Mozilla 0.7 Released 209
mpt writes: "Mozilla 0.7 has been released. This is the first release with PSM (the Personal Security Manager) included on Win32, Mac OS, and Linux, so secure sites should work without extra fiddling. Other noticable changes since 0.6 include better mousewheel behavior, Microsoft Proxy Server support, treating maximized windows properly on Win32, and numerous performance improvements (especially for NNTP). So try it out, and report dem bugs." Since Mozilla.org and Mozillazine are now reporting this, we figure the mirrors have had time to update. :)
Before reporting bugs... (Score:1)
By the way, today's nightlies are pretty good [mozillazine.org] - several recent regressions were fixed. Two new bugs in today's builds that weren't in 0.7: links on some pages are ignored [mozilla.org] and home page isn't displayed on startup under Win32 when using -console option [mozilla.org].
Re:Daily RPM builds (Score:1)
Anything like this for Win32? It would be nice!
Sure: http://www.mozillazine.org/build_comments/ [mozillazine.org]
I run Debian/Linux, and use that "build bar" to decide when to upgrade. It should be fine for Win32 users as well.
At the pace the Mozilla project is going, 0.7 is going to be obselete in a week, so keep the link handy.
- Dr. Foo Barson
Almost there (Score:1)
My only real issue right now is stability. It seems to crash about every 15-20 minutes. But, then again it is still in development, so I expect that when they do hit 1.0 (hell, 0.8) this will be a thing of the past.
Good job, keep up the good work.
Re:still a bit rough, but usable (Score:2)
This is actually much faster, and certainly simpler. It is faster because the area is only drawn once (it is extremely hard to make the program's redraw be able to assumme the area is already erased, since the same code must be used for incremental update when there is no damage, and I doubt Mozilla does this).
More importantly this reduces blinking. For Mozilla which must change the background color for each page, except for a single background color (gray, probably) it will blink to gray and then to the correct color for every page. Even if the color is fixed, or even if background pixmaps are used, it will still blink when a large image or table in a different color is drawn in that area.
Blinking is very annoying and is the primary reason X displays often look like crap when you move windows.
I very much believe this is the correct behavior. I would like to see X fixed so that resizing and mapping windows, and in fact everything except drawing commands from the programs does not alter pixels on the screen. This would vastly reduce the annoying flashing behavior.
The fact that Mozilla is so slow that you would prefer to see the solid gray (actually a very slow version of this "blink") is of course Mozilla's fault, but erasing windows is not the solution.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
You mean like what I can setup by editing my user specific $HOME/.mozilla/$moz_profile_name/plugin.list file? You know, the one that's user configurable and everything.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
still slower... (Score:3)
it's slower to start a window, but page rendering tends to actually be faster than 4.7, with the notable exception of soros.ath.cx [soros.ath.cx] which is still faster on 4.7. Slashdot, on the other hand, renders faster in mozilla than ns47, when I hit one of those 500 comment articles, that I read in nested mode.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:Alternate Architectures (Score:2)
It is from a Desktop user perspective.
I'd venture to say that Linux has a bigger space in the desktop/workstation market then HP-UX (although I'd bet most of those are develpment machines in people's homes vs. in the workplace).
Oh.. and I started using the nightly build from 7/5 as my main browser recently. A little wonkieness certainly, (sometimes downloading files bombs out with an odd message followed by the browser crashing soon after), but it seems to do much better than NS4.08 (which is now my secondary browser), and almost on par with IE5.0 (my tertiary browser... or was that part of my OS?
YMMV but I think they should be ready for a release candidate real soon. The installer even let me pick to just install the browser which made me a very happy camper indeed
0.x versus Mxx? (Score:1)
Are these 0.x releases:
a) a continutation of the Mxx releases (Milestones) with a new name (to show that they are approaching 1.0); or
b) a forked development started by Netscape 6 with the Milestones development abandoned (say, a branched development like GCC->EGCS->GCC but then more planned); or
c) a forked development started by Netscape 6 that stands independent of the Milestone builds (something like GCC->EGCS before these two developments met again)?
Thanks in advance.
It's... It's...
Re:Completed January 9, 2000 (Score:1)
seems a little bit faster and more stable (Score:1)
Re:What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (Score:1)
(don't like java unless I ask for it)
(posting from the 5/1/01 nightly build)
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:4)
This isn't really valid -- look at some of the other good browsers available (Konqueror and Opera for Linux, and IE for 'doze) and you'll notice that all of them smoke the living daylights out of Mozilla, while providing quite capable DOM and reflow (better than Mozilla's, in most cases!).
Sure, they can be a bit pokey at times doing one thing or another, but in general, they just haul compared to the 'zilla.
Really, Mozilla being incredibly slow is probably not really because of the rendering engine being sluggish (though it could probably use some usability tuning). It's more due to the horribly designed theming engine and widget set, as you surmised. A quick look at Galeon should convince anyone of this, and also hint at the even greater speedup that could appear if it was dumped completely.
I recall doing some cheezy benchmarks a couple months ago, and found that on the same machine, rendering a page with a bunch of text boxes (thus hitting the XUL junk hard), IE and Netscape 4.75 were both between 20 and 40 times faster than Mozilla (and had better layout usability as well -- Mozilla just had a blank screen, while IE laid out the table incrementally. NS4 didn't, but didn't freeze up either, or at least, was so fast it didn't appear to freeze up).
Eg., NS and IE laid out the page in under 2 seconds, while Mozilla took more than 20. Taking into account the ~1s server generation lag to create the page, that's rather bad. And, of course, since Mozilla is a massive threaded app, instead of forking off children as it should, it froze up completely during rendering in all windows.
Actually, usability speed, as opposed to "real" speed, is one of the big problems with Mozilla right now. It's often fairly comparable with other browsers at producing a finished product of a page, but is very, very slow in terms of the UI feel. Status bars don't update often, gizmos don't pulse and flash, the page doesn't flash on quickly and then get reflowed, etc. The end result is that it's slow to begin with, and once the nasty UI is through with it, it seems like the days of the 386 have escaped to haunt us.
Do Plug-ins work? (Score:2)
I've removed the both the Mozilla install and the
Mozilla Mail and News (Score:1)
As for the news reader, that's supposed to be greatly improved with this new version. I guess I'll find out when I get it.
+++
Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (Score:1)
Even if people don't use it Mozilla is important simply for that reason. And people will use it...
Re:What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (Score:3)
Works better then NS4.x and yes i'm talking about the x86 Linux version. It uses the jkd1.3 jvm from sun. Just get the browser and go to a java site like java.sun.com, a popup will ask you if you wish to install the jdk plugin say yes, and your done. I use the nighly builds, and i'll never go back to Netscape 4x
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
More stuff needed for Red Hat 7 boxen... (Score:1)
For Red Hat Linux 7, you must install the Standard C++ libraries for Red Hat 6.x compatibility. Get the package from the Red Hat 7 installation CD or download it from Red Hat [redhat.com]. (Bug 59012 [mozilla.org])
--
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
I really like Konqueror [konqueror.org]. I think it is much faster than Mozilla, and when it works it works really well. Unfortunately Konqueror is not yet as stable as Mozilla---Konqueror seems to blow up about 3 times more frequently than Mozilla, and it doesn't work with Datek.
BTW, I use Gnome as my desktop and Konqueror as my browser.
Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
Before installing on Linux, you must have write permission for the target installation directory. (Bug 46588 [mozilla.org])
So it's saying that I need +w in the install directory when I install Mozilla? No way!
--
Rah rah (Score:1)
I'm also a web developer interested in the cusps of DOM and CSS and the consistent cross-platform highly-compliant nature of Mozilla means I can develop with these new technologies and refer visitors to Mozilla if the pages don't render.
So I really look forward to using M.7. I've been using nightly builds a lot in the past couple weeks anticipating the .7 release and every build is a bit better than the previous. I applaud the Mozilla effort.
MyopicProwls
Waaah, Roaming Access (Score:1)
Re:Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
Mozilla 0.6 - Completed December 6, 2001 (Score:2)
Re:Memory footprint. (Score:2)
A light Mozilla session vastly overshadows the memory utilization of NS4.x. Infact, it beats Lotus Notes, and other major bloatware. If you leave the process inactive for a while, and the memory utilizaiton hits 50MB or so... it is a real drag to click on an icon as everything very slowly returns from swap. I hope these are memory leaks... and if so, that they're correctable.
Does anybody who has the source code know what it taking up all that RAM?
OTOH, NS4.x and IE5 run on minimal hardware such as Windows 3.1 machines with 8M of ram (don't run Java unless you have 16 or so)
Re:bash# ./mozilla (Score:1)
(Yeah, I go it
Re:Mozilla is awful (Score:1)
I'm running Debian/GNU Linux with Windowmaker as my window manager.
Jeff
Umm small thing about the web site. (Score:1)
S/MIME support? (Score:2)
Looks like a good release... (Score:1)
Re:who cares? (Score:1)
> it starts) it's quite fast and.. dare I say it...
> faster than IE5.5 on machine.
This is mostly due to mozilla still being cached by the OS in memory, not because of some option to stay in memory.
Re:If this were IE (Score:1)
~
~
No Java??? (Score:2)
OK, so it's not free software, but neither is Netscape.
+++
If this were IE (Score:2)
Dancin Santa
Re:You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (Score:2)
Incase the mirrors DIDN'T update... (Score:2)
- - - - -
Re:Should Mozilla Cost Money (Score:2)
In any case, I make more than enough money. I enrich myself every day at work, producing rather non-Free and non-free software which we sell to companies, big and small, for a few hundred thousand dollars a pop, or run as an ASP for several 10s of grands a month.
In short, I spend a lot of time enriching myself. If my business work involves mostly enriching myself, the other people at my company and our VCs, then so be it. When I come home I like to work on projects that enrich all of us in a different community (we humans are very tribalistic by nature, you know). This other community is the community of *nix hackers and users, people who appreciate software as an art and a craft, people who appreciate technical accomplishments on their own merit.
So I don't really see the huge difference here. It's all just a matter of what enriches you and your life, and how you perceive yourself in the tribalistic/social framework.
probably no roaming profiles for 1.0 (Score:2)
--
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
Just a few things Mozilla has that Konqueror doesn't:
1. Embedded Java *in* the page( apparently this is a limitation of KDE itself or so I'm told by Konqueror developers ). Not to mention that Konqueror crawls when you use it.
2. VERY limited DOM support( face it, Konqueror DOM support really sucks.. for now )
3. Slows to a crawl when lots of animated gifs are on the page and/or when a plugin is heavily in use.
4. Limited to 5 threads( there needs to be an option to change that )
5. Must have that *Stupid* DCOP server! While not a complete memory hog, it's annoying for those who *don't* use KDE. As a result Mozilla actually starts up *faster* than Konqueror on a fresh start.
.. and if you want me to keep going I can prolly find more.
But you know what? Mozilla is *still* a second to Konqueror when I'm browsing the web. This is because of memory usage, and speed once the app is started( and the pages I go to, Konqueror usually does okay ).
But I have Mozilla waiting in the wings when Konqueror dies( and it does.. *alot* ). And Mozilla works when I use it on URLs that Konqueror dies misably on( and I've had Konqueror take X with it ).
So before you start saying stuff is horse shit you should probably look at the product your defending. While Konqueror is great, in my book there is a lot of trouble when trying to compare it to Mozilla.
Posted from Konqueror 1.9.8( CVS 20010106 )
Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:5)
The point is this: Mozilla stands to be a real mainstream browser. Don't knock it before it gets a decent chance.
---
Re:Alternate Architectures (Score:4)
for info on how to contribute builds to mozilla.org.
--Asa
Re:Alternate Architectures (Score:2)
Re:From the Mozilla Releases page... (Score:2)
You don't need year 2000 compliance any more. It's 2001 now.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
I'm curious as to how you think systems should find out that a file exists, if you're not allowed to edit a file or run an 'installation' program. I presume that you're suggesting that ld be modified such that every file on the entire system gets checked to see if it's a library, rather than keeping hints?
Hint to Spitzak: you ALWAYS need code to run on your computer, if you want something to change. Mozilla currently doesn't follow the first or second rules of UI design though. Those being 'only use one button' and 'if at all possible, make that button press itself'.
Also, make a mozilla plugin sometime... when you do, you'll discover that all this editing happens auto-magically. The self-clicking button exists, but isn't deployed since nobody in their right minds would bother releasing such things until mozilla is fully matured.
Go back under your bridge.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:0.x versus Mxx? (Score:2)
Re:Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
I agree, it *is* stupid. But I expect they'll have something this major cleaned up before 1.0.
About the installation of plugins and such... I think it should be perfectly possible to just have users be able to download their own plugins and things (to be stored in their
Re:still a bit rough, but usable (Score:2)
In a network transparent window system, you simply cannot guarantee timely redraws. And even local applications cannot do so. Not allowing the server to clear damaged areas often results in visually very confusing displays. Even if clearing did cause some unnecessary flashing (which it doesn't), disabling it would still be a bad tradeoff from a usability point of view. Mozilla is just broken in that regard, as is Qt. Microsoft Windows also gets this wrong, although it is less critical on Windows. Gtk and Tcl/Tk seem to do it right.
If you really want to avoid flashing, turn on backing store. That's what it is there for. But you have to decide whether the cost is worth it for your application. For Mozilla, it's unnecessary.
I was Impressed with Mozilla 0.6 (Score:2)
I see people posting negative comments. However, I was very impressed myself with the last release. It is January 10th 2001, and I have had it running as my only browser process since 2000 (ps aux doesn't give the exact dates for last years processes). I don't understand some of the comments. If a page doesn't follow standards and is designed for IE5 only, its not worth my while if it doesn't render correctly on my platform. It's their loss. With that said, I have never noticed any problems yet. I also use the mail and news for reading news.groupstudy.com. It works fine, never has crashed, however periodically it gets damn slow and I hear my hard drive thrashing like crazy. But then it stops. Anyway, I'd like to reiterate my thanks and appreciation for this project.
(Im running on a P166, 64megs Ram, Redhat 6.2)
I got this strange problem with XFree 4.0.2 though, my mouse pointer doesn't redraw correctly when the image below it changes.
Re:Sounds usable now... (Score:2)
0.6 was on it's way to becoming my primary browser until some bugs in the history code reared their ugly head. First, clicking on a link sometimes did *weird* things. (It would try to load the right page on the wrong server.
It's things like this that I'm sure are a major pain in the ass for the Mozilla developers, but once their ironed out, it should turn out to be a really nice browser.
Re:Sounds usable now... (Score:2)
In short...get the nightlies and use the heck out of them...that's the only way that we're going to get all the bugs found and fixed.
I also have to say congrats to mozilla on picking up the release schedule. I remember people whining about how long it took for new milestones to come out, but now things really are progressing nicely. Good job!
Why was this moderated up? (Score:2)
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Re:Alternate Architectures (Score:2)
Re:still a bit rough, but usable (Score:2)
Imagine even the simplest display, some black text on a white background. In your case the server automatically clears exposed areas to white.
Take a sample pixel that lies inside a black letter. It will initially have the old window's contents. When exposed the server changes it to white. When drawn the server changes it to black. That is 2 transitions.
Now imagine the program is super-efficient at drawing (or that it copies the data from a backing store, as you suggest), so that it only draws each pixel once. Then initially that pixel will have the old window's contents. When drawn it will turn black. This is 1 transition, the minimum possible.
Now you can argue that nobody draws their data like that, and any reasonable program will result in 2 blinks anyway, but the fact remains that if the server clears it, it is impossible to avoid the 2 blinks.
I also argue that simple application will erase the background even if the server did. This will result in 3 writes to the pixel, even if two of them are the same white color. This is not cheap, 1000 pixels does take some machine time and it is worth it to save one pass.
Also, even if the program blinks I think it is less objectionable since it will draw the two images right next to each other in time. If the server erases it there could be a quite long time where the display is showing the cleared area, making the blink much more visible.
Backing store like the NeXT had is nice (and it can be faked on X by mapping a single large pixmap as the background for the window). In fact I believe it is the only solution that allows the server to decide what to do with exposed area. But unfortunately most modern hardware does not allow hardware accelerated graphics to be used there, defeating most of the advantages.
Re:Should Mozilla Cost Money (Score:2)
It has a lot of users - you would be surprised.
> and nearly no presence in the marketplace?
Because you define the term "marketplace"
(nice in combination with "free") for
yourself?
> Because the lisp community (with exceptions) has never understood free (libre) software.
How does it come then that there are so many
free Lisp systems (alone for Common Lisp
there are GCL, CMUCL, CLisp, SBCL, ECL,
and Lisp software? Tons of Scheme systems
(the complex MIT Scheme, the Scheme Shell scsh,
the cross platform DrScheme, the tiny
SIOD,
> Where is GNU ? Everywhere!
Actually not on my computers - GNU software
is not really "free" - one is bound by
the GPL.
Anyway, what do we see?
Guile (a Scheme implementation,
which is, hmm, a Lisp dialect) is the "official"
scripting language (remember GIMP?) for GNU.
Emacs and XEmacs are **widely** used. Weren't
they mostly Lisp programs?
> Most people who work on free software do so because they benefit from it directly. It gives them features they need.
Dream on.
> So what is better (1) enrich yourself at other people's expense or (2) enrich yourself and others? Wake up lispers!
I guess you should just forget your romantic
ideas.
There is Lisp software out there.
I applaud more the guys who are maintaining
the CMUCL and CLisp (drives for example Yahoo Store) implementations - both excellent and free,
instead a random guy who has no idea what he
is talking about.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:4)
Thank you for saying the number one reason I never used IE 4 back when I had dialup years ago. Most of the time, IE will download that plugin BEFORE asking if you want it. How big is Shockwave 7? Do you really want that downloading over a modem every time you hit a page with a director file that you don't care about, but never wait long enough for an install prompt?
Daily RPM builds (Score:5)
right here [redhat.com].
Chris Blizzard rocks. He builds (almost) daily Mozilla rpms for Redhat 6 and 7. At the above link you will find:
Re:Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
This isn't quite what it sounds like. What they mean is that whoever runs Mozilla for the very first time on a given machine needs to have write access to wherever you installed it. For most of us, this will be the user 'root'. This is due to the fact that Mozilla automatically generates a few files in it's own directory the first time it's loaded. After that, anyone can run it harmlessly.
This is probably derived from Win32 way of developing things, but I'm confident that most of the developers are just as concerned with the Linux platform as well and it will be fixed or worked around somehow before 1.0.
just some of what's new (Score:3)
Re:Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about the fact that having +w on the target install dir was a requirement to install it, AND it was listed as a bug. That's what I was referring to...
*sigh*...
--
Re:Write Access Needed?! (Score:2)
Actually, I am wrong... That isn't the bug in question. In fact, I think I agree... that's a pretty stupid bug.
Interestingly enough, bug 46588 seems to have something to do with pasting rather than installing... weird.
First Impressions... (Score:4)
WARNING: This opinion is subject to quick and radical change the first time it crashes.
Nah... (Score:2)
Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (Score:2)
In other words, it's not getting any faster, any smaller, or any closer to completion. It's just getting bigger and slower.
Re:SVG and MathML support??? (Score:3)
--Asa
Re:Mirror links (Score:3)
If you check it out, you will find that the www site and the ftp site are different boxes. So linking to the www mirror page will not effect the ftp server
Official name: komodo.mozilla.org
(Aliases: ftp.mozilla.org)
Addresses: 207.200.81.212
Official name: gila.mozilla.org
(Aliases: www.mozilla.org)
Addresses: 207.200.81.215
You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (Score:3)
Now what on earth is a Microsoft Proxy Server? I've heard of HTTP proxies, SOCKS proxies, but Microsoft? What is this new protocol I never heard about??
-----
I'm amazed. (Score:2)
And I noticed one sort of odd thing: it hasn't crashed yet on me. When I started trying Mozilla the thing blew up all the time; now I feel completely comfortable with the idea of Mozilla as my primary browser, particularly with the integrated (and free!) crypto.
The only edge Konqueror has over Mozilla now, in my opinion, is being based on QT - which is the only toolkit so far that's been patched to use the excellent Xft [xfree86.org] library for antialiased fonts under XFree86 4.0.2 and later. I can't wait for Mozilla to pick up support for this thing.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
----
bash# ./mozilla (Score:2)
Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (Score:2)
Anyways...
IE won. Won, as in, controls well over 90% of the desktop market. If ALL of the non-Windows operating systems out there ever amount to more than 10% of the _desktop_ environment, then MS will release IE for (whatever). Mark my words--IE6 or IE7 will be released for Linux if it keeps growing on the desktop like it has for the past few months.
As far as embedded devices running Mozilla, I still disagree. No company will embed it, if it's big, slow, buggy, and unreliable.
Mozilla has lost its momentum, and its focus. It can't be compared to Linux, because Linux is a centralised, focused effort, and is not allowed to drift off course.
I still say that Mozilla never was and never will be a contender as a browser for anyone other than the hardcore diletantes, and a very few very specialised applications. Hell, look at OS/2--at least it was a good product, and it still didn't get any farther than that.
Completed January 9, 2000 (Score:2)
Re:probably no roaming profiles for 1.0 (Score:2)
Rich
still a bit rough, but usable (Score:2)
Most importantly, though, why does Mozilla still insist on changing X11 screen redraw semantics? By default, damaged areas of X11 windows get cleared. Mozilla insists on leaving the damage, leading to very confusing screen displays with parts of one window ghosted in another. Can't this be fixed? Why deviate from the X11 convention in the first place? Windows gets this wrong, and X11 just gets it right.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:3)
The mozilla renderring engine is quite a bit faster in my experience. Also it takes less ram.
It's XUL stuff that takes the ram, slows down start up time, and takes so long to render.
Most web pages do not have very complex html. A couple nested tables but that's about it most of the time. With mozilla renderring the UI is far more complicated than renderring the web page.
Try a XUL free browser that uses the mozilla renderrer. The debian gtkembed package is really old so I wasn't too impressed with galeon and skipstone. But kmeleon ( http://kmeleon.org ) for windows is really fast.
XUL is really cool. I understand why they made the choices that they did to use it. Someday we will all want themeable browsers. But it's really slow.
Sounds usable now... (Score:3)
If you're into beta testing software at all - get it. If not, wait a month, then get the current release.
Regardless of what anyone says, I'm going to make a prediction that Mozilla will come to solve many of the picky little things in HTML and will be the first to render HTML 4.0 bug-free. The fact that Netscape has a hand in it will also be good - it will be supported by major sites because the Netscape coding for all those weird website quirks will also be in there.
CAP THAT KARMA!
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
From the Mozilla Releases page... (Score:2)
Drat. I guess I should stop working on my mod_timetravel module for Apache, since it's not going to work with Mozilla.
Re:probably no roaming profiles for 1.0 (Score:2)
Whether you use one of the public roaming hosts or your own private server, roaming profiles is the only way I've found to maintain my sanity when dealing with multiple machines and platforms.
This single feature is the only reason I haven't already given up on Netscape and gone to IE - it's that powerful. This simply MUST be in any final release... I need roaming a whole lot more than I need new features.
yeah, but who cares really ? (Score:2)
Mozilla is an example of "too much code design kills the project".
Yeah, it's great, it has lotta objects calling lotta others and so on. as a drawback, it's very very slow, and they'll never manage to have a stable product.
In fact, the only thing that is quite good in Mozilla project is Gecko. It is a quite fast and powerful layout engine.
The worst idea is having a theme managment and object model OVER GTK+.It's useless (GTK+ IS skinnable), and damn slow.
And for Mail and NNTP, it's simply crap. crashes often, looses messages in mail and so on. BTW, there's no good X Mailer for Linux (PINE is console, remember
So i'm waiting for Nautilus, Evolution and new versions of Konqueror and KMail (not to talk about IE)... Maybe at the end Linux, the OS the most adapted to the Internet, will have powerful Internet end-user tools.
Re:If this were netscape (Score:2)
Re:Sounds usable now... (Score:2)
-Asa
Re:who cares? (Score:3)
(Celeron 566, 128MB RAM, everything else vanilla)
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
Re:If this were IE (Score:2)
Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (Score:2)
The only way Internet Explorer can "win", whatever that means, is if they release a Linux version.
And that isn't going to happen. I agree that IE has won on Windows. So what? What about the embedded market? What about Linux users? You think that Linux users are going to be happy using Netscape 3 forever?
And you are wrong that Mozilla will not be used. Even if the browser never becomes popular, the Gecko rendering engine will be. A lightweight, fast browser that uses that engine would be much faster and easier to write than a new browser from scratch.
Many embedded devices like the TiVo run Linux. Many of them will eventually have web browsers on them. Many of those will be based on Mozilla, for some of the same reasons they are based on Linux.
Failed utterly? Get real.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (Score:2)
Re:Why the Netscape Logo? (Score:2)
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:3)
One thing to realize is that this will doubtfully ever change. That's because 4.x's main goal when rendering a page was to throw the page onto the screen as fast as possible. This means there was hardly any DOM support, as mozilla has, and it also meant that resizing your browser window required a reload, at least from cache, of the web page. If you've noticed, mozilla dynamically moves the elements around now, when you resize your browser window.
It's give and take, people. Performance was sacrificed, at least somewhat, for DOM support.
(I don't know how much of the "new window" lag is due to the building of the DOM, and how much is the damn scripted UI. I'm not sure that I agree with the use of XUL/JS for the UI, I have a feeling it causes 80% of the lag times, although that number is completely out of my ass.)
--
Mirror links (Score:4)
but just in case, for those who do not go there often, dozens of mirrors are listed here:
http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html [mozilla.org]
I am really looking forward to this, because NS and moz0.6 have been just a little bit problematic for me. Little things, like go to page x then open a new window go to page y, and it thinks it is still on page x. Infuriating, but what can I say.
I have great hopes for this.
Re:yeah, but who cares really ? (Score:2)
The reason for the XP toolkit and XUL is to make maintanance much less of a pain in the long run and easy to change the face mozilla.
It should be noted that the mozilla developers have said, on the record, that if it was not was for XP toolkit they would have only developed on windows. Other platforms would have lagged as developers would need to hack it to their favorite OS.
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:4)
- plugins... I still have yet to find a plugin system that works as well as it does on IE. In ie, when you get one of those "plugin needed" messages, you can click install, wait for a few seconds, and the page now works, no reloading, no nothing. When mozilla has this then I'll be very happy.. just a $HOME/.mozilla/plugins dir, so it's user configuable and everything.
- still slower than ns 4.x. Yes, netscape sucks, but it still appears quicker for me (1s) than mozilla (~2s) when clicked from the gnome panel. That's with an already running program btw, not from scratch.
- x509 certs.... we use encrypted mail at work and I really hate to have to run netscape for mail. When mozilla gets the ability to veryify, encode and decode verisign certs, I will be a very happy camper.
Aside from those bitches, I'm pretty happy. I don't see a huge increase over the nightly builds I've been using, but I'm sure that over
Microsoft as an adjective? (Score:3)
For example, if I have some 3/4 pipe fittings and a pipe that won't fit into them (it is 3/4 and a bit or had a burr or is slightly out of shape), we would say "Oh, that's the microsoft pipe, use the other one"
Or someone has a sweater that is nice and warm and soft but when they put it on, it brings them out in a rash, that's a microsoft sweater.
Rich
Release notes (Score:3)
Alex Bischoff
---
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
What's New (Score:5)
Here's the rest of what's new:
--
Alternate Architectures (Score:4)
--neutrino
Re:yeah, but who cares really ? (Score:3)
Re:First Impressions... (Score:2)
Re:You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (Score:2)
Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (Score:2)
It is insane that we have to edit files (or run any kind of "installation" program, no matter how friendly) to tell the systems the simple fact that a file exists.
Hint to Mozilla: can't find a plugin? Try the handy Unix functions "opendir" and "readdir".
Ouch... ATI users get burned... (Score:2)
If you are using an ATI Rage video card, images are correctly displayed initially, but may not be properly re-drawn when you minimize and maximize or resize the window.
--