yes, but the event code for links in mozilla makes this difficult to do w/o burying the handler deep in the HTML anchor code, which no one wants to be responsible for having done... This kind of thing should be done from XUL, and that's not yet possible because there is no notifier for the event (see the 'Bugs this depends on' for the interface improvements needed).
Hmm... maybe I should get off me a** and see if I can do it:-)
This isn't done because there isn't any good way to grab those events for links. Some changes to the event model are pending (for other features as well), but this is stuck waiting on them. Go vote for bug #6085, that (believe it or not) actually does influence a bug's priority... there's a hackish patch that implements this attached to the bug, but nobody wants to merge it because it's pretty ugly (or so I'm told)
>I can go to the ibm hosted patent site and >download the RSA patent.
yes.
> I am not legally allowed to implement the patent, although I can > legally download source that implements the patent in other > countries.
But you can't have that source in the U.S. So you can only download it from other countries to other countries. In the U.S. it's RSA's way or no way.
> I just don't see that not allowing the source to be open is such > a big deal. I mean, the cat is out of the bag. I cannot legally > distribute software using RSA until September, but I can > possess source code that would implement it if compiled, and
No you can't, I don't think.
> I can FREELY possess binaries that implement it (such as > netscape, IE, ssh - for non-commercial use...)
There is a library - RSAREF - written by RSA implementing the RSA algorithm. It's license permits non-commercial use, but forbids any modifications whatsoever to it's code, which is structured in a way that doesn't expose APIs needed for https. As I understand it, for SSL, the commercial library from RSA, BSAFE, is needed, as well as some further modifications. BSAFE allows modifications, but forbids the distribution of modified source (or even source at all). So closed-source it is, until the patent expires. Even then, it will be necessary to re-write the code to use something else, as RSA's copyright on their library will still be valid. It will just be legal to use something else.
> Exactly how much of a head start is it going to be for mozilla > to distribute the source ?
huh? the source can't be distributed, becasuse that would violate it's licensing terms.
> I also realize the REAL issue is that mozilla NEEDS permission to > distribute the source, and that is the real hangup. It all seems > so silly.
mozilla can't violate the terms of Netscape's RSA license, because that would void Netscape's license to have RSA code. So it's never going to open in its current form, but I would expect to see an OpenSSL-based replacement for the plugin sometime soon, probably distributed only to non-US users at first and replacing the RSA-licensed one after the patent expires.
It *can't* be opened without RSA's permission, and that ain't coming. This is a single library to implement the RSA algorithm, which is patented. The rest of https, and mozilla in general, is and will be open source.
No, mozilla won't run in 16 Mb of RAM. If that's all you have I suggest you use browsers from when computers had 16 Mb of RAM.
simplebrowser (./run-mozilla.sh./simplebrowser) might, though it's more of a debug tool at this point. It's mozilla's layout engine sans chrome. I'm not sure, though, that the milestone tarballs include it and/or all it's pieces.
Otherwise, you may find w3m more your style. It's a textg-mode browser but with support for mouse (xterm or gpm), tables, frames, etc.
I (the person who built the M13 binaries for Linux/PowerPC) am working on this. While I can't have the source either, I think I have a netscape employee who is going too be helping on PowerPC at least. Other people on other platforms, go to irc.mozilla.org #mozcrypto and I expect you will find helpful people who want this to work just as much as you do.
Chant with me... September 30th... (RSA's patent will expire and SSL won't be such a legal PITA). Right now it has to be binary-only or not at all, due to legal restrictions.
Since everything in mozilla is modularized, it's just a matter of doing./run-mozilla.sh./simplebrowser and you have a browser with back, forward, and a URL-bar. Oh, and any feature (js, etc) that the page asks for will load then.
Or use a chrome for mozilla that doesn't refer to things and they won't load. though there aren't very many chromes for mozilla right now, I'm sure there will be.
I'm still waiting for a PowerPC emulator for PowerPC's.... Like VMware. Mac users now have a few choices in OSes: OS 8.x, OS 9, OS X Server, OS X Consumer (soon), Linux PPC, MkLinux, MacBSD... It'd be nice to have a way to run them all without having to repartition drives....
It's called Mac-on-Linux, it's available at http://www.ibrium.se/linux, and it's GPL'ed. What more could you want? I use it all the time, my only complaint is slightly slow video unless I'm running it fullscreen on it's own VT.
Wow, I wouldn't have thought the compile would even go with only 16 megs of RAM. You must have a lot of swap configured!
Seriously, though, I can do a clobber build on like 2 1/2-3 hours on my G3/233 with 96 megs, so it's not too impractical. The big build-daemons in tinderbox that keep the builds up to date for debelopers bu ild it in about half an hour:-)
No, the big problems left in performance (not too many, mozilla is way faster than Netscape and beats IE 4.5 for complex pages) could bvery well be coming from poorly optimized code that makes the same layout engine calls over and over. So much of the UI is javascript, that bad javascript can make things feel slow. I would like to see a more threaded user interface, but I think it's fast already - more is just gravy. Of course, it's performance must be inconsitent across different machine, judging by the number of people complaining about speed problems I just don't see. My Powermac G3/233 just flys in mozilla, in both MacOS and Linux.
OK - the key difference isn't the debug symbols - it's the other compile-time things that configure turns on if it's doing debugging stuff - printing traces to the console, using -O0, avoiding x shared memory. However, the milestones *are* built optimized (at least, the person who explained to me how to package the PowerPC milestone told me to optimize), so you must be seeing poor performance that I'm not from the release builds. Are you using it on Linux or Windows?
Do a build with./configure --enable-x11-shm --disable-test --enable-optimize --disable-debug to get a realease build.
When I did this for the PowerPC M13 build I got a binary that only took 300 megs to build (not 900) and ran *significantly* faster than any other browser I've ever used (except lynx, but...), espescially on table-heavy pages like slashdot. Overall, IE 4.5 (macos) has a UI that feels a little snappier, but the total rendering speed on mozilla blows it away. My only remaining performance complaint is that reflows are not done in a threaded manner, so the reflow of a huge page (say, slashdot with 500+ comments, or the 2.5 megs of raw text in the build logs from mozilla's tinderbox) can freeze the UI for too long. I suspect that this, on a smaller scale, is also the source of my feeling that IE was snappier (since everything is done through the layout engine).
Oh I don't know - I'm using something that calls itself 5.0 right now (Mozilla 5.0 - M13). Maybe AOL is just adopting the convention that odd numbers are developmental and even numbers are release. Of course, that's usually applied to the minor version not the major, but...
BTW all, M13 rocks, other than lack of SSL and a few keyboard focus issues it's set to go primetime in my experience with it (and I use Communcator *only* for SSL - mozilla all the rest of the time).
>Solaris and Linux Vulnerable To Hack >By Sherman Fridman, Newsbytes. >February 11, 2000
>Due to flagrant inaccuracies this article has >been pulled and is being re-written. >Occasionally one of these slips through the >editorial process. Computer Currents regrets the >error.
I want to moderate this thread, but I want to post too... so I guess I'll post.
To my knowledge, the buttons are focused for the window that has focus(and/or is under the mouse) and blurred for other windows. So it's not as bad as this site (unless it really is blur until the mouse hits the button, which would suck). I actually kind of like windows receding into my desktop visually unless they're foremost or I'm pointing at them (in which case, the *entire window* should focus, not just one specific button. I think a window is a large enough aggregate that I can point at it and already know what it is.
I think you'll need 8.6, or a real (not newworld) rom, which only works from a small selection of machines. 9.0 should work though... the CD's not bootable?
It's called mac-on-linux and ios under GPL. See www.ibrium.se/linux for details. You'll need a copy of MacOS and a PowerPC linux system. (just like vmware needs windows and an x86). Of course, on this new toy, cpu emulation of the G3 might be practical if someone will write it...
Slashdot Mirror
yes, but the event code for links in mozilla makes this difficult to do w/o burying the handler deep in the HTML anchor code, which no one wants to be responsible for having done... This kind of thing should be done from XUL, and that's not yet possible because there is no notifier for the event (see the 'Bugs this depends on' for the interface improvements needed).
:-)
Hmm... maybe I should get off me a** and see if I can do it
This isn't done because there isn't any good way to grab those events for links. Some changes to the event model are pending (for other features as well), but this is stuck waiting on them. Go vote for bug #6085, that (believe it or not) actually does influence a bug's priority... there's a hackish patch that implements this attached to the bug, but nobody wants to merge it because it's pretty ugly (or so I'm told)
>I can download the binary and use RSA FOC.
yes.
>I can go to the ibm hosted patent site and >download the RSA patent.
yes.
> I am not legally allowed to implement the patent, although I can
> legally download source that implements the patent in other
> countries.
But you can't have that source in the U.S. So you can only download it from other countries to other countries. In the U.S. it's RSA's way or no way.
> I just don't see that not allowing the source to be open is such
> a big deal. I mean, the cat is out of the bag. I cannot legally
> distribute software using RSA until September, but I can
> possess source code that would implement it if compiled, and
No you can't, I don't think.
> I can FREELY possess binaries that implement it (such as
> netscape, IE, ssh - for non-commercial use...)
There is a library - RSAREF - written by RSA implementing the RSA algorithm. It's license permits non-commercial use, but forbids any modifications whatsoever to it's code, which is structured in a way that doesn't expose APIs needed for https. As I understand it, for SSL, the commercial library from RSA, BSAFE, is needed, as well as some further modifications. BSAFE allows modifications, but forbids the distribution of modified source (or even source at all). So closed-source it is, until the patent expires. Even then, it will be necessary to re-write the code to use something else, as RSA's copyright on their library will still be valid. It will just be legal to use something else.
> Exactly how much of a head start is it going to be for mozilla
> to distribute the source ?
huh? the source can't be distributed, becasuse that would violate it's licensing terms.
> I also realize the REAL issue is that mozilla NEEDS permission to
> distribute the source, and that is the real hangup. It all seems
> so silly.
mozilla can't violate the terms of Netscape's RSA license, because that would void Netscape's license to have RSA code. So it's never going to open in its current form, but I would expect to see an OpenSSL-based replacement for the plugin sometime soon, probably distributed only to non-US users at first and replacing the RSA-licensed one after the patent expires.
Yeah, a bunch of people have been working on optimizing the repaints and, on UN*X platforms, X11 protocol usage.
I'm pretty sure it's one drop-in file.
It *can't* be opened without RSA's permission, and that ain't coming. This is a single library to implement the RSA algorithm, which is patented. The rest of https, and mozilla in general, is and will be open source.
No, mozilla won't run in 16 Mb of RAM. If that's all you have I suggest you use browsers from when computers had 16 Mb of RAM.
./simplebrowser) might, though it's more of a debug tool at this point. It's mozilla's layout engine sans chrome. I'm not sure, though, that the milestone tarballs include it and/or all it's pieces.
simplebrowser (./run-mozilla.sh
Otherwise, you may find w3m more your style. It's a textg-mode browser but with support for mouse (xterm or gpm), tables, frames, etc.
It's held up because they decided the crypto *could* make it and now they're waiting for the crypto people.
I (the person who built the M13 binaries for Linux/PowerPC) am working on this. While I can't have the source either, I think I have a netscape employee who is going too be helping on PowerPC at least. Other people on other platforms, go to irc.mozilla.org #mozcrypto and I expect you will find helpful people who want this to work just as much as you do.
Chant with me... September 30th... (RSA's patent will expire and SSL won't be such a legal PITA). Right now it has to be binary-only or not at all, due to legal restrictions.
Some silly distros have been including CVS snapshots, but it's finally released. Get the final version and quit using an alpha release...
black text is fixed in CVS, get a nightly (or, probably better) M14 will be out soon.
OH, then you probably want simplebrowser...
./run-mozilla.sh ./simplebrowser and you have a browser with back, forward, and a URL-bar. Oh, and any feature (js, etc) that the page asks for will load then.
Since everything in mozilla is modularized, it's just a matter of doing
Or use a chrome for mozilla that doesn't refer to things and they won't load. though there aren't very many chromes for mozilla right now, I'm sure there will be.
B)I wouldn't mind having Virtual PC ported to my non-x86 Linux machine. They do exist, ya know.
Besides, the entire article is about virtual PC, nothing mentioned VGS except Hemos...
And the source, so I could rally up help and get a PowerPC port instead of having to just beg. (As of M13, I have one! woohoo!)
Seriously, though, I can do a clobber build on like 2 1/2-3 hours on my G3/233 with 96 megs, so it's not too impractical. The big build-daemons in tinderbox that keep the builds up to date for debelopers bu ild it in about half an hour :-)
No, the big problems left in performance (not too many, mozilla is way faster than Netscape and beats IE 4.5 for complex pages) could bvery well be coming from poorly optimized code that makes the same layout engine calls over and over. So much of the UI is javascript, that bad javascript can make things feel slow. I would like to see a more threaded user interface, but I think it's fast already - more is just gravy. Of course, it's performance must be inconsitent across different machine, judging by the number of people complaining about speed problems I just don't see. My Powermac G3/233 just flys in mozilla, in both MacOS and Linux.
Do a build with ./configure --enable-x11-shm --disable-test --enable-optimize --disable-debug to get a realease build.
When I did this for the PowerPC M13 build I got a binary that only took 300 megs to build (not 900) and ran *significantly* faster than any other browser I've ever used (except lynx, but...), espescially on table-heavy pages like slashdot. Overall, IE 4.5 (macos) has a UI that feels a little snappier, but the total rendering speed on mozilla blows it away. My only remaining performance complaint is that reflows are not done in a threaded manner, so the reflow of a huge page (say, slashdot with 500+ comments, or the 2.5 megs of raw text in the build logs from mozilla's tinderbox) can freeze the UI for too long. I suspect that this, on a smaller scale, is also the source of my feeling that IE was snappier (since everything is done through the layout engine).
BTW all, M13 rocks, other than lack of SSL and a few keyboard focus issues it's set to go primetime in my experience with it (and I use Communcator *only* for SSL - mozilla all the rest of the time).
What I see on their site now...
:-)
>Solaris and Linux Vulnerable To Hack
>By Sherman Fridman, Newsbytes.
>February 11, 2000
>Due to flagrant inaccuracies this article has
>been pulled and is being re-written.
>Occasionally one of these slips through the
>editorial process. Computer Currents regrets the
>error.
I think we won this round
No, It made 130+ (I had 131 installed). The last batch just were sprayed out lik wildfire :-)
Next milestone is supposed to be the netscape branded beta release, if that's what you mean...
To my knowledge, the buttons are focused for the window that has focus(and/or is under the mouse) and blurred for other windows. So it's not as bad as this site (unless it really is blur until the mouse hits the button, which would suck). I actually kind of like windows receding into my desktop visually unless they're foremost or I'm pointing at them (in which case, the *entire window* should focus, not just one specific button. I think a window is a large enough aggregate that I can point at it and already know what it is.
I think you'll need 8.6, or a real (not newworld) rom, which only works from a small selection of machines. 9.0 should work though... the CD's not bootable?
It's called mac-on-linux and ios under GPL. See www.ibrium.se/linux for details. You'll need a copy of MacOS and a PowerPC linux system. (just like vmware needs windows and an x86). Of course, on this new toy, cpu emulation of the G3 might be practical if someone will write it...