Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out

Posted by michael on Fri May 10, 2002 09:40 PM
from the zeno's-paradox dept.
Mozilla The Internet
ferratus writes "The Mozilla organization just released the second release candidate for the upcoming 1.0 due out in a few weeks. See the updated release note and remember to see the mirror list before hitting the main server."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Better story about RC2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nicopa (87617) <`ra.moc.ocoler' `ta' `kcin'> on Friday May 10 2002, @09:50PM (#3500615)

    Mozilla 1.0 RC 2 has just been released and is already available for download [mozilla.org]. This is what has changed from the previous RC [mozilla.org]. New stuff include support for "HTTP pipelining" [mozilla.org], something which can increase performance by 50%! (disabled by default, check the releases notes).

    This was the story I have submitted, Slashdot staff is weird, really.. =)

  • Au revoir link-toolbar (Score:5, Informative)

    by sab39 (10510) on Friday May 10 2002, @09:50PM (#3500617) Homepage
    We hardly knew you. [http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13849 6 - not linkified in hopes of not /.ing bugzilla again]

    Back for 1.1, hopefully...

          • Re:Au revoir link-toolbar (Score:4, Informative)

            by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Saturday May 11 2002, @11:26AM (#3502352) Homepage
            If you look at what actually happened this feature was removed for 1.0, not for the 1.1. And if you look even closer you will see that it wasn't disabled because of 1 bug. It was disabled because of performance problems and incompatability with tabbed browsing.

            --Asa

  • Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Informative)

    by oGMo (379) on Friday May 10 2002, @09:58PM (#3500652)

    Mozilla is good, mozilla is great. The only thing keeping me from using it over Konqueror right now is the fact it seems to ignore my proxy setting. I use The Internet Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] to remove unwanted (read: all) ads and other things. Mozilla up to RC1 seems to overlook this and I see ads all over the place. It may be due to JavaScript url fetching not going through the proxy, but I'm not sure

    And don't tell me to use moz's built-in ad blocking, because I've already got a huge blockfile, I want to block for all browsers across the network, and it usually screws up rendering to use the builtin stuff anyway.

    This is a great web browser; it's really faster than other GUI browsers I've used, renders nicely, and has all the features. But until it respects proxies (I use Squid [squid-cache.org] to cache stuff too, helps a lot when all you've got is a modem), I can't use it. :-(

    • Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ilyag (572316) on Friday May 10 2002, @10:07PM (#3500687)
      Try BannerBlind [mozdev.org]. Look at many other useful things at mozdev.org, too.
      • One thing I don't like about the stuff I install off of mozdev.org is that I have to reinstall everything whenever I upgrade mozilla. With plugins, I can at least use a symlink to keep the same ones installed throughout, but I don't know the equivalent trick with mozdev.org type stuff.

    • Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Informative)

      by galaga79 (307346) on Friday May 10 2002, @10:13PM (#3500707) Homepage
      I am not sure if you have tried this but there is a section in the release notes about using Mozilla with Junkbuster at www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/#general [mozilla.org]

      And here is the text for those too lazy to scroll down....

      Mozilla needs to be configured to work properly with proxies such as Junkbuster that do not support the most recent HTTP specification. By default, Mozilla tries to use HTTP 1.1. To use Mozilla with a proxy that only supports HTTP 1.0, edit the HTTP Version from 1.1 to 1.0 in Edit | Preferences | Debug | Networking. (Bug 38488)

    • Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrEfficient (82395) on Friday May 10 2002, @10:21PM (#3500729)
      Any while you're at it. Switch to Privoxy [privoxy.org]. It's based on Internet Junkbuster but has some advanced features like the ability to replace text within the html code itself. I use this to block flash ads on a per website basis.
    • Make sure you properly configure Mozilla to use http 1.0 instead of 1.1. 1.1 is not compatible with Junkbuster. There's a release note about it.
    • Junkbuster is broken, it doesn't implement HTTP/1.1 properly.. Unless you force mozilla to use HTTP/1.0, it will think the proxy server does keep-alive and will continue to request files in the full HTTP://www.somesite.com/whatever form, which would really be getting sent to the website, hence the reason you still see the banners, and most pages probably break too.
      I'm actually working on a proxy server myself which resolves this problem, and is much faster than junkbuster (does keepalive and is multithreaded). check it out, the url is in my sig &lt/PLUG&gt

    • If all you have is a modem, then wwwoffle [demon.co.uk] is an even better proxy server than Squid, because it knows about 'online' and 'offline'. If you go offline then the proxy server never tries to download anything - it always serves the page in the cache without checking the (unreachable) server for a new version. So you can browse through already-visited sites without any hassle.

      More than that, if you visit while offline a page you haven't seen before, then wwwoffle returns a message saying 'I don't have this page, but I will fetch it'. Next time you go online, you can run 'wwwoffle -fetch' and all the queued pages will be fetched. So in effect you can keep browsing while the phone line is disconnected, and then 'catch up' afterwards.

          • Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by plover (150551) on Saturday May 11 2002, @12:48AM (#3501128) Homepage Journal
            If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok.

            [ First, I use both Mozilla and IE (my employer has pages that are designed only for IE, and it's their computer anyway, so fine.) I have Mozilla running through the Proxomitron filtering out ads, but I have IE running straight. ]

            Anyway, I accidentally went to some news site on the IE browser. O My God! It has been literally years since I saw crap like that on my screen. These giant flashing blocks of color went sweeping across the screen, swooping up to an advertisement. The banner ads across the top were flashing contrasting colors so violently and rapidly that I had to scroll them out of view before I could focus on the text. I then closed IE (and the pop-unders it had left behind) and brought the same news site up in Mozilla behind the Proxomitron. I'm very serious, all I could see was the news article, but all I could feel was an overwhelming pity for folks who don't have blocking software.

            Am I taking a free ride? I have certain sites that I frequent in my Proxomitron bypass list, and occasionally click on an ad just to give them a hit or two. (Hi Thinkgeek!) I pay for the shareware I use. I support faqs.org via the Amazon Honor System. The next time I use sneakemail, I'm sending them $12. Others (such as that news site) inspire me to implement and even write new filters. But is it a free ride?

            So now I have other questions. Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows? If you don't own a ReplayTV, do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape? Do you wait for the end of a TV show to go to the bathroom, or do you temporarily forget your ethics, sneak out and do it while the commercials are on? Are you taking a free ride then?

            It gets even more absurd: does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper because you feel you have to read all the ads before you read the comics? Do you read every flyer tucked under your windshield wiper? Of course not! Nobody does. But where do you draw the line? So, then what makes it OK to dodge this ad because it's on paper or videotape, but not duck that ad because it's on the web?

            Ads on TV still hit lots of viewers -- those who are watching real-time, those who can't afford a VCR, those who are watching a TV not under their control. Ads on the web still hit lots of viewers, too -- those who aren't savvy enough to realize they don't have to.

            My vote is this: advetisers that are patently offensive (flash, animation, javascript, DHTML, motion or blinking all qualify to me) should be blocked on principle. For example, I haven't felt the need to run out and write a 'Google Sponsored Link blocking filter,' but I sure devoted time to wipe out a handful of obscene javascript and flash tricks. I view ads on a few selected sites. So, am I free-riding? I've finally decided that I don't care if I am.

            • Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by fferreres (525414) on Saturday May 11 2002, @01:34AM (#3501203) Homepage
              "Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows?"

              I would, but if everyone used ReplayTV, there would be no free channels whatsoever. So I do undestand I am killing their revenues and my favorite shows as well.

              "Do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape?"

              Of course is skip them, I paid for movie and that's how keeps movies alive (i sometimes watch them thought, to see the new movies trailers).

              "does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper"

              No. I am not saying you should pay attention to any ad. Just read the paper, if an ad happens to catch your attention, then great. If not, then that's ok. Same with the TV, you don't NEED to watch the commercials. But completely baring them from existing (ReplayTV) will kill your shows. And if it does not, it means that a lot of people are supporting the show (by not using ReplayTV).

              ReplayTV is great. But those shows are paid by companies that (to fund the shows) expect you see one or two ads from time to time.

              "But where do you draw the line?"

              IMHO, where you have drawn it seems fair enough (to sometimes block some ads from high polution sites, but with a caring attitude)

              Thanks for your post (you seem to care).
            • Stephen Walderr (probably spelt that wrong :)) created a fork of IJB 2.whatever which used blank GIFs in place of the broken icon or IJB logo. Then his project grew and continued. Everyone reported ads to the communal blocklist, which could be easily synchronized with a cron job. It was the best ever.

              Then his site seemed to stop updating, and many people wondered what had happened :-(

              But soon, the software was brought back [privoxy.org] by some great efforts by other people. It has many features I like. However, there are still bugs keeping it from 3.0:
              * It stops responding after a few days unless you HUP it.
              * It doesn't re-gzip data after it's been deziped and filtered.
              * The re_filterfile code sometimes doesn't work (I use it to filter Google's link-wrapping, which I feel is a big of a cheater's way of looking at what I go to)
              * Some minor HTTP 1.1 unhappyness.

              All in all, a good piece of software -- just not complete (yet).

  • Alternate Mail Handlers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geoffsmith (161376) on Friday May 10 2002, @09:59PM (#3500653) Homepage
    I'm dying for this feature. I don't install messenger, and I use sylpheed as my mail client. I'm sure lots of people are using other handlers like mutt, outlook, evolution, etc... In the old and netscape they had this API where you had to write a C program just to use an alternative handler. Seems pretty crazy to me. All I want is a text box like:

    Mail Handler : sylpheed -to %email

    Or something to that effect. Maybe a substitution for ?subject= as well.

    Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]

    • Re:Bug list too big for prime time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf (17166) on Friday May 10 2002, @10:39PM (#3500800) Journal
      Perhaps they should just hide it and hope it goes away.

      I wish I could show you the "known defect list" for the software on your computer. I don't care what it's running. It's long.

      Software sucks. Mozilla less then most. And this is the big run up to 1.0, after all.

      Do you expect perfection? Are you prepared to pay the millions of dollars it costs you? (And still sometimes lose the rocket to a small, small bug...?)

  • T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flacco (324089) on Friday May 10 2002, @10:31PM (#3500769)
    If they don't sell some goddamn Mozilla t-shirts when 1.0 hits, heads must roll!
    • Agreed! And no restricting it to just namby-pamby cheesy looking cheap white shirts with flimsy looking text and a lame graphic - I want a QUALITY black shirt featuring that big, red "Commie" star on the front, with the lizard's head in the middle, and something simple on the back; maybe just "mozilla.org" in a kickass font or some such.

      The world is riddled stupid looking cheap, white software promo t-shirts. Mozilla folks: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't do this. Charge the whole whopping $2-$3 you'll need to make it a NICE shirt.

  • Use Xprint for printing in UNIX (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KidSock (150684) on Friday May 10 2002, @11:21PM (#3500922)
    If you want nice printouts in UNIX use Xprint.

    Xprint replaces the underlying XFree86 drawing primatives with ones that generate PostScript. Mozilla has the necessary code to support this and it can easily be activated. This results in printouts that look almost exactly like the display. It will even print wacko fonts by downloading them or, as a last resort, embedding them as bitmats. If you have good Type1 font's it looks pretty good. It is very popular with non-U.S./Canadian users for just this reason. There's minor setup but it's all explained in detail here:

    Using Xprint with Mozilla [erols.com]

    I'd like to see this developed further so the distros catch on and support it. Spread the word.

  • DHTML compatability is perfect (Score:3, Informative)

    by rufusdufus (450462) on Saturday May 11 2002, @01:50AM (#3501235)
    I wrote 3000 line javascript program that uses fairly sophisticated logic with dhtml objects, frames and forms. I have battled every browser I've tested it on until now; it worked the first time with no problems at all.

    Of course, this code has already been carefully constructed to be compatible with NS4,NS6 and IE, but still, I'm impressed.

  • If you like tabs, stick with RC1 (Score:3, Informative)

    by wackybrit (321117) on Saturday May 11 2002, @03:30AM (#3501426) Homepage Journal
    Some tab bugs have entered RC2. If you have several tabs open, and you right click on one in the background and click 'Close Tab'.. it closes the CURRENT tab. In RC1 it closed the correct tab.

    This bug seems to have been reported several times in Bugzilla.. but if you're a tab maniac, you might want to stick with RC1. It's annoying that you focus the tab you want to close every time now..

  • As a web site developer who needs to test his web sites on multiple browsers, it would be nice if Netscape 6.2 and Mozilla 1.0 RC2 could coexist on the same machine. But they don't. Image display and CSS utilization goes awry. CPU utilization is high. Mozilla's quick loader cancels out the one for Netscape.

    However, when I installed Mozilla on a system without Netscape, I could only see one bug: Named anchors without an href got the CSS a:hover setting applied when hovering, even though that shouldn't happen.

    • That's not the right conclusion. That measure is taken in addition to many others. And is designed to protect your profile from attacks to other software too!

      Suppose your profile were stored in a fixed well-known location like c:/program files/mozilla/profiles. Suppose you still used outlook (eew!). A worm which gains access to reading files could easily get your profile! And there was no security bug in mozilla in that. So randomizing the directory avoids some kind of attacks. Everything counts!

    • Yeah, this is "security through obscurity" like my obscure password is "security through obscurity."

      Please, take a nanosecond to think, or at least to ponder the definition of the term you use, before you post something.

        • I couldn't possibly agree more. Run to bug 135331 and put your vote in on this. One of the mozilla user interface guys, mpt, even suggested that it was a mistake to leave back off of non-link images and that it should be changed, but a lot of the developers seemed to make the new UI spec for context menus holy writ and ignore all the howls of protest over this issue.

    • Re:Where's the criticism? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Friday May 10 2002, @10:41PM (#3500804) Homepage
      This doesn't fix a security hole from RC1. RC1 didn't have that security hole (it was obscured by the entire feature not working). Mozilla 0.9.9 did have the hole and it's now fixed in RC2. But this is not a security release. This release didn't happen because of the security fix (you could get that in a nightly builds many many days ago). This was a planned release based on feedback from RC1. We fixed 270 bugs between RC1 and RC2 including the most frequently encountered crash and hang problems.

      --Asa
    • The page uses no doctype, so is rendered in "quirks" mode by Mozilla instead of "standards" mode. Testing standards support in a mode that purposefully violates some standards to be compatible with existing content is silly...

      That and the failure of any test of standards to validate in an HTML validator kinda casts doubt on the validity of the test...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.