Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 0.9.5 436

Posted by michael from the more-happiness-than-one-person-can-stand dept.
agotneja writes: "Check out mozilla.org for details :) Another fine (hopefully!) release." For whatever reason, 1.0 still seems really far off.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 0.9.5 More

Mozilla 0.9.5

Comments Filter:

  • they should start going backwards with the numbers (Score:4, Funny)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @03:57AM (#2423316) Journal
    ... until people start feeling grateful for 0.9.5 ;)

    Or call it "one point oh beta minus initial release testing phase DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON use at own risk edition, AKA 'only 4 more points'"

    At any rate, I'll grab .9.5 now, but .9.4 is sweet.

    Tim
    • ... " DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON use at own risk" is not to say that it's actually risky :) In fact, I find Mozilla (recent nightlies) closer to crash free than most other software I use, certainly on a per-hour browser, since I spend most waking hours in it of late.

      I just mean, if the "one point zero" is that important, maybe the wrong things are being evaluated. I bet every release is tempting to call one point zero, but Hey, aren't "point zero" releases supposed to be unstable / expected-to-be-updated anyhow? When 1.0 comes, wait for the "why only 1.0?!" flame ...

      Mozilla developers, please ignore silly number flames.

      timothy

      p.s. time to break in 9.5 in Berlin :) Greetings to all from the KongreBhalle :)

  • It's gettin better... (Score:2, Informative)

    by XRayX ( 325543 )
    I really like those new "Opera-Style" Features. And of course the new one is a bit more stable.
    But the E-Mail Client is still something to work on (stability/speed), I like KMail a hundred times better... maybe in the next version...
    X


    • I want to see the Mozilla team create NEW features, I tried to give some ideas, such as username and password autocomplete, another thought would be a shielded password and username autocomplete which uses stars to hide both the username and password.

      This way someone looking at your keyboard cant look at your hands and see your password because its set to autocomplete.
      • PSM already does that, as far as my usage of it goes. You can start using PSM for autocompleting your forms also.

        The username showing as "*" is something not present, but why would you need that?
      • Let's first implement the existing useful standards (of which the tag is certainly one) before we start to "innovate".
      • I want to see the Mozilla team create NEW features,

        You're going to be disappointed, dude :-) We're busy fixing bugs in the ones we have.

        Gerv

      • You are positively on crack.

        Mozilla has been inovating out the ying yang. Your question makes me wonder if you have even used mozilla???

        XUL is one thing that comes to mind as a fairly significant invotation. But visit mozdev.org any time you want to see more.

        sheesh!

      • Ctrl-T > new tab
        Link toolbar > View > Show/Hide > Site Navigation Toolbar

        Also, check out Optimoz, for mozilla gestures.
        In the works are a quick search for mailnews and user configurable email coloring.

  • Karma whoring (Score:3, Informative)

    by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @06:08AM (#2423411)
    Download it here [mozilla.org], or from one of the many mirrors [mozilla.org].

    Changelog:

    * The History and Mail&News applications now allow you to reorder columns with drag and drop. For instance, if you prefer to have the date listed first in your mail thread pane, drag the Date header onto the Subject header and the Date column will move to the first position.
    * Warnings in the JavaScript console now show the text of the offending line.
    * Venkman, the JavaScript Debugger is now available in complete installer builds. Remember to choose 'complete' install, instead of 'typical'. Start the debugger under the Tasks/Tools menu or from the command line with mozilla -venkman.
    * Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsing feature. Press Ctrl+T to open a new tab. (Bug 101973.)
    * People who like tabbed browsing may also like the mozilla gestures add-on, Optimoz now available at mozdev.org.
    * SOCKS proxies (both v4 and v5) can now be used with all protocols (Bug 89500) except MailNews. Using socks with MailNews is covered by bug 44995.
    * Mozilla has a new Site Navigation Bar for navigating sites that use the element (like Bugzilla buglists.) Choose the menu item View | Show/Hide | Site Navigation bar | Show As Only Needed to make the toolbar show up automatically when you visit pages that use the element.
    * The View Source window now has a context menu with items for Find, Copy, and Select.

  • mozilla for OS X (Score:3, Informative)

    by motherhead ( 344331 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @06:11AM (#2423417)
    0.9.4 for OS X is by far my favorite browser,

    just a heads up for anyone else out there letting OS X monopolize their time like i have been. omniweb is nice, but so unfinished it makes mozilla look like oracle, Opera beta 5.0 b1.327 rocks very hard, but is just a weeeee too scandi-alien for my tastes - oh and it quits at the first sign of trick xml.

    (yeah IE 5.1 is rock solid... but it makes me feel so dirty...)

    • Seems like OS X is constantly a late release, if it gets released at all. Note that this doesn't just apply to Mozilla. Now, I know there are lots of people out there who will say that it is because OS X (stinks, sucks, fill in your description of choice), but all I can say is that it rocks, especially when compared to the "Classics" not to mention winders. Mebbie the OS X sucks crowd just hasn't tried 10.1 yet.

      Seriously, though - I have ran up against problems like a screwball linker in OS X just as much as the next guy. But how many broken versions of, say, GCC have been released? I have to say that it must be due to a bunch of dedicated coders that any OSS works at all - and it works great! But I'd like to see the dev community work more on this platform. Just my 2c.

    • Re:mozilla for OS X (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mr.Strange ( 204044 )
      Speaking of OmniWeb, I think a major thing going for it is that it renders its text with Quartz and looks wonderful. Recently there has been an effort to get Quartz to draw fonts in Mozilla. Check this screen shot [mozilla.org] of Quartz working in Mozilla. Cool stuff. It's only a prototype and from the bug report [mozilla.org] looks like it has a ways to go before it lands.
      • That mozilla screenshot looks sweet, and you are definitely correct: The reason I'm using Omniweb most of the time is the rendering. Time to use one of my bugzilla votes here.
  • Right now no Browser even compares in terms of speed/power ratio.

    Sure its debateable that Opera is faster, But Mozilla is more powerful, Its Debateable that IE is more stable, but Mozilla is faster.

    Right now, in terms of speed and power Mozilla is the BEST browser you can have.

    However if any Mozilla coders are reading this, what needs to be done now to make Mozilla even better, is to start intergrating tools into it, I know all the people on their 486s will scream "BLOAT" But this is what the average user wants, not the average geek.

    By intergration i mean, why not tie winamp into Mozilla itself in the same way flash and quicktime are tied in so when someone clicks on an mp3 file the embeded winamp loads and plays it.

    Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla all on ONE list, I dont mean jabber but i mean OFFICIAL clients, Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.

    This sounds like feature bloat and yes it could be, but Most windows users have ICQ open and Mozilla open wasting vast amounts of ram, Intergrating these tools in a good way would be nice.

    Mozilla also needs better memory management, I know its fast now, its as fast as it can be, but it seems they have stopped focusing on improving the speed, I say they should keep trying to make it as fast and as optimized as possible, this is for the linux using crowd, and the geeks, We want it to be fast and use LESS ram yet remain powerful. Difficult yes, but theres still room for improvement.

    Some other features i want, when i download an mp3, or a file, i want to actually SEE it on the desktop or directory its downloading, i dont want to download it to a temp directory and then transfer, Some people like to open files before they are 100 percent complete, such as mp3s.

    Last but not least, better and more intelligent cache, I know mozilla is fast right now, but some of us have broadband connections, while our browser is sitting idle we should have an option to allow pre caching of entire websites while we are reading that long article.

    Once again, when more people get broadband it will be more important to pre cache websites by downloading BEFORE people actually click it, this gives them the illusion that things are faster because they dont have to "wait" for a page to load, its already loaded. For people on 56k i can see why they might complain, but please put some broadband options into Mozilla.

    Theres alot of features i like, but Mozilla needs to be more innovative, I dont think its good enough for them to go around stealing all of IEs features, taking the old Netscape features, and stopping there.

    Example, the password remember feature is nice, when i log into hotmail it gives me a list, but what if i dont want someone looking to see all my user names? How about auto complete in the username section to fill the username when i type "Han(autocompleted) HanzoSan and password autocomplete for people who cannot remember their password fully.

    Thats just one useful feature that they COULD do that no one else has done. will they? I doubt it but maybe someone is reading this and will add some of these features.

    Mozilla is the best browser, but in order to stay the best they need to innovate not copy Opera, IE, and others.

    • Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mr Spot ( 127247 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @06:50AM (#2423456) Homepage
      Its Debateable that IE is more stable, but Mozilla is faster.
      But what use is a fast program if it isn't as stable as the program it is meant to replace? Don't get me worng, I use Mozilla too, but saying it's better because it is faster, even though it is less stable, is flawed logic to say the least.

      Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla ...
      Mozilla's codebase is big enough already, adding features like these would simply be increasing the code's complexity while not being as well suited to the task as a dedicated program. This is also the basis of the Unix philosophy: make several programs to do one thing, and do it well, instead of one program to do everything and suck at them all. Add to that that you do not want your instant messaging programs to die when your browser does, and vice versa.

      ... pre caching of entire websites ...
      This is a horrible thing to do! In essence, you would end up downloading countless megabytes of data that would never get read and cause needless congestion on the internet. Say you follow a link from an article: you may only end up going to one page in that site. But your browser has downloaded the whole thing, only to end up throwing it away. That would be extremely pointless and possibly perceived as rude by the operators of the server whose bandwidth you have just wasted. Also, broadband users wouldn't need to have pages pre-cached -- their connection is fast enough without the help of a web accelerator.

      Not meaning to attack you personally, but I had to voice my opinion on some of your ideas, so don't get offended by what I say.

      • I forgot to mention (Score:2, Interesting)

        by HanzoSan ( 251665 )


        stability speed and power are all ratios.

        Having too much speed and not enough stability is a problem.
        Having too much power and not enough speed is a problem.

        Having too much stability and not enough power is a problem.

        Having too much speed and not enough power is a problem.

        Opera = too much speed not enough power.

        Lynx = too much stability not enough power.

        IE = too much stability not enough speed.

        Mozilla = just enough speed, power, stability, its good at everything, but not the best at anything, well rounded software is usually best.

        • Konqueror (Score:2)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Why is it that people always forget the Konqueror?

          It's lightweight, fast and damn stable.

          • Worse is Better? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by marm ( 144733 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:55AM (#2423680)

            Why is it that people always forget the Konqueror?

            I don't think they do. Konqueror is my preferred browser by far. It's not perfect, there are areas where it needs a little work (Javascript and Netscape plugin handling for instance) but the overall feel of the browser UI and rendering engine is unmatched. It's quick, full of useful features, relatively light on resources and renders well. In short, everything I want out of a web browser.

            There are a few reasons people have stopped making much noise over Konqueror recently:

            • There hasn't been a major release of it recently, and there won't be for a little while either (not until KDE3 sometime early next year). This is due to Konqui's coupling to the KDE release schedules. Fair enough I think, given that Konqueror is a key component of KDE.
            • The inevitability of Konqui becoming popular, maybe even the most common Linux browser - AKA the IE effect. KDE is the default desktop for most distros these days, and Konqueror is the default web browser for all those KDE desktops. It's a good browser and tightly integrated into KDE. Why bother switching to anything else?
            • The fact that many users of Konqui are very happy indeed with its performance, and, perceiving the rapid success which Konqueror has had, feel no need to crow too much about it?

            I think that the 'battle' between Konqueror and Mozilla to be the most successful *nix browser is a little like the 1970's 'battle' between UNIX and Lisp machines. Lisp machines (perhaps like Mozilla) were designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness above all else. If that meant a very large and complex system, then so be it. UNIX (perhaps a bit like Konqueror) was designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness but ABSOLUTELY NOT at the expense of simplicity.

            We all know now who won that 'battle'.

            There's more about this subtle difference in design philosophy here [jwz.org]. Yes, notice where this is hosted - Jamie Zawinski's site. Ironic? Perhaps not, given jwz's resignation from Netscape and Mozilla. You be the judge.

        • Please explain to me how software can have "too much speed" or "too much stability".
      • ... pre caching of entire websites ...

        Indeed a horrible thing, but it might be usefull if implemented in LARGE caching proxy-network with a LOT of users. This way browsing would be faster on average while the traffic doesn't necessarily have to increase; if browsing using a caching proxy is noticeable faster, more people will use it. This way the load will be kept from the webservers itself and will be moved to the caching proxies.
    • Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla all on ONE list, I dont mean jabber but i mean OFFICIAL clients, Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.

      Will AOL provide the source code and copyright it the way Mozilla is? No? Forget about it! It would only be CONSIDERABLE (but not desirable) if that stuff was also under the same license as Mozilla itself.

      Once again, when more people get broadband it will be more important to pre cache websites by downloading BEFORE people actually click it, this gives them the illusion that things are faster because they dont have to "wait" for a page to load, its already loaded. For people on 56k i can see why they might complain, but please put some broadband options into Mozilla.

      For this comment I can only say "those must be some good drugs you are taking." I could see it now: You go to a "favorite links" page and instead of happily clicking through, Mozilla tries to dowload gigs of data!
    • How about ... password autocomplete for people who cannot remember their password fully.

      Just what I need, Zippy the paperclip coaching a snoop: "You're getting warmer...."

  • Link tag (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hereticmessiah ( 416132 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @06:17AM (#2423423) Homepage
    What I like best about Moz 0.9.5 is its better support for the <link> tag. It's really about time the more browsers started to actively support this tag considering its great utility and vintage.

    • Re:Link tag (Score:5, Funny)

      by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:56AM (#2423684)
      ...better support for the tag

      I think you left off the "B". Mozilla introduced the tag, IIRC, and has supported it for years.
      From The Book of Mozilla, 12:10:

      And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.
    • What would be cool would be if Slash supported the Link command - it could set up the headlines on the main page, possibly the other sections, and within a story perhaps set up the links from the story.
      • What would be cool would be if Slash supported the Link command

        That would indeed be very cool. Do you know anyone who works on Slash you can ask to do it?

        Gerv
        • I'll take a look at it. No guarantees it'll make it in, but I'll make a patch at least.

          Feel free to drop me an e-mail (see user info page) if you have ideas.

  • galeon (Score:2, Insightful)

    by staeci ( 85394 )
    now I just have to wait a couple of days for the new galeon. ;-)

    Mozilla blows - Gecko rules
  • I Am geting box chars as I write this. I think some one messed up Gecko in tyhis release....I can not even see what I am typing.....not to mention the home page of /. is messed up as well

  • Argghhh!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by pschmied ( 5648 )
    OK, I just got done upgrading all the workstations that I administer to 0.9.4. That's cool, all I have to do is wait for .9.5 to show up in the FreeBSD ports right?

    I just don't look forward to downloading the new tarballs over my 56.6 modem at home.

    *Sigh* I suppose by the time I get that one downloaded there will be 0.9.6.


    -Peter

  • Anybody knows a good place to find Mozilla themes? The new x.themes.org [themes.org] isn't up yet, and the stuff on the old site, x.classic.themes.org [themes.org] , doesn't seem to work anymore.

  • Rebuild for faster operation. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:35AM (#2423623)
    The first thing you should do is pull down the source and reconfigure and build with --disable-debug "--enable-optimizations=-O4 -finline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -march=pentiumpro -mcpu=pentiumpro" in addition to what ever components you want.

    You would n't believe how much more snappier it makes mozilla run, for example the java sdk framed docs index pages goes down from 2.5sec to 1.5sec's on my athlon 850.

    Also add this line to your prefs.js file:

    user_pref("nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache", false);

    This speeds up loading time by using the pre-compiled versions of the javascript controls.
  • 0.9.5 is nice and fast... though still not quite as fast and twice as memory hungry as good ole Classic only Netscape 4.x. The main things that would still prevent me from using it full time are cosmetic: the butt-ugly Windows-style buttons and pop-up lists, plus these few quirks in mail/news:
    • You can't select several messages by a mouse click-&-drag (I do this all the time);
    • Huge fixed non-scrollable real estate occupied by message headers (*completely stupid*);
    • "View all headers" still doesn't work ("view source" is a painfully slow substitute);
    • Silly quote style using solid bars. These break after two levels or so, and anyway, a message's body is *plain text* so display it as such, with >'s and all, dammit!
    (And yes these are all in Bugzilla, but assigned for who-knows-when.) So my browsers of choice remain:
    • on Mac OS 9: Netscape 4.x
    • on Mac OS X: Omniweb
    • on LinuxPPC: Dillo
    (As to Dillo, see the reasons here [slashdot.org] -- and thanks to the AC who recommended it in answer to that message. It rocks, and now that version 0.6.1 [sourceforge.net] does tables, it has all you need to go browse for RPMs or tarballs, on those low end boxes for which Konqui, kfm or anything Gecko is not and never will be lean enough. Kudos to the Dillo team for making good on the promise that Linux can revive old hardware.)
    • butt-ugly Windows-style buttons and pop-up lists

      Then use the Modern skin :-)

      Silly quote style using solid bars.

      There's a hidden pref to turn these off.

      Gerv

    • It rocks, and now that version 0.6.1 does tables...

      What? I can't believe anyone seriously considered a browser that didn't use tables. Every site uses tables and tables have been a part of Netscape since like I can remember (NS 1.0B9). Well at least Dillo has tables now. What else have they added? Image support? hehe.. just giving you a hard time.

      JOhn

  • Q: Why should an IE user switch? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sara Chan ( 138144 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:43AM (#2423649)
    Consider the typical Windows user, who uses IE 6. What are the reasons that I should give to such users for switching to Mozilla, or perhaps Netscape 6.1?


    Please note that political arguments about open-source software are not what I'm looking for. The typical Windows user isn't going to listen to this.


    What about features, speed, reliability, etc.? The things that I could tell users.

    • Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kilobug ( 213978 ) <le-mig_g&epita,fr> on Saturday October 13, 2001 @09:02AM (#2423705)
      You can speak about:
      * security holes of IE
      * password-protected list of username/passwords
      * integration with search engines
      * tab browsing
      * faster and more accurate rendering for complex web pages (with many tables)
      * full alpha-channel in PNG
      * javascript pop-up control
      * intelligent cookies/pictures manager
      * pretty interface (new modern theme is so sweet)
      * ...


    • Most Windows users use AOL, ICQ, and Winamp, these tools should all be intergrated into a package.

      I dont mean crappy intergration like what was done with Netscape 6 either.

      I mean GOOD intergration, example, you have a feature where you go to a website and you see all the other AOL and ICQ users on the site and can even initiate a group chat with them.

      Imagine going to slashdot with this feature and getting into a debate with serveral people, pushing a button and ICQ chat opens up and all of the people are now in an ICQ chat with you where you can continue your debate.

      Also Imagine the file sharing possibilities, of going to a site and deciding to send files to people on the site via ICQ in annonymous fashion.

      Imagine embeded winamp to play your mp3s as they download similar to how quicktime works.

      Imagine AOL instant messager people and ICQ people all being able to communicate via the MOzilla instant messager, which basically connects to both, all your important windows tools on one menu, Mozilla.

      This is how Microsoft beat Netscape, and its how Mozilla should beat IE.
      • I realise that these features you want could presumably be turned off. BUT, why would I want the overhead of a web browser if all I'm doing is running ICQ (yes, I know recent builds of ICQ actually take up more memory than most web browsers).

        The integration that quicktime does with the browser prompted me to swear off EVER installing it on any of my machines. Sorenson may be great, but I'll pass, thank you.

        What's wrong with clicking on an mp3 and using a default program to open it. Presuming I want to listen to an mp3 repeatedly, I'll typically actually save it. A web browser should browse the web, that is it. It doesn't introduce a whole lot of hardship to open a dedicated to the task at hand. The user interface issues alone make it a tough task. Would the instant messaging client be docked inside the browser somewhere, or outside, what kind of controls would it have, would it be sleek, like you can force ICQ to be with some twiddling, or would it have the bulk of a web browser (typically what happens when you try to do things like this). On a fast enough machine (most of them now), IE opens instantly, mozilla nearly so (I'm not turning on the cache feature), ICQ usually sits there since I want it around all the time, as does AIM. Winamp opens instantly, and is usually docked somewhere anyway out of convenience. PERHAPS, including a link on audio files with a right click that says "stream from this location" would be a good idea, it would take the .05 seconds to open winamp and start streaming the media when it came in, which winamp will do anyway. It is just a manner of pointing winamp to the file where you are saving the data.

        There was an instant messaging client that did what you are talking about, Odigo (is it still around?), I tried it for a day, the first time I went to a website and it showed everyone else with an Odigo client browsing the website, it freaked me the hell out. I dont need the entire internet knowing I'm browsing goat porn, thanks.
        The more I try to talk to people online, the more I find out that I really don't have a whole lot in common with most of them. My ICQ list is reserved for friends that I've met in real life, and people in the few channels I hang out in on IRC. I dont want Joe in Utah messaging me because I happen to be looking at google.

        I realise I'm saying this as a geek, but I also come from a background of a couple of years of ISP tech support. In addition to currently being a sysadmin, I do desktop support for decidedly non tech savvy users in my department, and such features wouldn't be useful or wanted by them, either. Right now, if icq or aim, or winamp screws up (We dont care what is installed on their machines as long as they get their work done and don't completely hose the os, most users have admin on their machines, until they prove themselves incompetant), it gets deleted and reinstalled. I dont want to have to completely uninstall a web browser simply because the AIM component screws up.

        This wasn't intended as a flame but I think the way things work now is the best way. I'm not scared of change, I just dont like integrating everything, only to have a mess that isn't even remotely as useful as the individual parts.

    • I have known many people who have stability problems after upgrading IE.

      AFAIK, IE is integrated into the kernel and replaces the file manager. Swapping out portions of the kernel, especially for something as whimsical as a browser upgrade, is just insanity.

      One has to hope that a shipped WinME/2000 is (somewhat) stable when the codebase goes on the shelves of the retailers. The service packs and browser upgrades have much lower standards; users can't return the OS to the reseller years after purchase because a Microsoft patch made the system unstable.

      Remember this Windows Update mantra: critical updates yes, browser updates never! If you want the latest browser features, use Mozilla.

      The problem is that you need a basic background in computer science to understand what I just said.

      • AFAIK, IE is integrated into the kernel and replaces the file manager.

        There is a difference between being integrated into the operating system (which is loosely defined as the stuff that comes on the OS install CD) and integrated into the kernel. I do not believe that IE is integrated into the kernel.

    • Mail/News/Chat clients, better Java support (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jonabbey ( 2498 ) <jonabbey@ganymeta.org> on Saturday October 13, 2001 @01:02PM (#2424479) Homepage

      Mozilla is being built as a successor to Netscape Communicator, and so includes a bunch of tools to take advantage of a variety of open Internet standards, including POP,IMAP,NNTP,LDAP, and IRC. Mozilla also includes a web page editor (Composer) which can be used to create mail and news posts as well as web pages, if you're into that kinky HTML stuff. This makes Mozilla vulnerable to the (misleading) bloat charge, for those who don't like flexible tools, but it also gives you a one-stop tool that can take you all over USENET as well as the web.

      One of the most important benefits that I can see on Windows is that Mozilla comes with support for using Sun's recent, vastly improved, Java VM's integrated into the browser. Yes, people can write HTML for Java applets that will work on IE and Netscape 4.x using the Java plug-in, but Mozilla automatically uses the Java plug-in for all Java code, with significant benefits in performance and stability. If you have any use for Java in your browser, Mozilla will support things better.

      There's also things like themeing, the sidebar, the improved cookie management, and the lack of operating system exploits that IE and Outlook seem to continually fall prey to.

  • Tabbed Interface To Mozilla (Score:3, Informative)

    by kobaz ( 107760 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:46AM (#2423656)
    For all of you using the new tabbed interface of mozilla, its just a simple copy of what the multizilla guys did
    [http://multizilla.mozdev.org/] [mozdev.org] This is a much better interface with many many more features. Give it a try, and report those bugs.

  • Google Toolbar (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ecliptik ( 160746 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @08:49AM (#2423664) Homepage
    I know this sounds pretty stupid, but one thing that I like about IE is the google search toolbar you can add. Is there a way to have this in Mozilla?
  • Unlike many I actually prefer the Mozilla Mail client - though I REALY wish it had some sort of GPG integration, but I digress.

    I have about 5 or 6 IMAP accounts configured plus a couple news servers. Switching between folders and bringing up an email would lag - sometimes severely. Wow, what a difference 0.0.1 makes! :) I find the mail client to be MUCH faster. VERY nice!

    I've been using MultiZilla (the tabs) a lot in 0.9.4 - love them! Glad to see much of it got into the stock 0.9.5!

    • About the GPG/PGP support: This is bug 56052. Even if you cannot help, you can vote for it. [mozilla.org]
    • At work, I switched from Eudora to Mozilla Mail (for Windows) recently. I've got three complaints w/ Mozilla Mail:

      1) When the Mozilla browser crashes, my mail dies with it

      2) When I have several Moz windows open, I can't distinguish mail from other browser windows in my taskbar (a different icon would be nice).

      3) I can't set up multiple Eudora-style "personalities"--if you've got aliases configured on your mail server (say for a multitude of mailing lists, etc.) pointing to one account and you want to be able to respond as one of of the aliases (essentially to be able to change the "From" header) you can't in an easy way in Mozilla.

      Are these issues for anyone else?

  • Installing Java plugin (Score:4, Informative)

    by abischof ( 255 ) <alexNO@SPAMspamcop.net> on Saturday October 13, 2001 @09:42AM (#2423797) Homepage
    If you can't seem to get the Java plugin to work, please read the instructions in the release notes:
    http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.5/#java [mozilla.org]
  • I mean, it's clear they're planning to go all the way to 0.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9 before releasing 1.0. Or did I not have enough decimal places there?

    They should start at that many decimal places in the first place instead of suddenly having to add them in order to avoid a 1.0 release. =P

    -Kasreyn,

    who thinks the first release of ANY software should be 1.0, and it starts to get good around 3.2.

  • Mozilla 0.9.5 is getting better and better (Score:3, Interesting)

    by agupta_25 ( 468946 ) on Saturday October 13, 2001 @11:07AM (#2424071)
    Starting with release 0.9.4, I have been using Mozilla exclusively, both on my Windows and on my Linux PPC machine, without even knowing it! I mean ... originally I used to come across sites that had problems with mozilla and had to use IE or Opera, but now, without even realizing it, mozilla has become my default browser of choice.

    I suspect it has something to do with the 'Quick Launch' feature. Without this feature enabled, I had to wait almost 10-15 seconds before mozilla even started up, while IE almost loaded instantly. And I was unwilling to leave mozilla running all the time since it was such a memory hog. But with the 'Quick Launch' feature, I am pleased to say that mozilla loads as fast as IE on my machine and works better too! Plus, I don't have to keep mozilla running all the time.

    I love certain features, e.g. being able to turn off those annoying javascript popup windows, and now ... with 0.9.5 tabbed windows! It just keeps getting better and better.

    I definitely have to disagree with people who claim 'There is no such thing as a free lunch ...'. Mozilla 0.9.5 proves them wrong.
  • I actually use Galeon, not Mozilla directly, and as far as I'm concerned, Galeon is 1.0 quality and beyond. It is definitely rock solid from my experience.

    So what's really keeping Mozilla from 1.0? If the whole Mozilla browser is anywhere near as good as Galeon, I don't see what should be keeping them. What are the major issues?
  • It'd be nice to be able to drag a link to an existing tab and that link would then be rendered in that tab's space. I really don't see any ways to open a page in an already existing tab, but think drag-drop of the link would be the best way.
  • I have used Mozilla 0.9.3 and it's mostly pretty nice... but there's one show stopper that I don't think is being addressed.

    My office uses Lotus Notes for mail (ugh!). Its Domino server lets me read and send mail from a browser, so I don't have to pollute my home PC with that godawful "client". Of course I have to get through the firewall to get there, but at least on Windows they gave me the necessary IPsec client (Nortel) that works with the SecureID card. (That's another reason I can't depend on Linux so far, but that subject it off topic.)

    The Domino mail client uses Java to provide useful menu items like "next message" and "reply". This works on Netscape 4.7x and on Internet Exploder, but not on Mozilla. Obviously there's something different about their Javas. Maybe Domino uses an older version and the one in Mozilla isn't backwards compatible?

    So until Mozilla can talk to Domino, I'll still need the unstable but well-understood old Netscape client. Suggestions for fixing this are of course welcome. (Flames about still using Windows for anything are not. My current problems with Mandrake 8.1 are off topic too.)
  • I kept downloading and trying Mozilla. I didn't know what people were talking about. The performance was awefull. Then I tried on Windows and found it works pretty well. I actually use it as my regular browser on NT. But X Windows on Linux performance still stinks. Netscape 4 works fine over X. Is there something fundamentally different about the UI that causes Mozilla not to paint over a remote X session. Running programs over X remotely is a huge plus in Unix development environments. A lot of our people work over Exceed on NT.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close