Mozilla 1.1 Hits The Street

asa writes: "Mozilla 1.1 has arrived!. This release has many new features including full-screen mode for Linux, Mac MathML support, a redesigned JavaScript Debugger, new window icons for the different Mozilla applications, view selection source, display HTML mail as plaintext, and much more. Along with all the new features, Mozilla 1.1 also contains many improvements to performance, stability, standards support, and web site compatibility. You can get Mozilla 1.1 by visiting the mozilla.org releases page or directly from ftp at ftp.mozilla.org. Now that 1.1 is out the door, the focus moves to 1.2 alpha, and beyond. If you're confused as to how all of these releases relate to each other, be sure to check out the Mozilla Roadmap and the community hub over at mozillaZine.org."

Re:...but does Java work?

[short]

This is not a flaw of Mozilla, it is a general non-crossplatformity of Java. Exactly according to the famous "Write once, test everywhere".
When I was bothering with Java in the past I had to implement various workarounds of existing JVM bugs, on each platform a different ones. Java applets would benefit a lot from autoconf(1). :-)

Re:...but does Java work?

[leviramsey]

Java applets would benefit a lot from autoconf(1)

Or from slow torture to the designers who required that a Java applet be there. Java applets are even worse than Flash, and that's gotta count for something.

Re:Answer me this.

[Aanallein]

at what point are the developers going stop adding new crap and just focus on fixing bug's?

Never. Though for example the Netscape engineers working on Mozilla might be directed to work only on fixing 'real bugs', many other contributors will always remain interested in extra features that they personally could really use, and contribute patches for these features. And (as long as they don't add too much bloat / are obviously useful for more than a handful of users) those patches will continue to be accepted and Mozilla will continue to become a better, more feature-rich browser.

You know you got to rethink things when mozilla is using 200MB's of ram!

I'd be very surprised if you're seeing such memory usage with 1.1 - Mozilla's memory usage has improved dramatically over the last few months.

Re:Mozilla is _bad_ so is Galeon

[Anonymous Coward]

you are missing a lot of background information my friend otherwise you would not come up with these brainless statement.

facts:

- to compile galeon you need the whole mozilla package

- to use galeon 2 for example you need to apply a shitload of patches to the gtk2embedmozilla component in mozilla

- to get xft2 support in mozilla you need to apply another shitload of patches.

- the rendering interface you see in the galeon window is gecko (thats true) gecko is a nice and perfect rendering engine (no doubt) unfortunately some idiots made mozilla around of it which makes gecko look like a pile of shit.

- the elements you see in the gecko engine are XUL-widgets specially made from mozilla team for mozilla. XUL widgets are in no way compatible to a sane gnome environment. they always behave strange, differently and doesn't integrate fine into gnome.

- there is no interaction between the mozilla people and the galeon people besides one or two people. to sum it up here. the mozilla people give a damn shit of the needs of galeon. they are doing their own stuff.

- we the users have waited many many months now and there is still no sane gtk2 port for the gtkembed2 widget. now think of the future when gnome 3 comes out and we will be at the same position again. api changed. mozilla needs another 6-8 months until it gets the first patches etc.

- interaction with the gnome environment sucks with mozilla component. you can't drag and drop files (e.g. a tarball link) from the mozilla (galeon) window into your nautilus dir and get that one downloaded. as in konqueror

- .... this can be easily extended.

next time prepare yourself better before replying to me with your clueless background informations. i worked longer on galeon than anyone else.

nonstandard?

[wiredog]

Since when are tarballs nonstandard? They've been the default, works-on-everything, way to distribute software for decades.

still missing...

[guile*fr]

i wish they:
- clean up their dir hierarchy
- get rid of that crappy shell script launcher
- improve the openning of urls from cli (to use
-remote an instance of moz must be running)
- use a ~/.mozilla/addons for things like mouse
gestures, for now u have to launch moz as root &
install the extra app

Re:nonstandard?

[foobar104]

OP didn't say tarballs are nonstandard. He said that lots of software depends on Mozilla, and that if he installs from a tarball instead of his preferred package format, he'll have to do special things to install lots of other pieces of software, like forcing them to ignore dependencies and so on.

And he's right. If you want to use a package management system, you have to use it all the time, otherwise chaos ensues and the cure is worse than the disease.

Source code tarball?!

[Rev Snow]

Could they make it any harder to find?

I've clicked around forever and still
can't find a simple *.tar.gz form of
the 1.1 source code release.