Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mozilla 1.0 Officially Here

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:15 PM
from the it's-only-been-how-many-years dept.
Mozilla The Internet
hhg writes "People of the world, rejoice! At last, the long awaited Mozilla 1.0 is released, and has emerged on the ftp.mozilla.org ftp-server. Let the release parties loose!" And there's even an Ann Arbor party now ;) Congratulations to all the developers that contributed to the mighty lizard. And bahtama writes "The latest IE gopher hole patch is out! :) ... Check the release notes and then grab it from here."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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 Officially Here 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • mozillazine (Score:5, Informative)

    by cetan (61150) <cetan_post@yahoo.com> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:18PM (#3646100) Journal
    http://www.mozillazine.org/articles/article2278.ht ml [mozillazine.org] pretty much says it all :)

    Congrats to all the hackers on the moz project. Fantastic job and well worth the wait.

  • Well, I'll have to go download it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dimwit (36756) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:19PM (#3646127) Homepage
    ...of course, I'll use that new transfer protocol - TCP/IP over Flying Pigs.

    ...but I'll have to bundle up - my office just froze over.

    ..and maybe I won't have time - I think an attractive girl just mentioned that she may want to talk to me.

  • what next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:19PM (#3646133)
    First amazon.com had a profitable quarter.

    Next, Slashdot sold out (Again)

    Then, mozilla was released.

    Coming up Warcraft III and Duke Nukem forever released.

  • Talkback packages only (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AndSoitGoes (473305) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:20PM (#3646139)
    Now that they have hit 1.0 are versions
    without talkback going to be availible.

    Have they or will they remove debug information?

    The pacakage is still ~10megs for windows. I was
    hoping to see some reduction for 1.0 since I
    still use a lowly 56K Modem.

    • Re:Talkback packages only (Score:4, Informative)

      by thesolo (131008) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:43PM (#3646385) Homepage
      Now that they have hit 1.0 are versions without talkback going to be availible.

      Most likely not, talkback helps them debug!

      Have they or will they remove debug information?

      The debug menus have been removed since 1.0RC3

      The pacakage is still ~10megs for windows. I was hoping to see some reduction for 1.0 since I still use a lowly 56K Modem.

      Simple solution, use the Net Installer! [mozilla.org] It is a 200KB download that lets you choose the options you want, and then download them. If you don't want/need Chatzilla or Mail & News, you can install a smaller package.

      As for 10 megs for the full package, that's not big AT ALL! Remember that it comes with Mail & News, an IRC Client, a browser, a WYSIWYG editor, and an address book.

      • Re:Talkback packages only (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @01:23PM (#3646717)
        > use the Net Installer! [mozilla.org] It is a 200KB download that lets you choose the options you want, and then download them. If you don't want/need Chatzilla or Mail & News, you can install a smaller package.

        Call me an old fart, but "net installers" (aka stubs) annoy me. (This isn't a Mozilla criticism - IE is just as bad.)

        If I don't want the email/news/chat cruft (and I don't), but I do want the basic browser on 3 systems, why should I download a 200K .exe three times, click on the same options three times, and download the same few-megabytes browser, three times?

        Just gimme a damn URL where I can get the installer that contains everything needed for the basic browser. (That is, tell me where to find the thing the stub's downloading). Then let me download it ONCE. I can then FTP or copy it on my LAN, or even burn it to CD and use SneakerNet to get it to other machines.

        General question: I'm seeing stubs more often, and I just don't get the idea. Apart from marketing ("Look! Upgrade your Netscape! Only 200K download!" - conveniently ignoring that it's only the stub, and thereby obfuscating the size of the real download) purposes, what value is added by these "network installer" stubs?

        In principle, can't it be replaced by a web page with radio buttons that say "do you want your download to include/exclude $FOO, $BAR, $BAZ", and upon clicking "submit", give you a page with the corresponding packages/zips/tarballs/whatevers?

  • Mirror list - Please don't /. the main site! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:20PM (#3646154)
    Mirror list is here [mozilla.org]. Please don't slashdot the main FTP site!

      • Re:Mirror list - Please don't /. the main site! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by overlord2 (136876) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:58PM (#3646526)
        Is it just me, or does it not make any sense how these mirrors (and not just in the case of Mozilla) are populated?

        If you have this many mirrors, why don't sites set up a separate secured FTP site that ONLY the mirrors can connect to? That way, the damn mirrors would actually be useful!!!

  • Please!! Count to ten and then decide (Score:5, Informative)

    by _LORAX_ (4790) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:21PM (#3646159) Homepage
    Cm'on if you have 1.0_rc3 and you are not having problems, please do everyone a favor and DON'T download today...

    Unless you are having problems.. try this weekend after the mirrors have had time to catch up!

  • mirror in sweden (Score:4, Informative)

    by fredan (54788) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:21PM (#3646160) Homepage
    if you wait for a while, I will have the files at ftp.fredan.org/mozilla/ [fredan.org]
  • Start page: http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/ [mozilla.org]

    FAQ: http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/ [mozilla.org]

    Don't bother looking at these in IE 5.0, its PNG support is rubbish [libpng.org].

    • Re:New 1.0 Start Page and User FAQ (Score:4, Insightful)

      by seizer (16950) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:50PM (#3646452) Homepage
      That's not the point. What you're implying is that Mozilla have made their pages to break IE. But we're going for *standards* here, not a lock-out competition, so that anybody can make a browser which will work. And actually, the page renders fine in IE, even though you miss out the eye candy of the lizard at the top right. Mozilla have designed the pages very well, with "degradation" in mind. That is, people with less advantaged browsers STILL get a readable and usable version of the page. It's what CSS is all about, and it's what Mozilla is all about. It's a Good Idea(TM).
      • "Seems to work fine in IE, regardless of rubbish png support."

        Yeah, though in IE6 we needed to use a different tail PNG because IE6 gets the gamma wrong, and IE5's support is so b0rken we just don't put them on the page at all (you'll see a weird slideshow effect).

        IE will become the new Netscape 4: the b0rken pizza ship that no-one wants to code for any more, because it's just too painful. I so so so wish we hadn't had to allow for the thing.

  • Beonex Communicator 0.8-stable based on Mozilla 1 (Score:5, Informative)

    by benb (100570) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:22PM (#3646172) Homepage Journal
    Beonex also just released the Mozilla 1.0-based browser Beonex Communicator 0.8-stable [beonex.com].

    While the ultimate goal of the Mozilla project is to produce source code that can be used by other projects and companies, the Open-Source project Beonex tries to make a browser for end-users out of it. (See Beonex vs. Mozilla [beonex.com]). Beonex Communicator stays relatively true to Mozilla. Special emphasis is being put on security and privacy. The software is configured defensively, to avoid security holes to appear in the first place. For example, it sanitizes incoming HTML-email to the largest part.

    The current version is available for Windows [beonex.com] und Linux [beonex.com] and bases on the final Mozilla 1.0 source code.

    BTW: Congratulations to the whole Mozilla project!

    Disclaimer: I am a member of the Beonex project.
    I hope, Slashdot will also run this as main news article.

    • mozilla is an end-user browser (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Pim (140414) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @02:11PM (#3647272)
      While the ultimate goal of the Mozilla project is to produce source code that can be used by other projects and companies, the Open-Source project Beonex tries to make a browser for end-users out of it.

      I don't mean to deprecate your efforts, but I think this "Mozilla isn't about producing an end-user product" idea has always been wishful thinking--and is becoming less plausible every day. Mozilla is clearly destined to become the prominent browser in the free software community and the web development community, and a popular browser among computer users at large.

      I'm not saying it's a bad idea in principle to separate the development of the engine and the finish; I just don't see how it can happen in this case. The core features and the user interface of a browser are not separable enough. In order for Mozilla to produce a browser for testing purposes going to want it to be a good user interface. The evidence bears this out: users file usability bugs in bugzilla, the developers take them seriously, and as a result, vanilla mozilla has an overall better user interface than any earlier Netscape browser.

      The Mozilla developers seem to agree on the value of a reference user interface, in order to prevent excessive variation in the interfaces of derived products. For example, they insist upon limiting the number of user-configurable variables, which would not make sense if they were only about the basic technologies. In order for their reference interface to be credible, they have to invest resources in usability. The way I see it, the "reference interface" position amounts to a committment to an end-user product, even if they don't realize or admit it.

      On top of this, Mozilla already has all the visibility in the free software and web development communities. If Mozilla refuses to provide an end-user product, it will mostly create user confusion. Mozilla has all the developers. Mozilla has all the infrastructure. It only makes sense for Mozilla to do the last 10% and provide an end-user product. Maybe someday beonix or galeon or someone else will overcome this barrier (just as GTK and QT have finally displaced athena as free widget sets for X), but it will take a long time.

      Of course, in some markets, vanilla Mozilla won't be the king. Among Joe PC, it will a Netscape or AOL branded version. Users of embedded systems will get whatever modified version their manufacturer included. But even the popular computer press reviews Mozilla, so the message that it is not for end-users doesn't seem to have gotten through. And among the slashdot demographic, Mozilla is it. Let's face it: how many of us will download Mozilla 1.0 to "test" it? Most of us want to use it! Mozilla is already a great end-user browser, and will keep getting better.

  • new king (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SirSlud (67381) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:22PM (#3646175) Homepage
    While there are some rough edges (tho, remember IE 1.0? ;), Mozilla is now the king of browsers. Tabs, developer-friendly tools (that dont get in the way of the newbie), skins, the level of customization, speed, cookie management .. and free (and open source!) Whats not to like?

    Say goodbye, IE! Man am I glad to see you go.

    (BTW, I hear in the next (last?) WinXP patch, you'll be able to strip IE from your system entirely? Where can I find detailed information about this?)

    PS. I've been using Mozilla for about a month or two, and despite aforementionned rough edges, this thing absolutely blows IE out of the water in all respects except market share. ;)

    • Re:new king (Score:4, Insightful)

      by essdodson (466448) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:30PM (#3646261) Homepage
      I doubt you'll see anyone stripping IE. IE is the browsers of choice for those who use windows. I don't really care how it goes about it, loading files on startup or whatever, IE is by far the best browser offering for Windows. It may have from the enemy, but IE is here to stay.

      I'm seeing more and more people switch to IE every day. Complete cluelessness of Netscape is to blame for this. Even though Mozilla is a rock solid browser I doubt these people would be willing to run Mozilla after finding out that Netscape 6 is derrived from Mozilla code base.

      • Re:new king (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aengblom (123492) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @02:12PM (#3647279) Homepage
        IE is fabulous in Windows until you have a problem. Then you're pretty much sunk. I've recently encountered two IE bugs that have gone unfixed and they are pretty much showstoppers for me. The first (on my home machine)... IE would often not display images--there were a variety of complex temporary fixes, but I couldn't get it to work. Most problematic: to fix my IE I had to reinstall the OS. This is the largest problem with it's integration Uninstall/Revert to previous version wouldn't work because it broke my MS Outlook!

        More recently, I have come across a bug that prevents IE from saving a photo as anything, but a BMP when the cache gets full (or something). This is a problem at work because I use IE to browse web accessible database of large image files.

        For both CPU's I had to switch to Moz. Thankfully, it was there when I needed it. IE is still a pleasure to use... but only when it works.

  • User discussion newsgroups (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nicopa (87617) <nickNO@SPAMreloco.com.ar> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:22PM (#3646178)

    Please, don't use the developer groups for your questions. A good place for user discussion where you can ask for support or discuss and propose features is the new newsgroup:

    snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla. user.general

    (Note that slashdot adds a space inside the link)

  • Hit 'em where it hurts (Score:5, Funny)

    by wilburdg (178573) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:24PM (#3646194)


    This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas)

    Bombing them is one thing, but not giving them access to Mozilla? That's just mean.

  • Bookmarks problems still exist though (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gambit Thirty-Two (4665) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:31PM (#3646268)
    but still, the problems with sorting bookmarks still exists. I was hoping this would be fixed before release.

  • Come and get Java and Flash! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nicopa (87617) <nickNO@SPAMreloco.com.ar> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:32PM (#3646275)
    After downloading Mozilla [mozilla.org] you can install Java and Flash automatically [technisys.com.ar].

    • First see if you NEED to download Java! (Score:4, Informative)

      by vanza (125693) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @02:00PM (#3647167)
      Anyone with a recent JDK/JRE installed already has the plugin for Mozilla/Netscape and does NOT need to install this package!

      I don't know why the installer does not do this automatically if it detects Java, but all you have to do is go to the Mozilla plugins directory and make a symbolic link to the plugin. In the case of JDK 1.4, the plugin resides in ${JAVA_HOME}/jre/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_o ji140.so (for Linux at least).

      In Windows, in some directory that looks like that, there are some dll's you can copy to the Mozilla plugins' folder to make the Java plugin work.

  • it doesn't have to beat IE to win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stevenj (9583) <stevenj@alum.mit.edu> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:33PM (#3646288) Homepage

    As long as Mozilla has its foot in the door with a significant niche of web users, as long as it is Free software that can never disappear simply because a company goes under, as long as it guarantees a viable browsing solution for all the platforms Microsoft would rather you forgot, then it has won. It will prevent Microsoft from completely dictating web standards, from creating a world where only Windows can browse the web.

    The problem Microsoft (and others of its ilk) has with Free software is that it doesn't go away. When Mozilla first came out, there was a huge hype, but that hype evaporated and turned (in some quarters) to derision when Mozilla didn't deliver right away. For most MS competitors, that would have been the end. But Mozilla kept plugging along, getting better and better...it never has to go back to square one with a new company and codebase.

    ...and the longer it holds on with the high quality it has demonstrated so far, the more companies will jump on to its bandwagon. Everyone except for Microsoft benefits from open standards, and almost everyone knows it.

  • Sorry to be the ungrateful user, but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eric Seppanen (79060) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:35PM (#3646310) Homepage
    I really, really wish someone would have fixed the obnoxious file-extension mangling bug. It's rapidly soaring toward the top of the most-frequently reported bug list, and was introduced at 1.0rc1 back in April. It's bug 120327 if anyone's interested in reading 183 (mostly repetitive) comments.

    This bug is why mozilla insists on adding .exe extensions to anything delivered as application/octet-stream, .txt to text/plain, and likes to fool around with lots of other extensions depending on your exact setup (on my machine it tries to rename every mp3 file to .mpga).

  • Not bad at all. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:35PM (#3646319)
    This looks like the first version I may end up using over IE on Windows.

    However it still has a few problems. from Klassy.com [klassy.com]

    1. Image alignment. Seems to not support the Align=AbsMiddle property of an image tag.
    2. Lacks support for IE style layers. Its too much to expect web site devlopers to use more then one layer type. Its time to bite the bullet and support the MS style.

    These are the only real problems I can find after a breif test. Overall looking very good (other then the Netscape 4 interface).

        • Re:Not bad at all. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tono (38883) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @01:00PM (#3646543) Homepage
          You're missing the point, Mozilla is about the w3c standards, if they put IE layer tags in the browser they'd effectively be going back on 4 years of development and vision. I personally haven't seen a site that uses browser specific layers in a long time, so it's not the issue it was in 1998.

  • Thank You! (Score:5, Informative)

    by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:39PM (#3646357) Homepage
    I want to personally thank everyone that downloaded Milestone and nightly testing builds and contributed feedback in the form of Bugzilla bug reports, TalkBack crash reports, comments in the newsgroups and at mozillaZine.org. And a special thanks to those people that gave a hours, weeks, months or years of their lives to the care and feeding of our bug database (triage and testcasing bug reports). Without Mozilla's amazing QA and testing community we wouldn't be where we are today.
    Oh, and all the developers too ;-)

  • The ONLY thing annoying me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thesolo (131008) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:48PM (#3646440) Homepage
    I'm using 1.0 right now, and the only thing that is annoying me is that 1.0 still uses that same (IMHO tacky) splash screen!

    I fortunately replaced the splash screen on my copy at work (in Windows, drop a file called mozilla.bmp into the Mozilla directory, and that becomes your splash!) before I showed Mozilla off to my boss. Had he seen the regular splash screen, I don't know if he would have taken it seriously.

    Seriously, the browser is professional, the splash screen should be too.

  • WARNING - do not upgrade to Mozilla from Netscape (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @01:14PM (#3646642) Homepage
    Mozilla 1.0 went out the door with Bug 137164 [mozilla.org] unfixed.

    Near the end of the release notes [mozilla.org], there is the warning

    • Do not share a profile between Netscape and Mozilla builds. Doing this can lead to unpredictable results, some of which may include loss of Search settings and preferences and unchecked growth of the Bookmarks file (large enough to freeze your system). It is best to create a new profile for each or manually copy (and change the name) an existing profile.

    The bug report itself contains this pathetic comment:

    • If you point someone to a door with 'Enter' on it and the handle shocks them when they touch it - maybe they shouldn't do that, but that still makes you a pretty mean bastard.

      that is to say... If Netscape can't use a Mozilla profile(and vice-versa) without causing nasty corruption then it shouldn't be trying. We should offer to import and create a new one without harming the old one - just like we do with other browsers that we like/share users with/ and support but with which we have incompatible profiles. (uhh 4.x)

      Believe me, I'm overjoyed to mark bugs that stem from this behavior as invalid (and I will) but that doesn't strike at the core issue. Lots of users, QA, and developers have spent a ton of time chasing down these demons - no one knew of this incompatibility. Isn't there something to be done?

  • I have not downloaded Mozilla 1.0 yet, but I do have RC3 installed on this Ultra5/270Mhz/512Mb .

    While this monster is by no means a speed demon, Mozilla is so slow it is unusable. Takes 30 seconds to start up, 1-2 seconds to register a click. The rendering of pages is fine, but everything else is really, really slow.

    Netscape4.7, on the other hand, is fine. Not fast, but perfectly usable.

    I also use Mozilla all the time on a Win98 & RH7.2 (Dual boot/366Mhz/512Mb), and it's way way FASTER then Netscape4.7.

    Why is Mozilla so slow on Solaris?

  • Re:The ONLY thing annoying me... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RedSynapse (90206) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @02:12PM (#3647276)
    Oh no, not the return of the Never-Ending-Splashscreen-Debate-From-Hell [mozilla.org].
    Oh it all starts out nice "we need a prettier splashscreen, here I made one check it out." Then the accusations of satanism [mozilla.org]and communism [mozilla.org] begin (seriously). [to view the links you'll have to copy the link location into the address bar. Bugzilla doesn't accept direct links from slashdot]

    Long story short, they can't change the splashscreen because of the legal wrangling necessary. But ANYONE can change the splashscreen to anything by putting at .bmp file named mozilla.bmp in their /mozilla directory.

    Personally I think the best ones are here [mareotis.com], and no it's not listed on the big list of splashscreens given before.

  • Obviously we're all excited to take this to our friends and families. Is there any effort to make a good installation CD with all the binaries, source, and a windows autorun (either open an html file on the CD or run the full talkbak installer)?

    I can put one together myself, but I'm not certian what the best (most easily understood) directory structure would be... Perhaps something like this:
    • Root
      • Linux
      • Suse
      • Redhat
      • ...
    • BSD
      • FreeBSD
      • NetBSD
      • ...
    • Windows
    • Source
    • DOCS
    I'd like to have something burnable by next Wednesday for the Ann Arbor Destroyed by Mozilla [schnitzer.at] party...

    -Adam

  • cnet review (Score:4, Funny)

    by MatriXOracle (33400) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @11:16PM (#3650354) Homepage
    CNet's "review" [cnet.com]
    shows the following as a boxscore for mozilla.

    CNET rating: 7
    The good: Fast; stable; free; includes full-featured e-mail client.

    The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer; chat client doesn't work with the big commercial IM systems, including ICQ, Yahoo IM, AOL IM, and Windows Messenger.

    The bottom line: Until Netscape 7 comes out, Mozilla is the best free alternative to Microsoft IE. And it's faster, to boot.


    Y'know, when the only bad things they can say about your browser is
    1)it is standards-compliant; and
    2)no, IRC does not work with AIM

    then I think you've done a pretty damn good job. Congratulations!

    • "The FAA has spotted an unusual number of pigs at high altitude, the devil called me up asking to send him a jacket and gloves, a cow was seen in the night sky above the moon......."

      And Dilbert got an office with a REAL DOOR. REALLY! I'm not kidding! Look at today's comic [dilbert.com]!

    • In a word, yes. I moved a techically illiterate user (seriously, he called to complain his slot-loading CD-ROM was broken - he had crammed two CDs in there at once) from Netscape 4.7 to Mozilla this weekend.

      No worries. It's enough alike to keep him happy. In fact, had I not erased his entire hard disk earlier in the day ("Why shouldn't I open attachments again?"), Mozilla probably would have been able to import all of his settings automatically.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.