Mozilla 0.9.6 Released 623
bluephone writes: "Yessireebob. mozilla.org has released the 0.9.6 milestone. Here are Release Notes and a link of files on the FTP server. For milestones 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, the focus is on performace enhancingment, and stability of the Mail/News end of the suite. And boy, is it getting good..."
Cross-platform performance. (Score:5, Interesting)
The tabbed browsing is almost up to galeon-level, though the speed is still slow, and its missing an (X) to close individual tabs. Use ctrl-w to close tabs in the meantime. This feature is quickly becoming my favorite.
One thing that continually bugs me is the total lack of performance of the linux builds compared to the windows builds. On windows, moz is FAST, and getting faster, and I don't mean just the turbo-load stuff
From my daily usage, mozilla on windows is "done" as far as for what I need to do, on linux, it still has a long way to go.
What is making mozilla slow on linux?
go Mozilla!
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing I've always been curious about is the effect of the compiler on performance. VC++ produces fairly quick code. How does GCC code compare?
Generally speaking, compiler optimizations do not matter. For tight, number crunching loops, they might - but most desktop software spends its time in system libraries (when they do not wait for user input).
To optimize, it does not help to call ten library functions slightly faster, the functions will still require the same time; what helps is a redesign where you bring down the need to call functions (for example by caching values). Turning on compiler optimizations will not help you with that, though.
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
I agree. In fact, on Windows, it sure feels like Mozilla is faster than the Netscape 4.x releases. (I have no hard data, but the feel is arguably the important part anyway.) On Solaris, Mozilla is A LOT slower than Netscape; in fact, the only reason I use it is because of the tabbed interface. On Mac OSX, Mozilla is also slower than Netscape, but it doesn't seem to be such a huge differential. Usually, I consider it a blessing that I spend the majority of my time on Solaris and OSX, but that's the one downside. :)
But the good news is, we have nowhere to go but up.
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
My Solaris box (which is away at work right now) is a 440 Mhz Ultra 10 (that's the UltrasparcIII processor, I'm pretty sure); I've got the Creator 3D video card. It's running Solaris 8, 512M RAM. (Quick poking around shows that I seem to have enough memory in this case.)
I am running the available nightly builds, which now that I think of it, might not be as optimized as they could be. Doh! (Although on all three OSes, I was comparing the performance of the nightly builds to the released Netscape 4.7x.)
Are you running: Nightly builds, your own builds, or Mozilla 0.9.x releases? I'll probably have to try all of those tomorrow to see how performance is.
Maybe I should just ask my boss for a Blade 1000 with the new 1.05 Ghz processors. As long as I'm dreaming, it might as well be a dual processor machine, in fact. :)
huh? (Score:2)
The other posibility is that you are getting a mix of debug and production mixes? On linux my debug build is quite pokey, but the -O3 no debug, optimize it all builds absolutely FLY and keep getting better!
Way to go Moz!
Re:huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I duel boot between linux ... and Windows...
Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
My home PC (Athlon 650, 512MB RAM Redhat 7.0), on the other hand, runs most things at a rapid pace. Mozilla, once loaded into memory, is lightning fast, though I'm starting to lean towards Galeon for my browsing needs at home and work. Mainly beacuse it can't be beaten for speed or configuration options. I really dig the RPMfind, Google, Freshmeat etc. search bar (talk about software at your finger tips).
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:4, Informative)
From my .mozconfig:
ac_add_options --disable-mailnews
ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O4 -finline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -march=pentiumpro -mcpu=pentiumpro"
I don't know what build options are used for the milestone builds...
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
Has been there in 0.9.5 and stayed there in 0.9.6
And I've tried this using both Modern and Classic layout. So I don't see what you're talking about...
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is this tabbed browsing thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
I'll still use the keyboard shortcuts most of the time though, so it's no big deal.
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:5, Informative)
Er, nice try.
The main reason is that Mozilla makes pretty heavy use of pthreads, and pthreads don't exactly fly on Linux. Windows threading performance is definitely superior to Linux's pthread performance, at least on single processor systems. Why?
Windows is absolutely useless at process creation. Windows threads are about as heavyweight as Linux processes, and Windows processes are hopelessly heavyweight. So, the traditional Unix model of using many processes to complete complicated tasks completely fails on Win32. Microsoft's answer to this failing was to make threading as fast as possible, and to push multithreaded programming as a hack around a fundemental OS problem.
Back in Linux land, the relatively low demand for mutlithreaded apps (because the Unix model really works quite well if you have fast process build up/tear down) finally pushes Linus and friends to implement clone(). The clone() system call was based on Plan9's thread model, and is actually much faster and more advanced than Win32 threads, totally beating out of almost all standard OS kernels at thread performance.
So, now Linux has both faster processes and threads, but thread performance still sucks. Note that I said pthread performance on Linux isn't very fast. Pthreads are POSIX threads, and have very different semantics from clone(), mostly to support implementing multithreading in userspace (ick). So, the standard is a hack to say the least. Unfortunately, it's still a standard, and Linux must map pthread behaviour to clone() in userspace, which is painfully slow. It requires multiple context switches just to created a pthread on Linux. So, pthread-heavy programs like Mozilla just crawl.
So, the moral of the story is that Linux has a much better core, but seeing that the Linux community actually cares about standards, performance isn't quite up to snuff.
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Standards smandards, pthreads under linux is in no way fully compliant w/ the POSIX standard (but then again, who really wants that sorta insanity on their disks).
Threads and Processes (Score:5, Interesting)
Many OS purists think that using multiple processes is a hack around understanding multithreaded programming especially since traditionally there is a context/address switch cost from process to process versus when using different threads. Linux merely legitimizes this hack by implementing the clone system call and copy on write semantics for pages shared amongst processes which makes the worst problems with using multiple processes instead of multiple threads dissappear.
So, now Linux has both faster processes and threads, but thread performance still sucks.
This statement puzzles me greatly. How can Linux threads be faster yet their performance still sucks? Faster than what then?
mostly to support implementing multithreading in userspace (ick).
Huh? How is userland programs being able to create multiple threads a bad idea? Should creating multiple processes the only way to handle multiple tasks at once in an application?
So, the moral of the story is that Linux has a much better core, but seeing that the Linux community actually cares about standards, performance isn't quite up to snuff.
This statement implies that Linux has POSIX compliant threads which the last time I checked is not true especially since the primary kernel hackers (Alan Cox, Linus, etc) are against it. They specifically had issues with the inconsistent way signal handling is suposed to be implemented amongst threads in the same process if memory serves me correctly.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not about "understanding". If you program in a language like C or C++ that is so lacking in fault isolation and safety features, you have to use separate processes to keep things out of each other's hair. The alternative, which is known to be more efficient, is to use safe languages and multithreading.
This kind of disconnect is also why Java has such a bad name among Linux users. Java doesn't need separate processes--you can run your whole desktop in a single thread, safely. What Java needs is fast threads.
In any case, as far as Mozilla is concerned, it's slow because it's written that way, not because of anything wrong with Linux. And the Mozilla developers neither seem to understand nor care much about the UNIX and X11 world. The existence of browsers like Opera show that you don't need something as big and slow as Mozilla, and even Opera isn't all that efficient. Rendering HTML is not rocket science, and it is actually kind of amazing how many megabytes people manage to expend on it.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:2, Interesting)
When you count all the synchronization which is happening between all these threads, as well as the sheer amount of context switching, memory usage and the number of processes which have to be scanned to find one capable of being accessed, you see one of many reasons people still use 'unsafe' languages.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:3, Interesting)
Synchronization between Java threads is a lot faster than any of the IPC mechanisms that, say, Gnome, KDE, or Mozilla are using.
as well as the sheer amount of context switching,
If the Linux kernel and thread libraries provided better primitives, you wouldn't need as many system calls to build threaded applications on top of them.
memory usage
If you run a complete desktop inside a single Java process, you end up using a lot less memory than Gnome or KDE: Java applications can share code and data a lot easier and with a lot less overhead inside a single process than C/C++-based systems. In fact, the voracious appetite of C/C++ GUI apps is one reason for abandoning that approach.
and the number of processes which have to be scanned to find one capable of being accessed,
I don't understand what you mean by this. If there is only a single Java process, you don't have to "scan" lots of them.
If you mean that Java using native threads makes lots of kernel threads under Linux and that that has a bit of overhead, you are right. But that's a shortcoming of the Linux threads system and Sun's particular implementation of threads on Linux, not of the Java approach. In a well-designed thread implementation, a thread is no more expensive than an object.
which means that you need to make threads for *everything*. Its not uncommon to have two threads per socket to handle reading and writing blocks.
Java lacks some APIs and Sun's Java implementation has limitations, but that doesn't invalidate the approach. There are systems like Java that have better threading support. Still, a single-process approach based on JDK and Linux, with all the limitations of the JDK and of Linux, is already more efficient than the many process approach of Gnome or KDE and similar systems.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be true if everyone was to stick firmly to the standards. However, due to the sloppy web page coding out there, today's browsers need error correction. It can't just stop loading a page because it finds an error in the HTML code.
In addition to this, the web is not only HTML anymore. You have other things like images - JPG, GIF, PNG, all of which need to be viewed correctly, and this requires an image viewer built in to the browser.
A browser today also needs a JavaScript interpreter, which also adds to the size of the code.
You also have plugins...
The web isn't just about HTML anymore. It's about displaying a page even if the code is sloppy, and it is about the new technologies that offer improved interactivity and even eye candy. A browser is a complex piece of software - imagine all the different things it has to do!
I don't think you've through the above comment through. If you look at what is actually going on, you'll see that a browser is a lot more than a HTML interpreter.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, HTML has traditionally been interpreted by parsers that will accept lots of errors: missing cell closure, misplaced tags, heaven only knows what else. That means that every real HTML renderer contains a huge error recovery routine which watches what the parser is doing, then backs up and recovers from erroneous source. If parsing HTML meant the same thing that parsing C did, it would be easy. But parsing HTML means much more than that -- and that's why it's so hard.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yes it is.
Go to the W3C Web site and ingest the HTML4 and CSS2 specifications. Throw in all the I18N requirements (Bidi, charsets, etc) (Opera doesn't do them BTW). Throw in all the image formats and plugin support. Now throw in hacks to make a million differently broken pages work reasonably. NOW, in case you think you're done, make sure your engine is fully incremental so everything updates smoothly when stuff takes a while to load, or when you resize the window, or when the document modifies itself in arbitrary ways using the DOM (Opera doesn't handle the latter). Now make it all robust and fast for when some fool writes a page with 100 IFRAMEs, or 1000 combo boxes, or 10000 paragraphs all nested inside each other. And make sure you have ZERO buffer overruns or your users are toast.
Sounds easy, huh?
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the main drawbacks to user level threads, is that when one thread makes an I/O call, the whole process is blocked from running until the I/O call has completed, even when other threads are available to run since the kernel isn't aware threads are really being used. However, since user level threads can be implemented with a cross platform library, using user level threads like pthreads makes your program very portable.
In kernel threads, when one thread is blocked on an I/O call, another thread can still be run. You can also have multiple threads running concurrently on multiple processors. However, since the application is written for that particular kernel, it is not portable at all.
So the original poster was trying to state that, although Linux has blazing fast kernel threads, its POSIX thread library kind of sucks. Since Mozilla makes heavy use of POSIX threads to maintain cross platform ability, it runs a little more sluggishly on Linux.
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Threads and Processes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cross-platform performance. (Score:2)
Interested people should try the gcc30 build in the http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest directory.
much improved! (Score:3, Redundant)
regardless - this is not the mozilla devolpers jobs - they're doing a great job with the browser! the performance fixes they are referring to are also much anticipated - speeding this bad boy up would shut up a ton of critics.
Re:much improved! (Score:2, Insightful)
ha ha, that's funny. get a life.
heh, if i could run konqueror or galeon on my OSX or 2K/XP boxes i would never run/miss IE.
Instead of him getting a life, how about you get a clue and stop chokeing on whatever they ram down your throat.
Mozilla (Score:2, Interesting)
If you tried it a while back, wait until about 1.5.*, I am sure it will all work perfectly then. This build is a lot better than previous versions though. I would defitely recommend it for the end user who has a p2 300 or above.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2, Troll)
I mean, it is extremely slow, even on my PII-400 with 256MB of RAM. IE is ways faster in load time and crashes less (trust me, the first time I loaded the latest Mozilla Mail/News, I got a crash within 3 minutes). You may say that IE is preloaded, but what about Opera? I'm using Opera 6 beta from time to time and its browser loads at about the same speed of IE.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, it is extremely slow, even on my PII-400 with 256MB of RAM. IE is ways faster in load time and crashes less (trust me, the first time I loaded the latest Mozilla Mail/News, I got a crash within 3 minutes). You may say that IE is preloaded, but what about Opera? I'm using Opera 6 beta from time to time and its browser loads at about the same speed of IE.
Pretty good crash performance; honestly, for me Mozilla crashes once in a few days. Even a year ago, it crashed just once or twice per day day for me. With the relative heaviness I agree though; It works pretty nicely with P3-550 & 256 MB of RAM or even better with my home machine (Thunderbird, more memory), but it's definitely a bit slow with my secondary machine, K6-2 400.
Versions have nothing to do with the code (Score:3, Troll)
Mozillas codebase currently is IE 6.0 level in terms of features quality, and speed.
It took Microsoft 6-7 years to get to this point, It took Mozilla 4 years.
4 Years is pretty good.
Opera is about 3 years behind Mozilla so dont even mention Opera. Opera isnt nearly as powerful, Opera is a light weight browser thats nothing special, its something anyone could have written up in a year or two.
Mozilla on the other hand has alot more features and the only browser to compete with it feature for feature is IE, currently Mozilla supports more standards, has better security and is more stable than IE 6.0 making Mozilla more complete.
When IE 7.0 releases, it will essentially be updated to be more secure, support more standards and basically be more like Mozilla.
As far as Mozilla 2.0, Mozilla has the base done, the base what took 4 years, once the base is done all they have to do for 2.0 is add a few new features most likely to support new standards, optimize it for speed to make sure its faster than IE and Opera, fix bugs so it never crashes, and then allow Netscape and AOL to intergrate ICQ, AOLIM, Winamp and so on into it in a way that doesnt make it seem overwelming.
Right now AOL isnt properly intergrated, but once it is, i see it being very useful, more useful than email for sure.
And ICQ intergration would be good too.
From there intergrate netscape into AOLs software suite.
Now while Microsoft fixes all their bugs and security, Mozilla will be adding new features.
If Mozilla developes at the pace it is right now, it will be about 2 -3 years ahead in development of Microsoft when 2.0 comes out.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
The thing that matters to me is that I get much much better page rendering performance out of Mozilla than I do out of IE. The Gecko engine is really shining these days, and I get much faster rendering times on just about any page with Moz. This is much more important to me than load times, and definitely makes that extra load time worth the wait.
The Mail/News will get better, but last time I checked it was still under par. That seems to be the focus of the next few releases though, so don't count the module out. Remember, you won't have to configure it specially to be secure like you do for Outlook, which will be a real bonus (and time saver too, since we're on that subject).
And as for crashes, I get about equal crashes in both browsers, depending on which computer I'm at. At the office, Mozilla is less stable. At home, IE is less stable. Mileage varies.
In terms of future improvements, it'll be interesting to see if Microsoft will be able to take the lead on improvements again, or if Mozilla will continue to blaze the trail, as it's been doing lately. I wouldn't be surprised if tabbed browsing appeared in IE, but who knows what'll come out of Mozilla. And the 3rd party stuff! Once the API settles (which is why v1.0 is such a big deal) there should be some cool mini apps built for Mozilla. I already use the PubMed one all the time, it's my favorite browser feature yet, and makes Mozilla my browser of choice at the office. Because of the nature of the whole free software community, and the relative triviality of these kinds of apps, you'll see a ton of great ones come out once the API is ready for it. Then we'll see the browser wars really kick up.
Spell Checker (Score:4, Interesting)
Only comment so far on the latest build: it polls all of the news groups and servers in my Netscape profile when the news/mail client starts. This is bad as I have a load of crap in there, and a load that are only accessible from when I switch internet connections. I have to click cancel on a lot of dialogs before I can get going
Re:Spell Checker (Score:2, Informative)
9.6! (Score:3, Flamebait)
9.7 (two months)
9.8 (six months)
9.9 (one year)
9.99 (two years)
9.999 (five years)
9.9999 (nine years)
9.99999 (thirty-seven years)
9.999999 (nine hundred and twenty-eight years)
(No offense meant to the Mozilla team - the last time I poked at it, it looked like a nicely developing and nifty browser).
--
Evan
Re:9.6! (Score:2)
So, Moz team, when will we see version 0.9.9.3.1415...?
Export (Score:3, Funny)
"This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas)
Re:Export (Score:2, Funny)
currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas)
Which, given the Taleban's advocacy of the Internet, is a crying shame.
It's nearly on par with IE5.5 (Score:5, Interesting)
Could someone please tell me... (Score:2)
Man, that bug makes me so angry. I'm using
These are the days (Score:5, Informative)
Idea wishlist:
I'm a very busy person who does some good for the community already in his free time, so don't ask me to implement these features. I just don't have the time.
Perhaps this would be a good time to ask... does anyone know of a proxy that allows you to rewrite packets on the fly? I think the web's got to the point where I want to start overriding some HTML arbitrarily. I know regular expressions, so some sort of regex interpreter would be quite handy.
Re:These are the days (Score:5, Informative)
Already done: Highlight the URL you want in some other application and then middle-click in a blank spot on any Mozilla page. You can even set this up to open a new tab with the tabbed browser by going to the new tab preferences under 'Navigator'.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
Re:These are the days (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be nice, but Moz (and NS4) let you simply middle-click on the HTML display area and it'll go to the URL in your clipboard. Nice timesaver, except when your mouse spazzes and you end up hitting a link instead of empty space and pop up a new window instead
I agree 100% with your other points... those are pretty much my main gripes too. About the $EDITOR thing, yes! Every place I *ever* have to enter text should understand vi keys if I want it that way. I already have tcsh and every decently configurable program I run using vi keys, there's no reason Mozilla and all GTK/Qt apps shouldn't be able to as well
Oh well, the situation is better than it is on Windows; my vi-trained fingers have a tendancy to hit escape after typing a bunch of text, and in IE this resets the text area to the default value. Quite irritating.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
I also have the strange habit of constantly selecting and deselecting paragraphs as I browse, so usually an entire paragraph of random text gets pasted as a url.
Doug
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
Place the cursor to the begining of the URL bar and hit ctrl+k, this will delete everything after the cursor without copying it to the clipboard.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
Or place the cursor *anywhere* in the URL bar, and use ctrl-U. My only complaint about this is that some fool chose to overload ctrl-U and make it the keyboard accelerator for view source, so if you haven't quite clicked in the URL bar, you don't get the result you expect... which leads me nicely onto my #1 wishlist for Mozilla: easily configurable key mappings. Yes, I know it can be done via the prefs file, but I've yet to see suitable documentation for it, and it would be much better served by having an option in Edit->Preferences.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
I've actually been thinking of making a fake plugin that could be trained to register for whatever you want, and all it ever does is render a grey rectangle. That would fix this problem for good.
You mean like Konquerer's clear button?
ugh, isn't that just the most annoying thing? I've screamed at the computer more than once for that move, especially when I've already closed the window I had copied from.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
The problem is that Mozilla and a lot of other programs (Opera comes to mind) don't do it this way.
And perhaps the "standard" should be changed so that an initial click on a text field which results in selecting the entire field should not be considered a "copy" because it is usually a change of keyboard focus, not intended as selection.
Re:These are the days (Score:2)
A way to delete the contents of the URL bar without destroying the contents of my clipboard. Right now, I copy a URL from somewhere else, then click in the URL bar and hit delete, just to have the contents of the URL bar copied to my clipboard.
I'm working on this one, see bug 24651 [mozilla.org]
I've got a patch which works on a nightly build from about a month ago, but 0.9.6 segfaults on this. I'll look into it ASAP.
The patch essentially places a small button left of the location bar (much smaller than in the attached screenshot). This button needs some graphic designing, so if anybody can work the Gimp, please visit the bug and download the blank buttons.
Wow -- a place where Lynx wins out! (Score:3, Informative)
Go figure. Who would have thought that Mozilla users would be asking for a feature that Lynx has had for years. :-)
This is one of many reasons why I keep Lynx around: when I'm using a web interface to a bug-tracking system, and I want to, say, paste some code in to the "explanation" textarea before I close the report, I can just pop into my $EDITOR.
I don't know of any other *nix browser which lets me do this (but I haven't looked very hard).
good job mozilla, way to break everyone's stats (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how long until all the stats programmers out there figure out why bookmarked visits spiked in December?
Re:good job mozilla, way to break everyone's stats (Score:2)
FWIW, I actually like the icons; it gives me a visual clue to what I'm looking for in a list of 20 bookmarks/favourites.
Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:3, Offtopic)
The web site includes several modifications [netscape.com] to Mozilla that make it better suited for porn browsing and a list of bugs and feature requests [netscape.com] related to porn surfing. If you have any other bug numbers or ideas for modifications, please tell me.
(Sorry for the duplicate message. I guess using "preview" before posting isn't a good idea when you've temporarily disabled cookies.)
Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:3, Offtopic)
Now you can visually scan directories -- for that perfect Akira Fubuki cumshot, Anna Nicole Smith softcore clip, or nasty nekkid ebony hoe playing with vegetables -- simply by using the arrow keys, Return, and Backspace.
In order to enjoy a comparable masturbation experience with Linux, you must use a combination of Electric Eyes (for thumbnail browsing) and Netscape (for image viewing). Oftentimes, you will even have to use both hands to get the process started -- very inconvenient. Add in the fact that UNIX-like systems don't function very well with widespread use of spaces in directory names, and you have all the makings of an extremely poor monkey spanking.
Hey, let's get a MacOS user in on this. TRoLLaXoR, does MacOS provide easy thumbnail image navigation like Windows?
Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:2, Insightful)
Use Nautilus, dimwit! (Score:2)
Nautilus is the best thing on Linux. It's all that windows wanted to make. I'm not sure if it thumbmails movies, but it sure thumbnails pictures.
Linux is made by geeks. Geeks also look at porn and masturbate. Why would our technical solution be technically inferior to Microsofts?
Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:2)
In order to enjoy a comparable masturbation experience with Linux, you must use a combination of Electric Eyes (for thumbnail browsing) and Netscape (for image viewing). Oftentimes, you will even have to use both hands to get the process started -- very inconvenient. Add in the fact that UNIX-like systems don't function very well with widespread use of spaces in directory names, and you have all the makings of an extremely poor monkey spanking.
Bah. Just use Nautilus -- it does everything that IE can do with the thumbnailing and whatnot, and it automagically scales those overhuge images down. Before I used nautilus, I'd end up with these huge images that I had to scale down. Not that the detail was bad sometimes, but I need to see every part of the picture to get off. In fact, I like to take advantage of the fact that my ReiserFS partition for pr0n supports many more characters in filename than an NTFS partition. Linux clearly is the superior pr0n OS.
Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:2)
Clear history: too suspecius, alt: set for 0 day, still keeps 1 day, arg..
Clear Last day history: tedeius, and don't clear auto-complete address bar stuff
and don't forget the cookies and browser cache.
With mozilla i just load it up and close it down, no one knows i have it installed.
What i want is a secret 'porn' button that i can press and IE won't record JACK nothing nada about whats going on.
btw, to keep on topic, the last build of moz for windows wasn't that great. from the way i see it isn't just like netscape 4x, slow and clunky and i'll be dammed thats all fixed by 1.0.
-Jon
Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today (Score:5, Funny)
There is one. But its secret.
Themes? (Score:2, Informative)
Keep up the good work! (Oh and fix that bloody 'print selection' bug.)
Re:Themes? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the nightly build comments for Nov 20, there is a new theme page. If you check out the MozillaZine build comments here [mozillazine.org], you'll see the mention and the bugzilla bug number...
Note that I have not actually tried this myself... I'm just happy that other stuff is working as well as it is at this point with the nightly build from last thursday or so.
Fast connection to ftp.mozilla.org (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm curious as to why the connection to the ftp server was so solid and fast: is it a great example of load balancing ftp?, a sign that people are happy with pre-0.9.6 versions and aren't rushing to upgrade?, or is it (*gulp*) that people aren't interested in Mozilla anymore?
I'm not anti-Mozilla at all. I'm using it for browsing, email, IRC, etc. There are things I like about Konqueror, but I depend on Mozilla. Even my biggest "Internet Explorer"-only client is asking about recasting IE-specific development in Moz-compatible terms. Its just that the server is so fast it doesn't feel like the days of M15 - M18 when I had to fight for a connection...
As an aside: it's perplexing to observe MSFT dropping the ball on browser development. They've got the market wrapped up, but they don't seem to have capitalized on this lead (except the recent MSN fiasco). Or perhaps I'm not giving proper credit to Mozilla developers for pressing ahead with features and usefulness... With the licensing pain with MSFT and the maturation of Mozilla+{Gnome|KDE}+Linux it's getting more and more palpable to switch the enterprise away from the child-settlers.
for speed... (Score:2, Informative)
see ports/www/skipstone for FreeBSD users
Re:for speed... (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot crashes mozilla ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Only seems to happen on articles with a large number of responses (I'm a moderator and I'm trying to browse at -1 , but I can't).
Constantly crashes on Geek Gift Ideas 2001 [slashdot.org] and Microsoft Would Settle For The Children [slashdot.org]
I just uninstalled and reinstalled mozilla, and the crashes still happen.
Re:Slashdot crashes mozilla ? (Score:3, Informative)
But when I log into slashdot, and view the page, it craps out (this is still on a clean profile).
I'm a moderator, so i have one of those 'score' dropdown boxes by every single post. Hundreds of posts = hundreds of dropdown boxes.
I used up that one last moderator point, the dropdown boxes no longer appear; and guess what, the page no longer crashes my browser. Works just dandy.
Off to file a bug...
Opera 6.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
An MSers take on Mozilla (Score:3, Interesting)
When I installed Mozilla at 0.9.5 I was impressed. This app has come a loong way!
However, I have a couple of hickups, which someone might be able to help me with
- Load time Compared to IE, which takes 1-2 secs to load, Mozilla take around 8 secs to load. Not that much extra, but when my short term memory is 5 seconds, I most often choose to load IE, so I don't forget what I wanted to check out.
- Shortcuts I don't know who fucked up the shortcuts, but I must use alt-d over 100 times a day in IE, the shortcut that brings you to the address bar. I had a (not too investigative) look at the Mozilla help, and couldn't find any info on shortcuts, which brings me to
- Help You can't search the help! Hello.
- Search My seconds favorite feature in any program is text search, and I have found the search in Mozilla to be buggy (forgetting last search word and settings, needing to 5 click before it starts, not finding text which is there)
The most important to me is load time. I just don't see myself, only using Mozilla until load time is decreased. But hey, good luck to the dev team, I will hang in there.
Re:An MSers take on Mozilla (Score:3, Informative)
Ctrl-L (for Location) is the keystroke you're looking for.
Mozilla does not take 8 seconds to load (Score:2, Informative)
Use the turbo feature, Mozilla loads faster than IE.
Re:Mozilla does not take 8 seconds to load (Score:2)
But how do I load it? Do you have more info on it?
.. as an alternative (Score:2)
It uses the Mozilla-engine, so it renders excactly the same, and uses the mozilla-plugin-system etc.
It takes care of a few things for Mozilla:
Build Options (Score:4, Informative)
These build options are for all the people that are complaining about shoddy mozilla performance under linux and people that would like to have a look at some really new features.
ac_add_options --with-extensions=all
Enables such things as the Chatzilla IRC client and the dom inspector(which I think is extreemely neat for debugging and viewing dynamicly changing html object model) also contains some very experimental things such as xmlterm.
ac_add_options --enable-mathml
Very neat standard for displaying math of all types and sizes in xml.
ac_add_options --enable-crypto
Great option, about a year ago this option wasnt even possible due to netscape not realeasing it's code due to US laws afaik. Now everyone that want to compile the lizard can get ssl support built right into the browser.
ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O3 -march=i686 -mcpu=i686"
The main optimization part. This option has the biggest leaverage affect on the actual quickness of the browsre itself.
ac_add_options --disable-tests
Get rid of the unneccesary tests.
ac_add_options --disable-debug
We don't need any debuging symbols in th build if where not a developer do we.
ac_add_options --disable-shared
ac_add_options --enable-static
A nice new enhancement of the moz build system which links all of the modules in statically, im experiencing a big speed increase and a decrease of startup times with this option probably because it doesnt need to read each individual shared object from the hard disk.
Better cookie viewing before accept/refuse (Score:4, Informative)
Opera and Konq also have this nice feature.
I'm hoping Moz steps up to that plate soon....
dhtml is worthless in mozilla (Score:3, Informative)
Load time isnt even an issue as its so slow even when its loaded.
Javascript to plugin communication still doesnt work out of the box (contrary to what the moz site says) at least ns4 supported it.
standards support is meaningless as no-one supports them , making it more of an "ideal" than a standard.
quote : "standards are great because there are so many to choose from"
i don't think m$ has anything to fear from mozilla in its current state, at least not in this decade
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:5, Informative)
For linux, try Galeon [sourceforge.net]
For windows, try K-Meleon [sourceforge.net]
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:4, Insightful)
System requirement
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
So your hardware isn't even covered by the requirement. However, Mozilla runs fine if you have a lightly loaded system, e.g. a clean install of Windows 95. I was able to run Netscape 6.2 on a Pentium 100 with 32MB RAM in Win95, and it outperforms Netscape 4.79 (try fancier pages like www.msn.com; simple pages doesn't justify what Gecko is capable of).
Your hardware is pretty old. If you're thinking about running Mozilla on top of X in unix, well, you're pushing your computer too hard
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:5, Funny)
Yep - it's pretty slow on my C64 as well.
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:4, Informative)
Windows
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster)
* 64 MB RAM
* 26 MB of free hard disk space
Linux
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster)
* 64 MB of RAM
* 26 MB of free hard disk space
Since you probably can't upgrade your processor on your board maybe you should try and bump your RAM to 128MB or so? That would definitely help out. Otherwise I recommend you give Opera [opera.com] a shot. It's right up your alley and it works on Linux and Windows
JOhn
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:2)
I use opera, and Netscape 4.78, and they do just fine on my "C64-like" hardware.
If you have the best hardware around, then Mozilla works snappy, which is all well and good, but deep down inside developers should be worried about how many cycles are being wasted.
But I guess stuff like that deserves Score 0: Troll
Re:Mozilla is a great browser if... (Score:2, Informative)
If Opera can run so snappy and fast, why not Mozilla?
Because Opera can't do what Mozilla can do. Opera handles common HTML and CSS just fine, but if you're pushing your web design further, Opera's rendering engine falls apart.
I use translucent PNG images on my web page, and Mozilla does alpha-blending beautifully. Opera, on the other hand, can't even handle transparency, let alone alpha-blending. Opera also can't switch style sheets through DOM or the UI. It cannot install components on the fly. The list goes on...
Re:Browser wars? Sigh. (Score:2)
I'm curious about this. How do you mean? The only example I can really give for this is in Mozilla (I've never used Opera) that you can disable popups. Other than that, I don't really see IE preventing the browser user from controlling their own destiny. The prefs aren't any harder to get to, and it does have security zones and whatnot. It's also got great fantastic plugin support (runtime install kicks ass) and a convenient sidebar.
Granted, I like Mozilla better for a variety of reasons, but I don't really understand yours. Could you clarify them a bit?
Try this (Score:2)
Works up to 0.9.3, so it should work...
A poem... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Those who write like karma-whores,
Get (+1) on karma scores.
Those who read those words of whit,
Reply to it with posts of shit.
Thank you.
Re:Better and Better (Score:3, Insightful)
Just my $.02 on why Mozilla is better:
- Mozilla is Open Source
Zealots aside, why is this better? Have you modified any of the source code? Have you contributed? Have you searched through it to make sure there are no back doors that mail out your keystrokes? Or are you karma whoring?
- Mozilla won't accept activeX or other such nonsense
Which limit's its use on heavily scripted, harmless, usefull sites. True, it saves you from mailicious porn webmasters who want to install their dialer programs, but that's not a problem if you know how to set up your internet security zones on IE.
- You can disable Mozilla's JS window.open()
A nice feature, true, but what happens when you go to click on a "help" icon and it can't open a new window?
- Mozilla has tabbled browsing
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
- Mozilla is standards compliant
Which is again nice, but means nothing if developers dont make their sites for standards, which they dont
- Mozilla doesn't redirect you to MSN (or AOL for that matter) and spill your privacy for all to see
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
- Mozilla has a development team that cares about the end product
More ramblings from a zealot. I'm sure the IE programmers care about IE. They just dont feel the need to sit around and pat each other on the back in public message boards.
- Mozilla has site-specific image and cookie management
Internet privacy zones. From your top menu in IE6: tools -> internet options -> privacy -> click the edit button. Yep, it works in IE on a site by site basis.
- Mozilla is stable (close to 100%) and won't bring down the OS when it crashes
Just like IE6 (which hasnt ever crashed on me, even though I use it roughly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past few months)
So.... yea, you like mozilla. that's cool. use what you like.... just realize that every one of my arguments is absolutely true, meaning IE is "better and better" too...
Re:Better and Better (Score:4, Informative)
A nice feature, true, but what happens when you go to click on a "help" icon and it can't open a new window?
The mozilla anti-popup feature disables popups on window open, page load, and window close (and timers). So obnoxious auto-pops don't happen, but e.g. The Onion's horoscopes still work.
Sumner
Re:Better and Better (Score:2, Informative)
Zealots aside, why is this better?
It's there if it's needed or wanted, and can't be taken away.
- Mozilla won't accept activeX or other such nonsense
Which limit's its use on heavily scripted, harmless, usefull sites.
I honestly don't know of any sites that are heavily scripted while remaining both harmless and useful.
- Mozilla has tabbled browsing
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
Then use windowed browsing. It didn't go anywhere.
- Mozilla doesn't redirect you to MSN (or AOL for that matter) and spill your privacy for all to see
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
I never found an option to prevent getting passed off to MS on a DNS lookup failure, but then I almost never touch IE outside of HTML testing purposes.
- Mozilla has a development team that cares about the end product
More ramblings from a zealot. I'm sure the IE programmers care about IE. They just dont feel the need to sit around and pat each other on the back in public message boards.
I'm sure the IE developers pat each other on the back all the time, but you won't see it since they don't have public mailing lists.
- Mozilla has site-specific image and cookie management
Internet privacy zones. From your top menu in IE6: tools -> internet options -> privacy -> click the edit button. Yep, it works in IE on a site by site basis.
That it does, though personally I prefer the format of Mozilla's privacy tools. Probably a familiarity thing.
- Mozilla is stable (close to 100%) and won't bring down the OS when it crashes
Just like IE6 (which hasnt ever crashed on me, even though I use it roughly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past few months)
Last time I used IE (5.5) it crashed several times a day (usually on malformed javascript or activex), taking the whole OS with it half the time. I haven't tried IE6 though.
I've been using the Mozilla nightlies, and I haven't had a crash since before the summer. Some really funky regressions like the expando url bar... but no crashes.
I put my browsers through HTML/Java/Flash/script hell though, so YMMV.
Re:Better and Better (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better and Better (Score:2)
Does IE even give you that option at all? Can you directly e-mail any of the IE developers? Were the IE developers a diverse team from multiple companies and institutions?
Which limit's its use on heavily scripted, harmless, usefull sites. True, it saves you from mailicious porn webmasters who want to install their dialer programs, but that's not a problem if you know how to set up your internet security zones on IE.
Can your mother do that? Should your mother have to do that, just to be able to surf the web without having crap installed without her even being aware? This is assuming your mother looks at porn sites; substitute dad/brother/yourself as necessary...
A nice feature, true, but what happens when you go to click on a "help" icon and it can't open a new window?
The UI for turning the feature on and off at will hasn't been implemented in Mozilla that I know of, but Galeon currently allows for this. I think it's also possible to selectively allow and disallow popups from certain sites.
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
'Course, there are those who find it more convenient to have one window with multiple tabs, than several windows to flip between. Ever since Galeon picked up tabbed browsing, I haven't gone back; just saves desktop space, looks cleaner, and doesn't give that much of a performance hit. At least with Mozilla, the option exists, and works rather well.
Which is again nice, but means nothing if developers dont make their sites for standards, which they dont
Nice to see you speak for all web developers.
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
Again, can your mother do that, and should she have to just to be able to safely surf the web? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the inevitable process of upgrading and patching bugs here; I'm talking about closing potential privacy and security holes deliberately set as defaults by the browser manufacturer.
More ramblings from a zealot. I'm sure the IE programmers care about IE. They just dont feel the need to sit around and pat each other on the back in public message boards.
No, they just have MS Marketing to whip up press releases and hype it as the Next Big Thing. Seriously, do you think the developers spend their time in the netscape.mozilla.* and Bugzilla boards holding public circle jerks?
Internet privacy zones. From your top menu in IE6: tools -> internet options -> privacy -> click the edit button. Yep, it works in IE on a site by site basis.
In short, they're about equal, and the Mozilla team doesn't have the need to give it the wankeriffic term of "privacy zones" or whatnot. Just cookie management and image management. Works damn well, too.
Re:Better and Better (Score:2, Informative)
Re:0.9.5 in woody. (Score:2)