Actually, Mozilla/Netscape6's support for CSS *standards* (as opposed to Microsoft "extensions") is far better than in WinIE 5.5. See, e.g., http://www.richinstyle.com
Every PPC Mac has such a dynamic binary translator too, converting from 68K code to PPC. I'm pretty sure MacOS 9 still has a chunk of 68K code in it that Apple never bothered porting over.
> As we all must agree, the browser war ended with
> IE on top.
I would agree that IE is currently on top, but why must we agree that the browser war has ended?
There is a common perception that when Microsoft wins in a market segment, they own it for all time, but when Microsoft loses in a market segment, it's only until the next release. (Even if they lose over and over again --- think Palm vs Windows CE). This perception is completely false (think low-end servers, NT vs Linux). It
deters competition and stifles innovation.
> Let's us take the latest Mozilla code, cut out
> all the AOL-related and other useless cruft,
There is little or no AOL-related cruft in the Mozilla tree. The cruft was added for Netscape 6.0 by Netscape engineers working on their own private tree. So there is no need to fork.
> First couple of goals: stability, no memory
> leaks, and 100% W3C standards compliance.
That's pretty much what everyone's been working on in Mozilla for the last several months.
> Galeon is doing this.
No. Galeon is not a fork. They use Mozilla as their engine. They are not developing their own version of Mozilla, they are tracking the standard Mozilla tree.
Netscape is only doomed if AOL stops funding them.
But AOL managment must know that such an act would dramatically increase Microsoft's control of the Web. Netscape/Mozilla is also crucial to any effort to build Internet access devices that don't require a tax to be paid to Microsoft. AOL is very interested in that.
> Netscape employs a number (the majority?) of the
> Mozilla people.
Yes, almost all of them in fact.
This is partly because just about every volunteer who gets deeply into the project and demonstrates competency is immediately offered a job at Netscape:-). This has good and bad consequences...
> all the good work is being done for by the
> Mozilla folks, and as volunteers they're having
> a hard time keeping up with the big bucks of M$.
> AOL seems to not give a damn about putting any
> money into the project to give the engineering
> effort a fighting chance against the stuff M$ is
> doing.
This is just completely false. Almost all the work on Mozilla is done by Netscape/AOL's own engineers.
Mozilla (and hence Netscape 6) are more standards compliant than Opera according to many test suites. This link was posted above:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/te st/results
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Mozilla/Netscape6's support for CSS *standards* (as opposed to Microsoft "extensions") is far better than in WinIE 5.5. See, e.g., http://www.richinstyle.com
Yeah, FX32.
Every PPC Mac has such a dynamic binary translator too, converting from 68K code to PPC. I'm pretty sure MacOS 9 still has a chunk of 68K code in it that Apple never bothered porting over.
Then you'll be pleased to know that Netscape 6.0 is the most standards-compliant browser on the planet, with the possible exception of IE5.5 Mac.
> As we all must agree, the browser war ended with
> IE on top.
I would agree that IE is currently on top, but why must we agree that the browser war has ended?
There is a common perception that when Microsoft wins in a market segment, they own it for all time, but when Microsoft loses in a market segment, it's only until the next release. (Even if they lose over and over again --- think Palm vs Windows CE). This perception is completely false (think low-end servers, NT vs Linux). It
deters competition and stifles innovation.
The browser war is NOT over, not by a long shot.
> *massive* JavaScript/DHTML insufficiencies
Hah. Mozilla and Netscape 6.0 have the best implementation of the W3C HTML, CSS and DOM scripting standards among all competing browsers.
> Let's us take the latest Mozilla code, cut out
> all the AOL-related and other useless cruft,
There is little or no AOL-related cruft in the Mozilla tree. The cruft was added for Netscape 6.0 by Netscape engineers working on their own private tree. So there is no need to fork.
> First couple of goals: stability, no memory
> leaks, and 100% W3C standards compliance.
That's pretty much what everyone's been working on in Mozilla for the last several months.
> Galeon is doing this.
No. Galeon is not a fork. They use Mozilla as their engine. They are not developing their own version of Mozilla, they are tracking the standard Mozilla tree.
It isn't over yet. The NS6.0 release is really just the first step.
> What browser is the best open source soloution
> on Windows
Mozilla. Brought to you primarily by the developers at Netscape.
> it still doesn't conform to the standard.
Which standard? NS6.0 is more compliant with REAL standards than almost any competing browser.
> Personally, I want to see a MacOS X/ Aqua theme.
Dave Hyatt wrote one as a testbed for the theme engine. I think it was never released for fear of Apple's lawyers.
> I do belive Netscape is doomed (which is sad).
Netscape is only doomed if AOL stops funding them.
But AOL managment must know that such an act would dramatically increase Microsoft's control of the Web. Netscape/Mozilla is also crucial to any effort to build Internet access devices that don't require a tax to be paid to Microsoft. AOL is very interested in that.
> Netscape employs a number (the majority?) of the
:-). This has good and bad consequences...
> Mozilla people.
Yes, almost all of them in fact.
This is partly because just about every volunteer who gets deeply into the project and demonstrates competency is immediately offered a job at Netscape
> Every release since the AOL takeover has been
> progressivly worse.
There has only been one: Netscape 6.0, last week. Begone, troll!
> Netscape is one of the biggest contributors to
> Mozilla.
Understatement of the year. Netscape is *the* biggest contributor by a country mile.
> Opra Good!
Mozilla better.
> all the good work is being done for by the
> Mozilla folks, and as volunteers they're having
> a hard time keeping up with the big bucks of M$.
> AOL seems to not give a damn about putting any
> money into the project to give the engineering
> effort a fighting chance against the stuff M$ is
> doing.
This is just completely false. Almost all the work on Mozilla is done by Netscape/AOL's own engineers.
Then something in your Javascript is very broken. Mozilla's support of W3C DOM1 and DOM2 is better than any other browser's.
You should have run the Netscape installer and opted not to download all the optional components (e.g. the 28MB JVM).
Dunno about NS6, but Mozilla has UI for customizing the sidebar.
Mozilla (and hence Netscape 6) are more standards compliant than Opera according to many test suites. This link was posted above:e st/results
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/t
> Netscape is terrible at standards conformance,
It used to be, but Netscape 6 changes all that.
> should therefore be able to only download what I
> need
You can. Try the installer.
> 100% standards compliance is a dumb idea.
Thus speaks someone who has never had to write a complex Web page for a large audience.
> The Opera browser is 100% W3C compliant
This is a lie.
> Somebody please tell me that my code no longer
> works because they actually extended the object
> model
No, they did something even better. They actually implemented the W3C standards.