Mozilla 0.9.7 Released! 436
Chezypewf writes: "The newest release from the Mozilla Dev team is out. This milestone features basic S/MIME support, favicon support and the Document Inspector, a tool to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. You can grab it here: http://www.mozilla.org/releases "
Re:Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
Again,
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
See the first line on the release page? It says:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
If you want a not-testing-purposes-only browser, go use Netscape 6.2. Binary versions of Mozilla are are available for testing purposes only.
Re:Goody Goody (Score:0, Insightful)
#9. Slashdot is a plot by Microsoft to destroy the productivity of Linux users.
I have friends who were once tremendously productive programmers, until they started reading Slashdot. Then, the endless stream of links, updated a dozen times a day no less (so you don't go once a day to get your fix; instead, you keep a window open and hit reload every twenty minutes or so), steadily seduced them, until they eventually became babbling idiots, dribbling saliva from the corners of their mouths, ranting on the forums about the relative merits of Karma Whores and Anonymous Cowards. Can there be any doubt that this website is anything other than a nefarious ploy to destroy Linux by undermining the productivity of its developers? And is there any organization that would like to destroy Linux more than Microsoft? (Well, maybe the Santa Cruz Operation...) Is it any coincidence that just as the Feds were working out Microsoft's sentence, Microsoft sued Slashdot, resulting in a firestorm of geek ire that totally overshadowed the monopoly ruling?
#8. Screaming 14-year-old boys attempting to prove to each other that they are more 3133t than j00.
Need I say more?
#7. Technical opinions refereed by popular vote means lousy technical opinions.
Before the Internet, a certain breed of deconstructionists had a lot of fun telling everybody that "privileging of dominant paradigms" was wrecking the world. The Internet has taught us that privileging certain views is absolutely crucial to avoid drowning in the ravings of idiots. On Slashdot, many articles discuss technical issues---but comments are refereed by popular vote, and even though the populace of Slashdot readers knows somewhat more than your average set of people off the street, they still tend to promote (as in "moderate up") a lot of technical nonsense. Reading Slashdot can therefore often be worse than useless, especially to young and budding programmers: it can give you exactly the wrong idea about the technical issues it raises.
The pre-Internet publishing world had magazines, newspapers, and journals with editors. Respectable publications hired qualified editors. Those qualified editors were educated enough to make intelligent decisions about the quality of content. The Slashdot model removes the editors and substitutes popular vote, and the result (unfortunately) is that the quality level becomes incredibly inconsistent. It was an interesting experiment; it didn't work, not for Slashdot (though it might work in some other population of users). Too bad. Now, it's time to quit.
#6. Community myth that Linux is technically superior to any other operating system in the known universe.
People who do operating systems research, of course, think this is a joke. Dissent from this view in Slashdot, however, and you'd better be wearing your asbestos fatigues.
#5. Butt-ugly visual design.
Of course, this one's a matter of taste. However, in my analysis, the visual elements of the Slashdot site are basically hopelessly confused and wrong. From the cryptic links in the left margin, to the drop-shadowed graphics (hello, digital design cliche circa 1994?), to the offensively lousy color scheme (let's use circuit board green, because it's "News for Nerds", right?) I can't find much to like about the design of Slashdot.
#4. Gullible editorial staff continues to post links to any and all articles that vaguely criticize Linux in any way.
Blowhards (like the flock of irresponsible columnists over at the Windows-boosterism rag InfoWorld) have had tons of fun taking advantage of this tendency to drive hits to their site. On any given day, Slashdot readers are treated to another link to another column by another self-proclaimed pundit declaring that Linux is (pick one) unreliable, not scalable, not user-friendly, doomed, piracy-inducing, foul-smelling, or un-American. And irony was that the editors of Slashdot are falling right into the pundits' trap: inciting the Slashdot community is the one surefire way to drive up your hit count and hence your revenue from ad banners. Did the Slashdot editors ever wise up? Not that I ever saw. Given how tiresome the endless pro-Linux jihad had become by the time I quit, I have very little desire to go back and find out whether that's changed.
#3. Gullible editorial staff continues to post links to bogus pseudoscience articles by crackpots.
At the time I quit, the editors were posting links to theories of alternate consciousness, unified theories of the universe made up by people in their garages, and the like at a rate of two or three a week. And the number was only increasing. If I want to read articles that promote totally bogus pseudoscience, I'll open up the Village Voice. We don't need another webzine filling that role.
#2. Editorial/comment system pretends to be democratic but in reality most content remains firmly in the iron clasp of the editors.
The above problems with editorial could be solved if stories could be moderated as well as comments, or if editors paid attention to negative feedback about the posting of certain articles. However, the editorial staff, while pretending to be ideology-free selectors of any "interesting" content, in fact exert tremendous power over the content of the site, because they are the only ones who can select top-level links. They have furthermore demonstrated, for all the reasons above, that they cannot use this power wisely.
In fact, if you think about it, the links on Slashdot are easily an order of magnitude less interesting, on average, than those of Suck, Hotwired, or FEED---all of which are run by smart editors with good taste (and two of which are dead---thus proving that only the good die young). If you've read any of these webzines, you'll probably agree. Rob and Hemos simply don't compare, as editors, to Stephen Johnson or Joey Anuff.
So, really, it's time to ask yourself: why should I read Slashdot? Because it targets my demographic? That's a silly reason. So why not quit today?
#1. Two words: Jon Katz.
Every community has its resident gasbag. The difference between Slashdot and other communities is that they have the means to kick their village idiot off his soapbox, but they lack the will. If Jon Katz is not the single worst writer for any webzine, anywhere on the planet, alive today, then I am a penguin. His writing manages to be endlessly meandering and verbose, and simultaneously utterly content-free.
Notice, by the way, that I have not said a word about his technical acumen. It's not necessary to. Katz (who, like all opportunists, likes to paint himself as an innocent victim whenever he's criticized) makes a big deal about how there are "technical snobs" in the Linux user population who blast him for not being a technical genius. To tell the truth, Katz's inability to install even recent Linux distributions (which are arguably as easy to install as MacOS or Windows) on a run-of-the-mill x86 PC does testify to his general cluelessness. However, Katz is not a programmer or sysadmin; he's a writer. He must stand or fall based on the quality of his writing. And his writing is totally the pits. He would never have gotten published anywhere but Slashdot; even WIRED, cheerleaders of all things "digital" and "decentralized", finally got tired of his babbling and let him go. The cheesiest, most blatantly pandering "Hookers Who Read Proust" article on Salon.com displays more literary skill than the finest Katz screed ever to see the light of day.
To make things worse, Katz is also a shameless opportunist who regularly uses Slashdot to promote his books. And the Slashdot admins go right along with it. You can't criticize someone for their taste in friends, but you can criticize them for continuing in a relentless and blind nepotism that destroys the quality of the site.
No single factor wase more pivotal in driving me away from Slashdot than Jon Katz. Even when I registered for an account and filtered Katz out, still he made it into news items not labeled Jon Katz---presumably to promote sales of his book. What other webzine displays such a blatant disrespect for its readers?
But then again, Katz's pandering, one-note "Ich bin ein Geek" spiel may be exactly what the Slashdot audience deserves.
Simply put, it's time to quit Slashdot, once and for all.
Re:Goody Goody (Score:1, Insightful)
I rest my case.
Re:from the release notes "What's New" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*drooling over this feature* (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla team - You guys have a HUGE thank you coming from me! Thank god for software which is written by the people who use it.
Re:Mozilla obsolete (Score:4, Insightful)
//redirect for people with a less than
//version 4 browser
var NS4 = (document.layers);
var IE4 = (document.all);
var ver4 = (NS4 || IE4);
if(!ver4)
location.href= "notsupported.htm";
and hotmail.com works just fine for me on mac, windows and linux mozilla 0.9.7 builds.
--Asa
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Open windows by themselves"
could be
"Allow automatic pop-up windows"
26 characters Vs. 30... not bad.
The key is that 95% of the people would be looking for this option to stop "pop-ups", so there's little to no reason not to use that word. Yes it's not perfect, but that's why useability people freak out when programmers make dialog boxes, we're geeks. We think technically, not like a user. Give the users what they want.
As for Jakob Nielson, every
-Russ
Re:Goody Goody (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:REALITY CHECK TIME (Score:2, Insightful)
No. it's at version 0.97. Wait for 1.0. That will be ready. Will it be free of bugs? Probably not. Will those bugs be resolved more quickly than those on closed-source browsers? yes.
If you're talking ideology, why on earth are you running windows at all?
Re:Stable, Documented API (Score:2, Insightful)
See: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about "Enable pop-ups/pop-unders"?
I think that would neatly capture the intent of this checkbox. In fact, what would be particularly nice about it is that, as time goes on, and other means are developed for defeating "pop-ups" (whatever people come to understand that to mean), it would be possible to roll that functionality into that pre-existing checkbox.
Actually, here's what I _really_ think. You should leave all that fine-grained JavaScript control stuff as it is, and where it is (under Advanced). What is needed is an "enable pop-ups/pop-unders" checkbox in, say, the main navigator preferences screen. This is a "digestified" function, i.e. it may do various things, which are not precisely-defined, but whose intent is to defeat what people commonly refer to as "pop-ups" or "pop-unders".
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the entries after the first (I'm going by what the poster wrote; I haven't run 0.9.7 myself) can be read as if prefixed with "Scripts are allowed to ...". So make that the heading! "Scripts and Windows" makes
little sense, since most of the entries are unrelated to windows. This
change would require that "Enable Javascript" be moved to its own section,
which seems appropriate anyway.
(I guess someone wanted "windows" in the heading so that people looking to disable ad windows would see it; but this is "advanced" configuration, and I think anyone going here would know that it's really a script preference.)
On to the original matter: "Open windows by themselves" is gratuitously ambiguous. "by themselves" seems to go with "windows", which could either mean that windows open in a separate part of the screen ("by" as in location"); or that windows spontaneously open without external cause ("by" as in agent). Neither one is really right.
If you change the heading as I suggest, it reads, "Scripts are allowed to open windows by themselves". This is an improvement, because "by" as in agent clearly refers to "scripts". But the "by" as in location interpretation is still possible, so it remains confusing.
"Scripts are allowed to open windows automatically" reads with no ambiguity to me, and seems no worse in any way. So I would suggest "Open windows automatically" as the text for the checkbox. "Open windows without user input" isn't bad if you want to be more explicit.
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
I don't like the options stated here:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
x Open Windows by themselves
x Move or resize existing windows
x Make windows flip over or under other windows
x Change status bar text
x Change Images
x Create or change cookies
x Read cookies
I propose instead:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
Javascript code may:
x Open windows on page load/unload (pop-up and pop-under ads)
x Move and resize existing windows
x Change window ordering (pop-under ads)
x Change status bar text
x Change images (mouseover highlighting)
x Create and change cookies
x Read cookies
First, the other options definitely belong as a sub-item as the first one, disabled when it gets disabled. (If it's actually this way in the dialog, sorry, my Mozilla isn't quite new enough to have your feature. I'm going by the bug report.) There should be a little label to explain the wording of the subitems, since they are stated as what the code is doing ("open a window") rather than what you're doing ("allowing them to open a window").
Second, I really don't like the "by themselves". Obviously everything in Javascript happens because of some event firing. I think on page load/unload is more clear. (Or some other way of precisely stating what events you're talking about.)
Third, it has in parenthesis a common use of several features. This should give a better understanding of what you'll be breaking.
VIEW SOURCE still sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
The same behaviour was a huge problem for printing in Netscape. Rather than print what was in the browser's memory and on the screen, netscape would do a GET request on the URL. If it didn't come back with the right results - oh well! Too bad...
Why on earth can't we simply see what's in the browser's memory already? It seems this is the EASY thing to do and Netscape (and now Mozilla) are unnecessarily complicating the matter.
Re:VIEW SOURCE still sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
> AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME
Which, with client-side scripting involved, has nothing to do with the source that was served from the website (consider a page that dynamically creates and appends some elements.
The fact of the matter is, there is no good reason to keep the source once it has been parsed, so Mozilla do it. The only place the source stays is in the cache. Thus the problem becomes one of extracting the correct cache entry.
And Mozilla always prints exactly what you see; it prints based on the DOM, not on the source.