Mozilla 1.0 Officially Here 961
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."
Talkback packages only (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Ann Arbor Party (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:mozillazine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ding Dong, IE is Dead! (Score:1, Interesting)
DHTML&JS performance in 1.0 sucks (although it's very good in nightlies) and also some other cool stuff (= other IE's good ideas and some bad too) are planing to be implemented mostly probably for 1.2
Not bad at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2, Interesting)
How to use tabs for automated surfing... (Score:2, Interesting)
:-)
Also, this is the first Moz I've tried on my new iBook, and it certainly renders faster than IE or OmniWeb. AAMOF, Slashdot loads considerably faster.
Nice work. I'll try to make myself get used to it, as it seems alot more polished than I expected.
Netscape 4.x (Score:3, Interesting)
If Mozilla had been a straight source release of Netscape 4.08, would it have reached version 1.0 sooner? What would the current Mozilla version be like now? Would both paths tend to converge to the rewritten-from-scratch browser we have now?
It's a pity that 4.x was never made free, because Mozilla 1.0 has some pretty high system requirements. I'm going to check out the last of the 'Mozilla classic' builds which were a cleaned-up Netscape 4, to see how well they perform.
Orbit Theme (Score:1, Interesting)
Grab it from here: http://www.alfordot.com/e/p/cdn/orbit3/ [alfordot.com]
Don't get too hopeful :) (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The ONLY thing annoying me... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:new king (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Is there a good CD image to distribute? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: from the it's-only-been-how-many-years dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
June 5th 2002 - Mozilla 1.0 Released [mozilla.org]
Roughly, about 4.5 years.
Needs to be said (Score:2, Interesting)
WOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Thank you, mozilla.org and everyone else who contributed to this project! Now - let's party like it's 9.9.9!!!
Mouse button functionality? (Score:2, Interesting)
Any help or info anyone could give would be appreciated. Thanks.
Re:new king (Score:3, Interesting)
1)K-Meleon has never crashed on me, even with 100 windows open. I don't think I can go back to a web browser which ever crashes. It's just too inconvenient to lose those 100 windows.
2)I enjoy coding under dos(in fact, despite the fact that dos is quite dead, and real-mode hardware coding is not paticularly useful anymore, I'm working on an RPG for dos right now), and the dos emulator under w2k is less than stellar. For example, they don't emulate the latest version of EMS.
3)I have achieved remarkable stability and speed under 98, and the thought of spending a couple hundred dollars for 2k just so I can run Internet Explorer without crashing the shell doesn't really appeal to me.
If I had cable and therefore needed security(patched security.....), I'd buy it in a heartbeat -- probably before I went to subscribe to cable. As it stands however, there isn't really any reason to put Windows on a standalone PC.
Re:Please!! Count to ten and then decide (Score:1, Interesting)
Just an fyi.
So basically for an md5 sum to be any good, the md5 sum has to come from a reputable, secure source, such as mozilla.org, not some random person on slashdot.
Re:Please!! Count to ten and then decide (Score:2, Interesting)
Securitywise, all that md5 sum means is that no one changed it after you posted it on gnutella. For all I know, you trojanized it yourself, or you downloaded it from somewhere else pre-trojaned.
If that were the case it's quite likely that someone would have noticed and pointed that out. I downloaded my copy from mozilla.com, so it's highly unlikely that it's pre-trojaned.
So basically for an md5 sum to be any good, the md5 sum has to come from a reputable, secure source, such as mozilla.org, not some random person on slashdot.
Personally I'd settle for a relatively long-time slashdot user who uses his real name and was modded to 5. In the unlikely case that someone spent a year posting on slashdot and building up a reputation just so s/he could plant a trojan into the 1.0 release of mozilla, and that you happened to download the exact same copy from gnutella that s/he had distributed, it would eventually be discovered, and that person could easily be traced by IP address and reported to the FBI.
So while I agree with you that my MD5 sum wasn't military grade security, I think it does present some additional security. Even more if others respond to confirm the MD5. And I hope others put mozilla into their gnutella sharing directory.
Ultimately, the problem should be solved by AOL putting the MD5 on https://www.mozilla.org/. But I checked, and if they have, I couldn't find it.
Still need a new icon :-) (Score:2, Interesting)
Not that this is a huge deal -- I've used Moz since 0.7 and now it is my default browser on both Linux and Windows XP... but still, I think the dinosaur head icon would look better -- especially when it's enlarged and put at the top of the start menu as your default web browser in XP (which should be its placement on every Windows computer some day
Or at least the ability to choose between the two.
Re:Wheres the Spell Checker in Moz Email? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe Bill Gates will have an attack of kindnes (Score:3, Interesting)
While Gates has surpassed the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords in total dollars given to charity, philanthropic experts say comparisons to givers from the Gilded Age may be unfair.
"Yes, it's more money than anyone has ever put into a foundation," Englehardt said. "Is it a larger percentage of his worth? Probably not." One of the things that makes comparisons to the Carnegies and Rockefellers difficult, explained Englehardt, is that they gave before the income tax, and thus tax deductions, was created.
"In real dollars, it's more than they gave. Relative to what it can do, it's probably smaller than what the Carnegies' or Rockefellers' money could do."
Ellen Lagamenn, a New York University history professor and expert on philanthropy, said comparisons between Gates and the late greats are premature.
"I don't think these comparisons at the moment are very accurate or apt because Bill Gates is at the beginning of his philanthropic life," she said. "We have a whole record for Carnegie and Rockefeller. I think the issue is what Bill Gates is doing and how sensibly he is doing it. It seems to me he is heading in the right direction."
While benefactors such as Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller represented the burgeoning wealth arising from oil, steel and railroads, those of the late 20th Century are bearing gifts from the revolutionary age of information technology. And, like Rockefeller, Gates stands accused of being a monopolist.
Gates' $750 million gift to the Global Fund for Children's Vaccines came less than three weeks after United States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft used its monopoly power to thwart competition. The ruling was seen as a threat to Microsoft stock, but share prices rebounded after Jackson appointed a federal judge to mediate between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors.
In a percentage of total wealth, it's not the same.
Also, many of the "generous" givers - i.e. Standard Oil (Rockafeller) gave very generously to help cover up their image of anti-consumer/anti-competitive greed. So, from that angle, BG fits right in.
Go do some research - most of these scumbags only give to help "reinvent" their image.
Gates may give, but look at the actions of the firm he ran. If you think that'll help re-invigorate his image with me, you been smoking somthing...
So, the origional poster was right! "Bzzzt - you win a years supply of toilet paper..."
Cheers!
open local files (Score:2, Interesting)
to mozilla if there were not an annoying issue
which had been in the bug list for years: in
linux, mozilla still does not open local
files like
mozilla help.html
(galeon does this correctly). While a little wrapper
#!/bin/sh
dir_name=`pwd`;
absolute_filename="file://$dir_name/$1"
mozilla $absolute_filename
can help, I hope this is soon no more necessary.
Re:Please!! Count to ten and then decide (Score:2, Interesting)
But *IF* I was paranoid and wanted to grab what I was positive was a trojan free copy of mozilla, I wouldn't trust an md5 from third party, even if your account is years old. For all I know, someone hijacked your account for the sole purpose of distributing a trojaned mozilla. Very doubtful yes, but possible. When I do care about security, I go all out, not half ass.
Ok, if I download mozilla off gnutella, I'm pretty sure no one had the time to mess with it wrap a trojan around it.
And if you say it's good (via md5), then I'm even more sure no one messed with it, seeing as how you seem like a nice guy and have been on slashdot awhile and I don't think you want to screw anyone. And the fact that you got modded all the way up to +5 means your absolutely cream of the crop.
But, if I download mozilla and compare the md5 that I got off of mozilla.org then I'm almost aboslutely positive that no one screwed with it, and if someone did screw with it, you can bet your cookies that there will be a huge press release about it and I will find out that I grabbed a trojaned version. Whereas with the first two methods, I probably wouldn't find out right away.
Re:OPEN SOURCE NEEDS MORE BABES (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is the user at madchat who is hosting those pictures? I can't find contact info.
And you want hot chicks? Hand hot chicks a copy of the Unix Administration Handbook, and make yourself avaliable to answer questions. It worked on me.
- Ceren E.,
that daemonette, who just wants to see the photographer's credits BACK on those pictures.