Because YOU'VE decided that Taiwan is it's own country, and not a part of China?
Nope. No where in my post did I claim or imply that (you seem to have a grudge against it because you brought it up). This is simply about the flag -- the simple recognition that there are 2 separate government bodies, one in China and one in Taiwan; one that supresses freedom and one that supports it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Chinese government does not govern Taiwanese people, nor vice versa. Yet you failed to realize that.
Although there is an option to prevent javascript pop-ups just like in Mozilla, it doesn't seem to work for me. However, you can still add this line to prefs.js in your user profile folder:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
Remember to shutdown Netscape before editing the file, or else your prefs would be overwritten. Hope this will help for those who haven't been following Mozilla tricks closely.
The point I was making is just that the Konqi team have been ahead of everyone else in their CSS2 implementation
Don't let it get over your head. Just because Konqueror works well for your particular design, it doesn't mean its CSS2 implementation as a whole is superior to Mozilla and IE.
In fact, I can't see where Netscape 6.2 has trouble. It appears exactly the same way as Konqueror. Konqueror sometimes have trouble with the hovering effect over the the nav panel, though. Scrolling is slow in Netscape 6, but at least it supports alpha blending (not just transparency!) of PNG images.
Now, try creating a transparent border around an image with CSS. Konqueror will draw a black border instead. Can I claim Mozilla is far ahead of the Konqueror team based on this alone? I'm sure you'll disagree.
Konqueror was the only browser which displayed all the features of my home page
Maybe that's because you're coding your web page using features that Konqueror supports well?
I admit that I write HTML using Mozilla as the primary testing browser. Everything is valid, but when I opened it up in Konqueror... boy, what a mess. I checked and re-checked my HTML and CSS, and even re-write parts of it trying to get it to look right in Konqueror, but I simply come to the conclusion that Konqueror couldn't handle the some of the advanced techniques (e.g. layers and layers of fixed positioned elements) properly. Needless to say, other browsers that don't support fixed positioning wouldn't work right either.
My point is, if your design only works in a certain browser, most likely you're catering to the capability of that certain browser (which I'm also guilty of). This is true even if you're writing valid HTML; every browser is built differently, and some does better job at certain things than others.
Come on, the test only briefly mentioned about testing with graphics, CSS, and Javascript. Any modern browser can handle that so easily, it's not even worth testing.
When car magzines do a car review, they floor the gas pedal to get the fastest 0-60mph time. They cut corners much faster than street driving speed to test the suspension and handling characteristics of the car. What I don't understand is, why does this browser review treat these browsers like babies? Throw in some DOM2/3, CSS2/3, bidi text, DHTML, and XHTML! Let the best engineered browser shine, instead of fixating on those performance numbers!
I recently helped a fellow CS grad student install Linux on his laptop. KDE looks pretty, Netscape 6 runs great, and emacs handles all the text editing he needs. But frankly, I find it hard to advocate Linux to replace his Windows partition entirely.
It's really the distribution taken as a whole that counts. This includes drivers, program setup, configuration, etc.
We ran into some stupidity when installing Linux. When the computer goes into suspend mode and then wakes up, XFree86 would hang. In order to play games, he has to kill off aRTs daemon to get reasonable performance; and if he kills it off, he'll have no sound in KDE. When configured for DHCP and the laptop is disconnected from network, system start up would take a long time (older Windows also have this problem, but not 2000 and XP). There are a few more problems like these, and they really look silly to my friend who has been a long time Windows user.
I told him a Linux system is a pain to set up the way you want it, but after it's set up it'll rarely choke on you. This has generally been my experience running Linux every day. Fortunately we had most things working and he's happily dual-booting between Linux and Windows.
If Opera can run so snappy and fast, why not Mozilla?
Because Opera can't do what Mozilla can do. Opera handles common HTML and CSS just fine, but if you're pushing your web design further, Opera's rendering engine falls apart.
I use translucent PNG images on my web page, and Mozilla does alpha-blending beautifully. Opera, on the other hand, can't even handle transparency, let alone alpha-blending. Opera also can't switch style sheets through DOM or the UI. It cannot install components on the fly. The list goes on...
System requirement
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
So your hardware isn't even covered by the requirement. However, Mozilla runs fine if you have a lightly loaded system, e.g. a clean install of Windows 95. I was able to run Netscape 6.2 on a Pentium 100 with 32MB RAM in Win95, and it outperforms Netscape 4.79 (try fancier pages like www.msn.com; simple pages doesn't justify what Gecko is capable of).
Your hardware is pretty old. If you're thinking about running Mozilla on top of X in unix, well, you're pushing your computer too hard
You can connect the laptop to a monitor, or even a big screen TV in your living room. Moving a laptop to the living room is a lot easier than moving your desktop.
-the cramped keyboard
Who plays games with a keyboard? Get a gamepad or a joystick.
-the battery life....
It should be easy enough to find a electric outlet if you're indoor. When I carry my laptop on the go, I rarely have to use my battery.
Obviously you never tried the Gecko rendering engine, or else you would turn around and complain about IE. On my personal web page, I have a PNG image with transparent background. Mozilla & Netscape 6 render it beautifully, but IE renders the transparency as white, which looks awful. I had to make an alternate image and use some javascript trick to patch it up for IE. Yuck.
I was hoping that M$ would improve PNG transparency and other standard compliance in the newly released IE6. Boy was I wrong.
The calendar project is donated by outside contributors, and it won't be heavily worked on after 1.0. I doubt if we'll even see it in the nightly builds anytime sonn. Which part of the article says it'll postpone the 1.0 release?
Slashdot Mirror
Because YOU'VE decided that Taiwan is it's own country, and not a part of China?
Nope. No where in my post did I claim or imply that (you seem to have a grudge against it because you brought it up). This is simply about the flag -- the simple recognition that there are 2 separate government bodies, one in China and one in Taiwan; one that supresses freedom and one that supports it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Chinese government does not govern Taiwanese people, nor vice versa. Yet you failed to realize that.
Say what you want about profit and money, but when marketing conflicts the ideals of free software (freedom), I choose not to use RedHat anymore.
There are lots of other Linux distributors who still supports the ideals of free software and open source. They'll get my business.
Although there is an option to prevent javascript pop-ups just like in Mozilla, it doesn't seem to work for me. However, you can still add this line to prefs.js in your user profile folder:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
Remember to shutdown Netscape before editing the file, or else your prefs would be overwritten. Hope this will help for those who haven't been following Mozilla tricks closely.
Enter this into the URL field:
javascript:void(window.fullScreen=true)
And you get full screen! Note that this implementation is incomplete, and does not work with all window managers. But it's a start
The point I was making is just that the Konqi team have been ahead of everyone else in their CSS2 implementation
Don't let it get over your head. Just because Konqueror works well for your particular design, it doesn't mean its CSS2 implementation as a whole is superior to Mozilla and IE.
In fact, I can't see where Netscape 6.2 has trouble. It appears exactly the same way as Konqueror. Konqueror sometimes have trouble with the hovering effect over the the nav panel, though. Scrolling is slow in Netscape 6, but at least it supports alpha blending (not just transparency!) of PNG images.
Now, try creating a transparent border around an image with CSS. Konqueror will draw a black border instead. Can I claim Mozilla is far ahead of the Konqueror team based on this alone? I'm sure you'll disagree.
Konqueror was the only browser which displayed all the features of my home page
Maybe that's because you're coding your web page using features that Konqueror supports well?
I admit that I write HTML using Mozilla as the primary testing browser. Everything is valid, but when I opened it up in Konqueror... boy, what a mess. I checked and re-checked my HTML and CSS, and even re-write parts of it trying to get it to look right in Konqueror, but I simply come to the conclusion that Konqueror couldn't handle the some of the advanced techniques (e.g. layers and layers of fixed positioned elements) properly. Needless to say, other browsers that don't support fixed positioning wouldn't work right either.
My point is, if your design only works in a certain browser, most likely you're catering to the capability of that certain browser (which I'm also guilty of). This is true even if you're writing valid HTML; every browser is built differently, and some does better job at certain things than others.
Come on, the test only briefly mentioned about testing with graphics, CSS, and Javascript. Any modern browser can handle that so easily, it's not even worth testing.
When car magzines do a car review, they floor the gas pedal to get the fastest 0-60mph time. They cut corners much faster than street driving speed to test the suspension and handling characteristics of the car. What I don't understand is, why does this browser review treat these browsers like babies? Throw in some DOM2/3, CSS2/3, bidi text, DHTML, and XHTML! Let the best engineered browser shine, instead of fixating on those performance numbers!
I recently helped a fellow CS grad student install Linux on his laptop. KDE looks pretty, Netscape 6 runs great, and emacs handles all the text editing he needs. But frankly, I find it hard to advocate Linux to replace his Windows partition entirely.
It's really the distribution taken as a whole that counts. This includes drivers, program setup, configuration, etc.
We ran into some stupidity when installing Linux. When the computer goes into suspend mode and then wakes up, XFree86 would hang. In order to play games, he has to kill off aRTs daemon to get reasonable performance; and if he kills it off, he'll have no sound in KDE. When configured for DHCP and the laptop is disconnected from network, system start up would take a long time (older Windows also have this problem, but not 2000 and XP). There are a few more problems like these, and they really look silly to my friend who has been a long time Windows user.
I told him a Linux system is a pain to set up the way you want it, but after it's set up it'll rarely choke on you. This has generally been my experience running Linux every day. Fortunately we had most things working and he's happily dual-booting between Linux and Windows.
If Opera can run so snappy and fast, why not Mozilla?
Because Opera can't do what Mozilla can do. Opera handles common HTML and CSS just fine, but if you're pushing your web design further, Opera's rendering engine falls apart.
I use translucent PNG images on my web page, and Mozilla does alpha-blending beautifully. Opera, on the other hand, can't even handle transparency, let alone alpha-blending. Opera also can't switch style sheets through DOM or the UI. It cannot install components on the fly. The list goes on...
From the release note,
System requirement
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
So your hardware isn't even covered by the requirement. However, Mozilla runs fine if you have a lightly loaded system, e.g. a clean install of Windows 95. I was able to run Netscape 6.2 on a Pentium 100 with 32MB RAM in Win95, and it outperforms Netscape 4.79 (try fancier pages like www.msn.com; simple pages doesn't justify what Gecko is capable of).
Your hardware is pretty old. If you're thinking about running Mozilla on top of X in unix, well, you're pushing your computer too hard
-the small screen
You can connect the laptop to a monitor, or even a big screen TV in your living room. Moving a laptop to the living room is a lot easier than moving your desktop.
-the cramped keyboard
Who plays games with a keyboard? Get a gamepad or a joystick.
-the battery life....
It should be easy enough to find a electric outlet if you're indoor. When I carry my laptop on the go, I rarely have to use my battery.
Obviously you never tried the Gecko rendering engine, or else you would turn around and complain about IE. On my personal web page, I have a PNG image with transparent background. Mozilla & Netscape 6 render it beautifully, but IE renders the transparency as white, which looks awful. I had to make an alternate image and use some javascript trick to patch it up for IE. Yuck.
I was hoping that M$ would improve PNG transparency and other standard compliance in the newly released IE6. Boy was I wrong.
What are all these complaints about bloat and never-will-be-released 1.0?
Free software is about freedom and choice. Stop discouraging side projects just because you don't like it.
The calendar project is donated by outside contributors, and it won't be heavily worked on after 1.0. I doubt if we'll even see it in the nightly builds anytime sonn. Which part of the article says it'll postpone the 1.0 release?