Hmm... Try deleting mozregistry.dat in your c:\windows directory. Also, if you still have problems, try finding an deleting old profiles in the user50 directory that Mozilla had installed, and see if that helps.
Uh - that's what you're getting. Mozilla is being completely componentized, and over time you will be able to do things like slip in an XSL processor into the parsing/rendering code without having to distribute a whole new Mozilla, or choose a JVM that you think is best. You'll be able to have a browser that's just a browser, or you can have mail/news/editor as well. You'll be able to create or add components (if you desire) like an IRC client, a Jabber client, stock tickers, alert boxes, etc... all these within a cross-platform interface. Just wait and see. Better yet, download M10, and you can see what's going on yourself, and get a glimpse of what is on the way.
Re:Why Mozilla 5.0 will die. (At least on the Mac)
on
Whither Netscape 5.0?
·
· Score: 5
You obviously are misinformed. The UI can be done to look *exactly* like Mac users would expect.
You don't understand the reasons behind Mozilla's interface. The interface was implemented the way it was so that they could maintain one codebase with very little native code. In addition, the CSS2 and later specs essentially require that things like buttons, form-fields, drop-down menus, etc. be implemented by non-native controls, because the specs require them to do things that non-native controls can't do (change opacity, for example).
Please attempt to inform yourself about Mozilla before making such disparaging comments. You've used a pre-beta build that has had little or no work done on the user experience, because they've been focusing on getting the back-end code running properly. What good does it do to work in the user experience if the back-end code is shifting out from underneath it?
These issues will be addressed, but you can express your concern in the Mozilla newsgroups, and let the developers know how you feel. That's much more constructive criticism than what you attempted here.
The TIME journalist got practically all of the content for his piece directly from this News.com article:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-808813.html
Paul Festa, writer of the above CNet piece, is not known for his kind words to Netscape.
Had either Paul or the writer of the TIME article actually did *any* research whatsoever, they would have found that Mozilla is chugging right along, and gaining more and more "third-party" support as time goes on.
It astounds me that/. readers are not only _not_ reading the contents of the TIME article before posting their opinions here, they aren't even reading Taco's piece correctly (and somehow coming to the conclusion that Communicator has been shelved completely). I would suggest checking out Mozilla.org, or mozillazine.org, or a nightly mozilla build before making comments about its demise. Ignorant badmouthing does the Open Source community no good. Even Linus T. made unqualified comments about Mozilla the other day. Seems like y'all *want* Mozilla to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Try deleting mozregistry.dat in your c:\windows directory. Also, if you still have problems, try finding an deleting old profiles in the user50 directory that Mozilla had installed, and see if that helps.
Uh - that's what you're getting. Mozilla is being completely componentized, and over time you will be able to do things like slip in an XSL processor into the parsing/rendering code without having to distribute a whole new Mozilla, or choose a JVM that you think is best. You'll be able to have a browser that's just a browser, or you can have mail/news/editor as well. You'll be able to create or add components (if you desire) like an IRC client, a Jabber client, stock tickers, alert boxes, etc... all these within a cross-platform interface. Just wait and see. Better yet, download M10, and you can see what's going on yourself, and get a glimpse of what is on the way.
You don't understand the reasons behind Mozilla's interface. The interface was implemented the way it was so that they could maintain one codebase with very little native code. In addition, the CSS2 and later specs essentially require that things like buttons, form-fields, drop-down menus, etc. be implemented by non-native controls, because the specs require them to do things that non-native controls can't do (change opacity, for example).
Please attempt to inform yourself about Mozilla before making such disparaging comments. You've used a pre-beta build that has had little or no work done on the user experience, because they've been focusing on getting the back-end code running properly. What good does it do to work in the user experience if the back-end code is shifting out from underneath it?
These issues will be addressed, but you can express your concern in the Mozilla newsgroups, and let the developers know how you feel. That's much more constructive criticism than what you attempted here.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-808813.html
Paul Festa, writer of the above CNet piece, is not known for his kind words to Netscape.
Had either Paul or the writer of the TIME article actually did *any* research whatsoever, they would have found that Mozilla is chugging right along, and gaining more and more "third-party" support as time goes on.
It astounds me that /. readers are not only _not_ reading the contents of the TIME article before posting their opinions here, they aren't even reading Taco's piece correctly (and somehow coming to the conclusion that Communicator has been shelved completely). I would suggest checking out Mozilla.org, or mozillazine.org, or a nightly mozilla build before making comments about its demise. Ignorant badmouthing does the Open Source community no good. Even Linus T. made unqualified comments about Mozilla the other day. Seems like y'all *want* Mozilla to fail.
No, the TIME "journalist" actually just rehashed a CNet article. He didn't bother to do any actual research at all.
This is all third-party work, so your argument is moot.
This is all being done third-party, so your objection is moot.