pretty meaningless, because I keep the machine running quite 24/7 and thus have restarted Mozilla about three or four times during the last month anyway to upgrade between various builds.
Then you mention that CSS is far away from completed. While it's true that there are quite a few CSS bugs present, I'd like to see some reasons why it's inferior compared to other products. If it's not, it doesn't do worse than any other product and does not deserve to be the specific target any more than the CSS support of any other browser. What are the standards which it has specifically lacking support?
What does entry e) in your list mean? Examples?
I do not imply that Mozilla is perfect, but IMO as an alternative browser choice, I think that it's definitely not a failure technically.
Horribly so. Opera has a brief loadtime on my Win98SE/AMD 1.33Ghz/256M memory home machine, but Moz takes a relatively long time to load.
Why should I care about the loading time of Mozilla; it's been running since 2nd day of this month, around 7 days now, so the few seconds that starting it are quite much lost in the around 86400*7 seconds that have been passed since ;)
We still have Netscape 4.7x on our desktop computers. For people who are not 'heat seekers', reliability can be important.
I think that the MTBF for Mozilla exceeded that of NS4.x last year (that was mentioned in mozillazine or something), so on average it should actually be more realiable...
Folding@home is actually trying to help cure diseases. Seti@home is chasing noises in space. I would much rather cure the diseases personally.
Do you suggest that you know somehow that seti@home may not produce in any case either directly or far more possibly indirectly information that can be useful and eventually applied to enchant the quality of our everyday lives? If so, I'd say that it's a quite bold claim. Yes, folding@home quite possibly provides results that can be applied in short term practically, but that does not make it automatically more worthwhile project.
Why, pray tell, would you try to submit an audio codec to the Internet Engineering Task Force, or the World Wide Web Consortium? Why not submit it to one of the 'really well known' and yet APPROPRIATE standards bodies?
Yes, they should submit to the Microsoft, the standards body that has done good work to correct Kerberos, HTML and several other standards from their initially flawed state;)
You should check out Planet Potion [pouet.net] from Mekka Symposium 02 [demo.org], Germany. This is the winner 64kb intro for Amiga which has an advanced 3d engine, speech synthesis (vocoder style) and lots of other effects perfectly blended together and synched with the music (the music is awesome considering it's 100% generated with code). All in less than 64kb of course.
Erk. The divx pretty much blew my head away. Even keeping in mind that it needs some pretty non-average Amiga to run, it was definitely more than impressive. Although not as heavy-impacting as the C64 case, I recommend seeing that for any Amiga old-timer. ;)
NS4.x ignores CSS the last I checked...
Actually, NS4.x does not by default ignore CSS, which is a pity. Pity, because its implementation of CSS is truly so buggy that it's worse than non-existing implementation would be; some things work OK but many (most?) things work quite totally unlike they should. Because of that, if I'd still use NS4.x (which I do only rarely now, mostly to see how the page looks on it compared to Mozilla), I'd keep CSS turned off; like I said, the weird effects caused by the bugs are often worse than having no CSS at all.
To be fair, I think the CSS support on NS4.x was quite rushed job, so I guess it could be even worse than it is.
*spoken by someone who basically gave up trying to get toggling of a field's visibility to work, and are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
Heh. Good luck trying to do that. If the method used to recognize browser is to use the user agent string, changing it to resemble IE is rather trivial and does not need anything like recompiling the software. But I'd rather recommend to first ensure 100% that it's really a fault in the standard compliance of Mozilla (of course perfectly possible). If it turns out to be so, file a bug into Bugzilla (takes about five minutes of your time), be happy with the knowledge that the bug will eventually be sorted out and perhaps meanwhile add a warning for those people who seem to be using Mozilla/NS6.x about the bug, something like "The browser you are currently using has potentially trouble displaying (whatever it can't display properly), proceed at your own risk".
Quite a bit more useful than trying to block everyone with Mozilla/NS6.x and does not take much time to do. Customers with M/NS6.x who see a nice little warning are also probably less annoyed by this approach, I think. Of course, I may miss something and be horribly wrong.
Since there's not exactly been an abundance of actual observations, I'll throw my own: I saw the comet for first time at the beginning of the month (5.3.) with binoculars. Back then XEphem(a really nice program) estimated its brightness as 5.42 magnitudes; my own estimate was somewhat less, somewhere between 5.5 and 6.0 magnitudes but it's of course difficult to do this for nebulous patches of light compared to stars. ;)
Since that I've seen it three times (it's been horribly cloudy in Finland during this month!), and only at last week I managed to see the tail faintly. Today weather has been nice, so maybe now I can make another observation.
I'm a bit pessimistic as far as seeing it without binoculars goes for myself; living at the edge of city means some light pollution and its nebulous appearance definitely does not make things easier. (For comparison, persons with good eyesight should be able to see stars of magnitude 6 with naked eye under good conditions and the brightness of comet should be now around magnitude 4.)
And as for Windowmaker Blah Blah Blah -- I used to run Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (112MB, SCSI-2, Matrox Mystique) with all the desktop goodies and object support, and after it finally finished booting, it was just fine for an end-user or webdev system. Linux GUIs on the same box are good for an xterm and that's about it.
Bah, I used Windowmaker and Afterstep with P133 and 64 MB of RAM for about one and half year, definitely with more heavy applications than xterm and the GUI was perfectly OK in speed. The limitations with something like GIMP were the amount of RAM and the speed of operations of the program itself, not the responsiveness of GUI and the same pretty much applied to other programs. I still use only Windowmaker even with this 1+ GHz, 512 MB machine and do not intend to switch to KDE or Gnome; WMaker is perfectly OK for my needs, while someone else no doubt wants to use KDE/Gnome in addition to bare windowmanager
The person is a fool. If he used a slower CPU to do his comparison or ran on less than 64 meg of memory hed see that mozilla is 500% slower than Netscape 3.0.1 for many tasks.
And NS3.0.1 probably does 500% less work than either Mozilla, any NS6.x, IE5 - 6? Compare the amount of supported standards and features; obviously they won't come as free.
Fuel-air explosives don't affect a very substantial area, when compared against a nuke.
Well, eg. the aforementioned small pox laboratory isn't probably size of a few square kilometers ;)
The point about fusion bombs is interesting, though. I know of course about their existence but not enough facts to have a real opinion about their long-term effects vs. the fission-based bombs. Then again, assuming that long-term effects are minor, would those be used instead of fission bombs, or would "we don't care, everytone there is a demonlike sick pig, nuke'em all!" - attitude condem the next generation to enjoy leukemia...
Third, which nation is going to attack the USA with nuclear weapons??? Sorry, only terrorist groups could do that, even Saddam is smart enough to not do that. And nuclear weapons will only help the terrorist in their try to present themselves as VICTIMS.
Then again, you are expecting that all terrorists are rational and logical;) Sooner or later (hopefully later) a sufficiently lunatic instance of terrorist class will manage to surpass all logic and try what happens when a noticeable portion of city X is blasted...
But when it comes to deterrence, it's helpful if your deterrence does NOT include weakness like insisting on not damaging major cities.
But my point was that I think usage of nukes can be definite overkill - usually destroying most of the city and causing long-term suffering isn't needed.
The long-term effects of radiation aren't as bad as some people would have you think. It doesn't take thousands of years to make the area liveable.
Well, I think that something affecting people for tens of years after the incident is still bad. And there's still the effect of fallout; it's not especially nice to live near a border of some country and notice one day that someone bombed a city on opposite side of the fence, and now wind is blowing a nice radioactive fallout right across people who aren't event citizens of the target country...
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
How about fuel-air explosives? They aren't especially discriminating weapons; used in something like Bagdad there would be quite huge civilian causalties, but I think (I'll take corrections gladly if I'm wrong, I'm definitely not an expert of FAEs ;) that the long-term effects would be considerably more minor and there would still be enough heat to roast quite a few viruses or bacteria? Innocent people would still get hurt, but at least the long-term sum of damage to civilians would be somewhat smaller than using nukes.
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
How about using firepower that does not contaminate the target area for a large time, nor rise up radioactive dust that does not honor country boundaries much and so on? That's what I hate about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ; these will cause longer and more widespread suffering and damage than just to a certain spot for much smaller time. Isn't the point of military operations to harm the opposite military, not their descendants and people tens or hundreds of kilometers away?
Can you imagine wearing glasses or goggles that, when looking at a person, a built-in display would tell you everything you wanted to know about that person?
I wonder how long it would take for someone to create a little nice program that can approximate how the person would look without clothes and run it on the goggles ;)
's not even playing the same game, and it's ludicrous to say that "GIMP will eventually beat Photoshop." If you think that, you've never really used Photoshop.
It's ludicrous to say that it's impossible. Not extremely probable, but it's not realistic to say that it can't happen in any case ever.
Flame all you want, IE gets the job done for free, nicely, and without having to recompile. Oh, and it _never_ crashes on me. Moz crashes hourly... (as did NS 4.7 just about)
Then use a few minutes of your time and send bug reports, unless you already have done so? Personally, the only site I've had problems recently has been Dicetales, which will bang even 0.9.8 at the RPG list selection, though the fix has been checked after that; recent nightlies work just nicely with it. The uptime for my Mozilla seems to be about 2 days now, with 9 open documents, so it's not been exactly idle.