Netscape 8 Breaks IE XML 398
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has alerted users that Netscape's latest browser appears to break the XML rendering capabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Dave Massy, a senior programme manager for IE, warned users in a blog posting that after installing Netscape 8, IE will render XML files as a blank page, including XML files that have an XSLT transformation. What a week for Netscape 8.0; first the browser needed several fixes hours after its release, then it was discovered that without IE installed, Netscape 8.0 will not install, and now IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work."
Yea for QA Testing! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to know what kinda crap their QA department is getting right now.
-- Dave
And you're too slow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Netscape, Is, Now, Just, A, Brand.
Re:Does anyone use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Netscape it just mozilla a few (minor) versions back + netstcape "branding" modifications.
But i could be wrong, I did not used it in a while, I have note even seen it installed anywhere.
I'm wondering why they even bother to release it instead of promoting mozilla and/or firefox, seems like a waste of energy to me.
Sounds like yet another... (Score:5, Insightful)
Releasing Netscape based on Firefox 1.03 after 1.04 was available with important security fixes was completely idiotic if a key differentiator of Netscape is supposed to be superior security!
And then releasing an updated version within 24 hours based on 1.04 to show the world they could simply have delayed the initial launch by a day in the first place proved their mismanagement (any excuse about changing to 1.04 being complex and delaying the launch too much went out the window).
Now their bragging rights about being able to switch betweeen IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?
Not Netscape-specific but for software in general...Managers, get a clue, if you don't like deadlines given by engineers then remove features until they can provide timeframes that are acceptable. And you engineers that are too cowardly to say "No, that cannot be done by that time unless we eliminate/postpone some of the requirements" get some balls.
Re:I'd love to see the reaction from the /. commun (Score:3, Insightful)
Just Growing Pains for an innovative product (Score:3, Insightful)
I found it to be high praise for Firefox and damnation of IE that NS reverts to Firefox rendering when it considers a web-site to be even semi-suspect. Basically, they said IE is dangerous and Firefox is safe(r ).
Re:robust opsys layout and design - ayup (Score:5, Insightful)
1 -- you usually only need to run the installer as root if you are doing a system-wide installation. If it is just for you it is easier just to install it in your home folder. Personally, I do that fairly often. I have an updated version of whatever I was installing in my space and can fall back on the system-wide version if I foobar it somehow.
2 -- *nix apps are generally more self-contained than Windows apps. The fact that much of the configuration information for Windows programs resides in the registry is just asking for problems. For example:
If program A uses protocol X and program B does so also, installing B may change registry entries concerning protocol X so that they match its needs. Program A stops working with protocol X.
The *nix tradition of self-contained configuration files avoids the collisions that can arise in the registry.
So again, YES, it is possible for an installer to completely wreck a *nix box BUT it is much less likely.
Re:Sounds like yet another... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about the ads (Score:3, Insightful)
When "Elf" came out, AIM was pushing these horrible "LOUD" ads for it on the AIM client (I managed to block most of it by blocking access to their ad server).
I know AOLs hurting for money and trying madly to get some revenue, but they need to make sure they don't chase away potential clients with obnoxious behavior and poorly written software.
Re:give me a break (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like yet another... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now their bragging rights about being able to switch between IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?
OK, so here's the deal. You're a QA lead for testing netscape and you have to prioritize tasks. What priority do you place on comprehensively testing a feature that only works some of the time and is used by very few people in a competitor's product with whom you are interfacing? I've tried to use IE to view XML, and it occasionally would work and occasionally would render a blank page. Now after whatever Netscape did, it renders more pages blank? Big deal, no one who really wants to view XML uses IE anyway, since it only worked sporadically.
Not holding up the release to include the security fixes was a serious mistake in my opinion. Not finding this minor bug in a competitor's product with whom they are interfacing is a complete non-issue in my mind.
How often has MS broken a competing product? (Score:2, Insightful)
The people who install Netscape may use both browsers until, "hey, this page doesn't render in IE but it does in Netscape. Let's use Netscape for everything."
I think this is a good thing. Hey MS, how's it feel to have other people breaking your functionality?
Heh... That's not the only bug! (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ [ascd.org] w/ Firefox. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus. Works.
2) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ [ascd.org] w/ IE. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus (albeit drawn differently). Works.
3) Navigate to http://www.ascd.org/ [ascd.org] w/ NS8. Note that IE engine is being used. Move through the site via the dropdown DHTML menus. Get caught in a recursive site-provided "Page Not Found" loop. Change engine to Firefox for site. Same issue.
Re:Does anyone use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid it's worse than simply "a waste of time". Apparently, Netscape 8 incorporates the IE rendering engine, and uses it by default for "trusted" sites. This is a seditious act by AOL to tie the Netscape brand to the Windows platform, and shits on the web standards the Mozilla team has worked so hard to support.
Now that Netscape 8 has been shown to corrupt IE installations, Microsoft can make statements about how alternative browsers are a security issue. Thanks a lot AOL. Netscape would be better off dead and buried.
Re:Does anyone use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just trying to address one of the major complaints that people have had about non-IE browsers.
The complaint that it's not IE? Why even bother then, everyone capable of running IE (Windows users) already have it. Running IE with a different skin is no different than firing up iexplore.exe.
Since you didn't grok my comment about web standards, I assume you're not a developer. Here's the deal: IE is not very good at supporting web standards like CSS, PNG, etc. It also encourages sloppy markup. By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code. At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.
Even with Firefox having a 10% marketshare, there is still the entrenched concept of there being two browsers: IE & Netscape. What happens when Netscape has, essentially, become just another IE wrapper? Nothing good can come of this.
Remember the deals AOL made in the past to keep their icon in the Windows default install. I sense something similar is afoot.