Mozilla .6 Released 249
jensend writes: "Mozilla's .6 milestone has been reached. This should bring the functionality of Netscape 6 without the marketing stuff and performance hit. Details at Mozilla .6 Release Notes."
If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson
Re:an offtopic point (Score:2)
Exactly. The IRC client doesn't compile into your kernel. Likewise, the IRC client in Mozilla is no more integrated into Mozilla than an IRC client is integrated into the Linux kernel. It's just some extra XUL and JavaScript code that comes along with Mozilla when it ships. Think of it as getting a Linux distribution and seeing all of the binaries that come along with that distribution. Now think of Mozilla the same way. Is a development platform. You can write code and run it on Mozilla.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
I agree about all-in-one clients though. I already have a mailreader, IM client, newsreader, and HTML editor. Why can't my web browser just be a browser.
okay someone said to me once that .. (Score:2)
Mac OS
Mac OS 8.6 or later
PowerPC 604e 266 MHz or faster processor, or G3/G4
64 MB RAM
36 MB of free hard disk space
Windows
Windows 9x/ME, Windows NT 4 or Windows 2000 Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
64 MB RAM
26 MB of free hard disk space
Linux
Red Hat Linux 6.x and 7 with X11 R6 [Note: Mozilla is certified and fully supported on Red Hat Linux, but will run on other Linux distributions, such as Debian 2.1 (or later) or SuSE 6.2 (or later). The libraries glibc 2.1 (or higher) and libjpeg.so.62 (or higher) are required.] Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
64 MB of RAM
26 MB of free hard disk space
Not the memory requirements 64Meg of RAM.
If you are using an old P100 with 32Meg of RAM. Don't complain that it is slow. Read the hardware and software requirements first and DON'T complain.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:1)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1)
They also make some programs (frex, WinAmp) just about unusable for the visually-impaired.
Re:Java runtime for Linux (Score:2)
jre/plugin/i386/javaplugin.so file and it works
find. I was unable to get sun's 1.3 javaplugin.so
to work though
Re:No bloat because: (Score:1)
If you don't load it, it won't use your RAM at all, if that is what you are concerned with, and as far as I know, you don't have to install it when installing, so it won't even bloat your HD if you don't want it to. So I don't see any reason why not to give it as an extra, some people (liek me) like it actually.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5)
<rant>
Perhaps we should focus on more important tasks such as security, speed and _actual_ functionality and stop developing fluff like see through windows, skins and all in one clients!
</rant>
crappy version numbers (Score:1)
Otherwise: great software, use it at home all the time (M18). The rendering is cool. Love it how it rebuilds the page while loading.
Problem is I need about 600Mb to build it from source... and then it fails due to some weird configuration thingy in a Makefile/configure script/whatever.
Allso has the same problem that staroffice has: it tries to do all things you ever wanted (and a lot more you don't ever want) in a single application. Do one thing and do it well: make ghecko a seporate library! (go galeon go!)
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
I do intend to upgrade next year sometime when I get some money that doesn't need to be spent on other things...however, I view a web browser as a device that should only show text. It really should not be that complex unless you include plugins, java, etc. I don't see why a web browser has to be so complex. Sure, it is good to have features like css, javascript, etc built in, but even then it shouldn't be as slow as the browsers are these days. I don't see what a browser does that should reall need all the resources that a browser uses. It's not like I am trying to run Unreal on a P133, just a web browser.
Anyways, the reason I haven't upgraded is because I have spread my computer money out to multiple devices. Rather than having one kickass computer, I have two older machines, an older laptop, a palm pilot, dsl, small home ethernet network, etc.
Is it worth the upgrade? (Score:2)
I think it's finally time to start giving the upgrades a serious look, and right now I'm trying to decide what exactly the difference is between NS 6 and Mozilla
Is there anything that this Mozilla is missing that would make me need to use another browser? I need support for several different people's emails, the occassional secure page, cookies, and all the other goodies that the web has now (shockwave, flash, java, etc.)
Keep in mind that I'm running Win95 on a P100 (which has been very good to me for the past 5 years).
I just want to know if there's one good reason that this new Mozilla won't cut it for me. If not, then I'lll go for it.
Re:BlOAt (Score:3)
Because Netscape is now AOL's equivalent of MS's "integrated desktop", the average AOLer is happy to be spoonfed, and AOL is happy to oblige them on that.
Look forward to Galeon and its ilk, if you want a barenaked browser.
--
Re:Slow machine (Score:1)
Mozilla X IE5.5 (Score:2)
It is also quick enough, at least. I have a list of behaviors that I am still deciding about. I do not know if they are bugs, if they bother me because they are different from IE or if I just find them wrong. The velocity problem applies here too. I am not yet sure if mozilla is slightly slower than IE or if it just renders HTML differently.
I do not remember having any show-stopper problem in ANY site (besides not having plugins I didn't bother to install).
Both at work and at home I mostly forgot IE.
Re:First Experience's w M6 (Score:1)
shell script I use to get nightly builds (Score:1)
cd
rm -rf package/
wget -q http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest
tar -xvzf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz >
rm -f mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
echo "Finished...!"
if [ "$1" = "-run" ]; then
echo "Booting Mozilla...!"
moz &
fi
here's that "moz" script:
#!/bin/sh
cd
./mozilla
Re:Yawn... (Score:1)
Fuckin lowbrows.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
I hate skins. I like simple, well conceived user interfaces. And I am not alone. Unfortunately, this is not the ideal of the everyone. There are people that like those ugly cool desktops (with Jennifer Lopez as a background image, Enlightment with a StartTrek look, and translucent terminals)
Even latest apple OS sacrified usability to coolness factor [For instance, scollbars don't hilite when you click on them, or transparency of window title bar make non-focused windows more wisible (on the default background) than the focused one]
At least, skinnability works in both ways. If all the ugly coolness is made via a skin system, then it is possible to download a skin that don't sucks [ModernGray, in the Mozilla case]
Sure, it would be (IMHO) better to have a hard-coded usable default GUI first, but at least we are not locked in a hard-coded unusable default GUI...
</rant>
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Unacceptable limitation (Score:2)
You ought to have done a bit more reading before jumping off the cliff, there sonny.
I actually did some work to find out the details of this bug. It started from some guy who just untarred everything and tried to run it as a user, and it failed. Upon further investigation, it turned out that when being run for the first time, mozilla creates some files in it's binary directory, which naturally a user has no write access to.
The workaround is deceptively simple: run mozilla as root or whoever owns the directory first. Then after the required files are created, you can run it as any user you choose and no problems will occur.
I did that and am now replying to your misinformed post using 0.6 as a regular user. Good day.
Re:Slow machine (Score:2)
Anyone get PSM working? (Score:2)
I installed it, and it works fine when I tried mozilla as root, but for non root users, mozilla locks up hard core when I hit an SSL site. Wierd...
It's EVIL! (Score:3)
I also thought it would be IE that had that size
Mike.
Re:Netscape (Score:2)
My Initial experiences - posted from .6 (Score:2)
My complaint is that Mozilla is SLOW. And every time I complain about this, people ask me "have you ever check out the latest night builds? They're a lot better!". Well, I don't think so! I've been testing night builds for a long time now and they're dog slow.
I just hate it when the "New Message" window takes 3 seconds to appear, among other things.
I have replaced Netscape 4.76 for Mozilla mainly because it doesn't crash as much, but I certainly haven't deleted 4.76.
Flavio
First testings (Score:2)
When you start it for the first time, it will copy most of your netscape profile: the mail folders, bookmarks,
At first glace it makes a good impression. Thou I can't see any speed advantage over netscape 4.75.
Maybe my machine is simply fast enough - Dual PIII 700
After viewing some pages it eats up 40M RAM, netscape 4.75 needs only 28M
To use java it wants to download a plugin from netscape. So far I didn't try it.
more to come
BlOAt (Score:2)
Why the hell does Mozilla need an IRC client?? Whatever happened to the idea of doing one thing and doing it well? If I want an IRC client, I can find a good one that works and fits my needs!!
</rant>
Sorry. Just tweaks me when I see this crap and think about the bloated mess that is Mozilla...
-bluebomber
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:3)
Re:Java runtime for Linux (Score:2)
One Java plugin issue: When applets launch, System.out messages are spilled into the applet box, which is probably regarded as a "feature" by many /.'ers (including me, when I am putting together my own applets), but I think most non-Java-programmer users would regard this as a "bug".
Anyway, Mozilla is excellent and I highly recommend that everyone check it out. I am ready to delete NS 4.73 in its entirety.
Re:Where to get it (Score:3)
Thanks for the info, and perhaps someone should moderate your comment up so that it shows up right under mine for people who are threading.
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:3)
I agree that Netscape (or really mozilla) did the right thing by kicking out their crappy JVM. If they had done that four years ago, applets might have actually become popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
"Yep. You do."
I know you are but what am...oh nevermind.
Re:Java runtime for Linux (Score:2)
There was an error trying to initialize the HPI library.
Please check your installation, HotSpot does not work correctly
when installed in the JDK 1.2 Linux Production Release, or
with any JDK 1.1.x release.
Could not startup JVM properly!
java_vm process: could not start Java VM
INTERNAL ERROR on Browser End: Could not read ack from browser
System error?:: Resource temporarily unavailable
Now I'll have to go and delete it from the plugin directory. Anybody else have this experience? Does anybody know what I need to do to fix this? It looks like it may be trying to use one of the other java runtimes I have installed rather than the one that it installed. I couldn't find a bug report about it.
Not a Milestone release (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
--
Fixed it - Re:Edit|Preferences [...] else? (Score:2)
Bugzilla bug 62592 [mozilla.org]
Grrr! (Score:2)
Doesn't matter as I have to reinstall everything anyway. My root filesystem went belly-up on Sunday, causing many major things to either disapper or become corrupted. May be due to an IDE/DMA bug, a hardware failure, or dual-booting into Windows. I'll be doing a thorough disk scan tonight,
Re:My Initial experiences - posted from .6 (Score:2)
Can anyone speculate as to what makes the Linux version so much slower than the Windows version? I can see Mindcraft jumping all over that
--
Not a true Mozilla milestone release (Score:2)
I'm personally going to stick with Mozilla trunk nightlies, considering the mess that was the NS6 release. I imagine Moz0.6 incorporates many fixes, but the trunk nightlies are just beautiful at this point. Speed is nearly (if not already) equal with IE5 in Win9x, and the speed under Linux seems to be increasing slightly. At this point, there seem to be more regressions than new bugs cropping up.
Go to the nightlies directory [mozilla.org] and grab the latest build for your platform. Scroll down to get the absolute latest build for your platform, and be amazed. I should note that, at least in my experience, using the installer seems to allow some strange bugs to creep in - grab the main tarball/zips if you can and be blown away. It's become a good browser at this point.
Re:Running on Windows (Score:2)
Why no release builds outside of Mac/Linux/Win? (Score:3)
However, Netscape has yet to release a Solaris build, or an HP-UX build, or anything aside from a Linux 2.2 build. Now I see that the Mozilla folks are taking the same approach - which is disappointing.
Is there any reason for this? I mean, they're building a Solaris 2.6 nightly every day and it works beautifully (on 2.7, for me). Are they ever going to officially release a version or is the onus going to be on admins to compile their own version for anything other than the 3 big platforms? This kind of approach seems awfully shortsighted. I thought part of the whole point of Mozilla was platform independence and the ability to easily build a new port.
I'm not flaming the Mozilla folks here, I recognize quality work when I see it, but I'm just curious why they don't have a Mozilla 0.6 (or a Netscape 6 - yes, I realize that's a different story) for Solaris.
--
On the Mac, also (Score:2)
When you find Mac-specific bugs, report them!! My impression is that for all the emphasis on cross-platform, the Mozilla core only really pays attention to Win32. and to a lesser extent, Unix. If users don't report and vote for those bugs, they'll never get noticed or fixed.
There is Netscape 6 for Solaris (Score:2)
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/netscape/ [sun.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How its going so far (Score:5)
Ive now just gotten
In conclusion, Mozilla is very stable. Its not perfect, it might just crash on you, but it does it, and does it well. I have not used any other browser in several weeks. I get all my email (including a subscribtion to linux-kernel mailing list among others) through mozilla mail, and it filters it nicely and loads the spool (sometimes over 1500 messages) quickly. Even if your not ready to throwout Netscape just yet, give Mozilla a try. Im glad that this Milestone is stable, the past Milestone (M18) was really awful, and I recommended against it and told others to just use the nightly builds. This one seems to finally be the one to work, and work well.
Re:BlOAt (Score:2)
If they had energy enough to make the software then ppl could at least gather the energy to compile it.
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:3)
As to flash, runs fine, don't know what your talking about.
and the last part of your argument, well thats just mean man! If you find this sort of stuff irking you, don't run it! or if you care, which its obvoius you do, then try to help in some way, either by downloading nightly builds and submitting bug reports, or actually changing the code to your liking (i don't, but i don't whine about useless things and complain when they don't get fixed when all the tools are laid out before me either)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
If Netscape released a MUCH faster and MUCH more stable version of Netscape 4.76, I'd love it. Three more minor feature requests to make it "perfect":
Netscape 6 <= Mozilla 0.6! (Score:4)
Re:Not a Milestone release (Score:3)
Take a look at the Mozilla Roadmap [mozilla.org] to see what releases are planned, the time frame, and all that good stuff.
Web Standards Project Applauds Netscape 6 (Score:5)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3)
Matt Barnson
Slow machine (Score:2)
Re:BlOAt (Score:2)
Re:BlOAt (Score:2)
Re:Edit|Preferences screwed up... anybody else? (Score:2)
Re:Unacceptable limitation (Score:2)
No doubt you can get RPMs somewhere which bypass this as well.
Certainly, the nightly builds, which I have been using for at least six months, and which have been my only browser for the last three, write user-related settings into your home directory, with the software itself just needing to be "on path" somewhere.
Similarly, the Windows version which I use on NT installs in a perfectly fine multi-user way, with my settings associated with my profile, and the executables in a shared location.
Andrew.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
A side effect is that it makes it easy to replace thw widgets with a new set, since your widgets are in a browser-renderable format instead of your OS libraries. Thus, with a dozen lines of code to create an interface less clumsy than copying over interface files, you wind up able to easily skin Mozilla.
In short,"'skin'-ability" didn't cost developer time in Mozilla, it saved time to focus on security, speed, and actual functionality.
Re:Mozilla with shockwave flash (Score:2)
Re:Unacceptable limitation (Score:2)
Benny
Re:Why no release builds outside of Mac/Linux/Win? (Score:2)
That's only half true. While Netscape themselves are only offering Windows, Mac and Linux, they're still supporting Solaris and HP/UX, but you have to contact Sun and HP to get it. See here [netscape.com].
Unacceptable limitation (Score:5)
From the release notes:
If you are installing Mozilla on a multi-user operating system such as Linux, Unix, or Windows 2000, you should install it separately in the user directory of each user who plans to use Mozilla.
Forget it, I'm not even going to try this. The last thing I want to have to do is have a HUGE program installed once for every user on the machine. Sure, at home, I'm mostly the only user, but not entirely. And at work, we can't afford that kind of disk space in everyone's home directories.
Why is it so hard to get a Mozilla with SSL working with a true multiuser install? I mean, hell, Quake 3 has a true multiuser install nowadays. Older browsers never had trouble with it. I like what I've seen of Mozilla, but I'm not going to consider it a viable option until the thing works on my Unix system like a Unix piece of software, not like a hacked-over piece of Windows 95 or MacOS 7 software.
-Rob
Where to get it (Score:4)
Here's what I know. The build comments page [mozillazine.org] points you to a Linux [mozilla.org], Mac [mozilla.org] and a Windows [mozilla.org] version. These all live in the same download directory from 12/6/2000 [mozilla.org].
Hope that helps people out.
Fixed link (I hope) (Score:3)
Have they fixed XDnD? (Score:2)
Have they fixed the X Windows system Drag and Drop protocol? I use an external program to do my downloads, and with NS4.7x I could drag a link to the program and start the download. Mozilla M18 won't do this: It copies the data to the X clipboard, but then doesn't notify the target application that it needs to read the clipboard.
A browser story,and nobody mentioned konqueror yet (Score:3)
The new 2.0.1 version [kde.org] looks real nice. The jittery display while loading Slashdot is gone, it now understand E*Trade's [etrade.com] protocol-less relative URLs, and no longer gets confused by localhost:10000. Give it a try.
Oh, and for those who wonder: yes, it does Java, Javascript and NS compatible plugins. And it handles those mazes of nested tables from hell [luxusbuerg.lu] perfectly well, unlike netscape.
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:2)
Well, yes. Still, the 1.1 JVM that ships with IE is so out of date as to be worthless, and you have to download the Sun plugin anyway.
No wait, I've just got a message from Bill telling me that nobody needs Java 1.2 or greater.
*sigh* (Score:3)
PNG Transparency! (Score:2)
Maybe IE should catch up on that one too?
Interesting... (Score:2)
As far as performance, does anyone here have experience with previous versions of mozilla on old equipment like I have? I want to see what others say before I install it.
Re:Netscape 6 <= Mozilla 0.6! (Score:2)
People are fixing their sites to work in Netscape 6 where they wouldn't have bothered with Opera or Mozilla. And hopefully, after a while, designers will not have to bother going through hoops to work with NC4.
Every site that gets cleaned up will work better with Opera, Konqueror, whatever. There may be better browsers but Netscape is the most likely to give web developers a clue about designing cross-platform pages.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
We (that's you and me and others like us, buddy) don't, but the vast unwashed masses do. As in all things, but especially in software, most people don't have the knowledge to understand the underlying substance, nor do they care. They want flash. Apple understands this -- look how many millions of dollars they've made from colored plastic and, looking forward, a GUI that simulates colored plastic. Microsoft sure as hell understands this, too.
Yes, it's stupid. But fashion ain't exactly a new force in human affairs, and until we outgrow our primate brains, it isn't going anywhere. Personally, I'd be happy if the designers of too-hip-to-live programs would just provide a compile-time switch to leave out all that skin code so I can get on to the important stuff without wasting RAM and CPU cycles.
Of course, I'm being completely hypocritical here. I'd pay attention to skins more if someone would cook up an XMMS skin that looks like a Wyse 60 greenscreen terminal display so I could get rid of the Wyse 60 terminal I use to launch mpg123... :)
--
Other Packages (Score:3)
I've created a Links Panel [segment7.net] for Mozilla (works with nightlies, Moz0.6 and NS6) and I've wrapped up the History Panel [segment7.net] RFE from bug 32594 [mozilla.org]
Other packages/projects can be retrieved from mozdev.org [mozdev.org] and a very cool forum reader called Forumzilla [zapogee.com]
Enjoy!
--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess
Edit|Preferences screwed up... anybody else? (Score:2)
I have five top level nodes in the edit preferences dialog:
* Appearance
* Navigator
*
*
* Advanced
The ones between Navigator and Appearance have no labels. When I open them, the child nodes have no labels. When I select any of these, I seem to get random widgets on the panel to the right (well, maybe it's the controls with no labels).
Is this common?
Re:BlOAt (Score:2)
Yeah but remember Netscape != Mozilla.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
mozilla IRIX build now works! (Score:2)
Posted with nightly build ID 2000120521 under IRIX 6.5. Haven't tried
Re:My Initial experiences - posted from .6 (Score:2)
----
Re:Unacceptable limitation (Score:2)
"but I'm not going to consider it a viable option until the thing works on my Unix system like a Unix piece of software, not like a hacked-over piece of Windows 95 or MacOS 7 software."
That "Win or Mac" comment is hardly fair--this sort of behaviour is unacceptable on any platform for any software. Mozilla just sucks, plain and simple. It's stuck in a perpetual alpha-test stage.
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:4)
To be on the safe and official side i have replaced all IE boxes with Netscape 4.76 and Java plugin 1.2.2 because that is the only standard that works. Ever try running a real Java application under IE? It doesn't work! It will crap out, cause problems or simply run slow or not at all.
The move to a true JVM is a blessing, it just shows ignorance on your part in that microsoft re-packages it. Would it make you feel better if netscape renamed it to javigator and installed it for you?
Mem-Eater (Score:2)
--
Running on Windows (Score:3)
I've just installed this on my NT machine - it installed first time without problems, and seems to work pretty good on the whole. Not had time to do much real testing, but i'm impressed so far. It copes with
Quicker than i'd been lead to expect too - i can't say as i can tell much difference in speed from IE 5.5.
(-1: Admitting to running Windows)
Re:Where to get it (Score:2)
Figures (Score:2)
btw, is there a way to only get the browser for mozilla? I don't need, or want anything else.
Re:Grrr! (Score:2)
congrats to mozilla / netscape (Score:2)
Java runtime for Linux (Score:5)
Anyway, download JVM plug-in here:
Mozilla with shockwave flash (Score:2)
Re:Anyone get PSM working? (Score:2)
Initial experiences - posted from .6 (Score:5)
Anyways, contrary to previous milestones and nightly builds, this version installed smoothly on my laptop (running Debian) - and seems to run moderately fine. I have tried on some otherwise troublesome URL's, which look surprisingly good.
There are small rendering glitches, such as when writing this text in the "Comment" textfield on slashdot. If I fill out a line, ending a word exactly on the last character in the field, then the "space" before the next word will be in the beginning of the next line. It looks funny, but is hardly annoying.
The browser looks slick, as does the mail&news component. However mail&news seems to be something I will leave with pine for a while. I tried to connect Nozilla
So while it may not be ready for prime-time on all fronts, then it cirtanly seems to have replaced Netscape as my browser. Ohh, wait - Mozilla IS netscape. Nevermind, it is a fine product thus far.
Long release notes (Score:2)
Seems there are still quite a large number of bugs in it, but I can't give first-person results as I couldn't see a download link. Can anybody point me in the right direction?
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:Another pathetic milestone reached. (Score:2)
Nested tables is NOT the problem w/ NS (Score:3)
If you have a lot of links *inside* tables, and IF those links consist of a lot of characters, then it triggers a resource leak which can become fatal. If you cut down on the number of links inside the tables, or halve the number of characters in each link, the leak doesn't occur.
It wouldn't surprise me if the bug is in Mozilla as well (since it's apparently in the rendering core) but only manifests in certain builds.
Re:My Initial experiences - posted from .6 (Score:2)
Which just goes to show you how insanely slow it was back then, because its still slower then hell.
Its also a memory pig, but you know...
Seems fine - nioghtly builds are still better.. (Score:2)
I had Mozilla 0.6 crash on me a time or two trying to import my Netscape profile and then installing Java. I don't have this problem with the nightlies.
Here's a tip: I got a nightly working perfectly with Flash, Java, SSL, etc., now I just untar the new nightlies over the old one. That keeps my themes and plugins intaact.
I use Mozilla for 80% of my browsing, and Konqueror for the other 20% (Like when I know I'm going to hit a pdf file - konqueror is just amazing with its plugin architecture.)
Mozilla's REALY fast now, I honestly don't notice much dofference between the speed of Mozilla and Galeon/Skipstone anymore. It's also roughly equivalent to the speed of Netscape 4.76 on my dual-466/256MB RAM. This hardware is okay, but I wouldn't call a dual 466 anything to screem home about anymore.
Anyway, the nightlies are awesome, mozilla is great. I never use Netscape anymore. Honest. Is it ever nice to have a standards-comliant Open Source web browser. It really makes Debian complete. And at the rate Konqueror is moving forward pretty soon we'll have 2!!
Cheers,
Ben
Re:Figures (Score:2)
It's still a pain on low colour displays (Score:2)
Netscape had the -install option to install a custom colormap, and IE autdetects this...
This really makes Mozilla unusable on 8 bit displays (i.e. like on my Ultra 5).
More votes on bug #22337 [mozilla.org] might help...
How to Replace Nescape with Mozilla (Score:3)
1. untar the package somwhere. (duh!). But here's the tricky part. If you want to install software though it(plugins, themes, etc.) you have to have write acess. So do two things. Install it in
2. set two envioment variables. MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME and LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Both should point to where you installed Mozilla, eg.
3. copy mozilla-bin to
Have fun. I've been running nightlies for awhile, with varying success. Some are really good, then you get one the next day that's just dog slow. Then three days later it's ok again, with a couple more bugs fixed. So if you get another nightly, don't delete your old mozilla install before you try it for a few minutes.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
All I want is a "Netscape 4.8X". A slightly more stable version of 4.76 (which is a LOT better than 4.70) and with some of the motif gui bugs fixed. Then I'd be set for life... or at least another 18 - 24 months.
So what you want is Mozilla
Re:BlOAt (Score:4)
The IRC client was written by outside developers. There are games written using Mozilla [mozdev.org], also by outside developers. Are you going to complain about that, too? If you don't want the IRC client, then don't install it, just like you wouldn't install an IRC client on your system if you didn't want it.