Mozilla 0.9.7 Released! 436
Chezypewf writes: "The newest release from the Mozilla Dev team is out. This milestone features basic S/MIME support, favicon support and the Document Inspector, a tool to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. You can grab it here: http://www.mozilla.org/releases "
ISO in the stocking (Score:2, Funny)
Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:2, Funny)
Great browser, ridiculously fast development rate. Slow it down guys, release every
My two cents.
- Dave Brennins
Re:Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
Again,
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
See the first line on the release page? It says:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
If you want a not-testing-purposes-only browser, go use Netscape 6.2. Binary versions of Mozilla are are available for testing purposes only.
Re:Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:2, Funny)
;-)
Re:Mozilla is great and all, BUT... (Score:5, Informative)
See the first line on the release page? It says: "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
netdemonz AT yahoo DOT com said:
That article is old and out of date. Mozilla milestones are meant to be stable releases that can be used as a personal browser.
It is not old and out of date. Mozilla binaries are provided for testing purposes.
--Asa
Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
I really am trying to find a good reason to even keep netscape on my box anymore. If there were just a good repository of plugins Mozilla would be the best damned browser available
I'm inclined to agree. With the Quicklaunch option enabled, Mozilla is faster than IE on my system. I'm loving the new tabbed browsing. It's great for keeping my place on sites like Slashdot where there are a lot of links to outside sites. Mozilla's cookie management and form management is wonderful. And I'm really starting to like its sidebars and its handling of bookmarks.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
Quicklaunch is a dirty little hack to get around the real problem: slow start-up time. If Mozilla's state gets screwed up, I now have to go and kill it in task manager as it never exits when Quicklaunch is enabled.
This is true but I don't worry about it too much these days. The latest Mozilla releases have been quite stable on my system and I can always disable Quicklaunch if that changes in the future so I don't really care. In any case, I see Quicklaunch more as a dirty little hack to get around the fact that unlike Microsoft, the Mozilla team can't "integrate" its browser into the OS for faster start-up time.
QuickLaunch is the same hack Microsoft uses (Score:2)
Please, a dirty hack is what everyone else is using too.
The only one who isnt is opera.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
Christopher
Mozilla runs Netscape plugins (Score:5, Informative)
Copy the files from your "plugins" subdirectory for Netscape to the "plugins" subdirectory for Mozilla. They will work. I've been running Quicktime (under Windows) and Flash with no problems.
Well, I did have one problem ... where I forgot to copy the Quicktime 5 plugin over the Quicktime 4 plugin, and it would crash when the page was unloaded. That was fixed by getting the plugin version to match the DLLs it was linked against. Doh!
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
DennyK
Re:Mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
1) Source tree for hacking
2) Binary tree for hacking the chrome
3) Binary tree of a recent nightly to keep track of feature progress
4) Latest milestone release
I use Netscape 6 for browsing because I am not constantly editing, hacking, crashing, replacing, or deleting it. I started doing this last year when downloading a new version of Mozilla might mean that your profile doesn't work anymore.
I imagine for people who don't work on the Mozilla project and don't do what I do, it might be better just to get Mozilla and forget Netscape altogether.
There are some advantages to getting Netscape 6 instead though. It has better plugin support from companies such as Macromedia, integrated AIM, has been more thoroughly tested (as it comes from a milestone branch), has spell-checker, is made to be easier to use than Mozilla, has a better help system, is more polished and attractive, and should generally be more stable and functional - although this is not always the case.
Some disadvantages of Netscape 6 are that it is a much larger download, more bloated, always a couple months behind Mozilla in terms of features, doesn't have IRC Chat (though this may change in the future), has a somewhat quirky installation server (though this should change too), has a private bug database, and comes with a lot of bundled programs which people might not want.
Therefore, it all depends on your preferences which program you use. If you are an advanced user, then Mozilla might be all you need. For the average user, though, Netscape 6 would be what I would recommend. I might also recommend always having up-to-date copies of both programs, and using the one you like the best. Remember, as Mozilla has few users compared to Netscape, the web might not be always written with Mozilla in mind. Therefore, there might be sites that - for instance - sniff for Netscape 6 but not for Mozilla, or plugins that only work on Netscape 6.
Re:Mozilla (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah you are but I checked out your bugs and noticed you on IRC and it seems that you are too cocky and annoy the shit out of everyone there. Not trying to start a flame post here, but stop trying to give a feeling of authority. Just because you are a Mozilla developer doesn't mean you're a good one.
Hell, I can fix a spell error too and say I'm a Mozilla developer....
Mozilla isnt slow, XUL is slow (Score:2)
Just like JAVa is slower than C.
Try using a native interface and Mozilla suddenly is fast. Try kmeleon or galeon
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
But as for email, I'm not sure what more can be done. You can set up as many filters as you want for each account...
from the release notes "What's New" (Score:5, Informative)
--Asa
Re:from the release notes "What's New" (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't accurate (Score:2)
Mozilla now supports shortcut icons (a.k.a favicons) and custom page icons in bookmarks and in the personal toolbar.
...is working even as I type into 0.9.6.
Page icon support is indeed new in bookmarks. (Score:2)
Re:mod this the fuck down (Score:5, Troll)
Um, that's my text. I'm the co-author of the release notes and the originator of the what's new section. I would think that I'm allowed to post that here and save a bit of load on our releases page (not to mention the added convenience for
--Asa
Re:mod this the fuck down (Score:2, Funny)
favicon (Score:3, Funny)
198.236.22.34 - - [21/Dec/2001:10:27:47 -0800] "GET
in my http logs, without feeling bad for catering only to windows ie users.
fav icons...man... i can't wait until we have magical talking paperclips, too!
Re:favicon (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny... I actually find them useful... recognizing an image is much faster than reading text. *shrugs*
Re:favicon (Score:2)
Re:favicon (Score:3, Funny)
Also, you won't have to create your icon in a M$ format.
Re:favicon (Score:4, Informative)
Evangalism bug for the method:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11029
*drooling over this feature* (Score:4, Informative)
I know, it's beena round, but I'm happy to have this feature:
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.7/#new [mozilla.org]
Mozilla has a new advanced preference panel for fine-grained JavaScript control. For instance, you can disallow pop up and pop-under windows without turning off JavaScript altogether.
I'd still like to have site-by-site preferences wihtout having to edit the prefs.js file, but, what can you do? (i know... i know... write the damn code yourself...)
Re:*drooling over this feature* (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla team - You guys have a HUGE thank you coming from me! Thank god for software which is written by the people who use it.
Re:*drooling over this feature* (Score:2)
OSX Missing feature? (Score:2)
Re:*drooling over this feature* (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:*drooling over this feature* (Score:2, Informative)
S/MIME Support (Score:2)
The UI is still very incomplete. It didn't seem to want to let me sign or encrypt email (which sucks) but I could read it, view my certs, and do other basic operations, which is all I need. The encrypting of mail is of course still needed, but I'm going to guess that the ui glitches (the menu item not recognizing that I'd selected "always encrypt") are going to be resolved in
Again, great job mozilla! Thank you from this linux + s/mime user!
(and no, the boss wouldn't let us just use pgp/gpg....)
0.9.7 has new pop-up-stopper UI -- (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you guess which one stops pop-ups?
Would a usability [bohmann.dk] expert [useit.com] know what half these prefs mean?
Good job on the prefs, Moz-team, but please, hire Jakob Nielsen before 1.0 ships.
Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:5, Informative)
Hi there. I designed the interface [mozilla.org] for Mozillas Javascript prefs back in September, and Doron Rosenberg has spent the past couple of months implementing it [mozilla.org].
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
None of them do. Thats why there isnt a checkbox labelled do pop-ups. Blocking pop-ups in toto would be pretty useless, because it would stop a large chunk of the Web from working properly.
Think about it. <a href="http://foo.bar/" target="_new">foo</a> is a pop-up, and none of these prefs prevent that from working, because then the link would break completely nothing at all would happen when you clicked on it. <a onclick="javascript:window.open(whatever)">foo& lt;/a> is a pop-up, and none of these checkboxes prevent that from working either, for the same reason. (In both cases it would be nice if you could get the link to open in the same window rather than opening in a new window, but we dont have the back end to allow that yet.)
What one of these checkboxes does let you do is stop windows from opening by themselves based on a timer, or when you navigate to or from a page. Thats the behavior that annoys people the most, since the new window is usually of no interest to them whatsoever. And whats the label for this checkbox? (Drum roll please ) Open windows by themselves.
If you have a better idea of what to label that checkbox, Id be glad to read it theres been a lot of suggestions so far, but theyve all been either too wordy, too obscure, or (as in your case) just plain wrong.
Hah. I wrote to Jakob Nielsen a year or so ago, asking if he was interested, and he didnt bother replying. I guess whining about sucky Web sites (or sucky mobile phones) is like shooting fish in a barrel, compared to coming up with Javascript prefs your mother would understand.
-- mpt
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Open windows by themselves"
could be
"Allow automatic pop-up windows"
26 characters Vs. 30... not bad.
The key is that 95% of the people would be looking for this option to stop "pop-ups", so there's little to no reason not to use that word. Yes it's not perfect, but that's why useability people freak out when programmers make dialog boxes, we're geeks. We think technically, not like a user. Give the users what they want.
As for Jakob Nielson, every
-Russ
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I showed that more than a year ago and I know some have implemented similar techniques to prevent any window opening under any circumstances and show the link in the existing window.
The problem with the wording is not that its inaccurate, its entirely accurate. The problem is that the user is searching for something to stop windows opening and so naturally grabs at whatever seems reasonable. After that assumption is made they are going to be satisfied 80% of the time but consider the actual behaviour a bug because windows can still be opened.
Simon
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about "Enable pop-ups/pop-unders"?
I think that would neatly capture the intent of this checkbox. In fact, what would be particularly nice about it is that, as time goes on, and other means are developed for defeating "pop-ups" (whatever people come to understand that to mean), it would be possible to roll that functionality into that pre-existing checkbox.
Actually, here's what I _really_ think. You should leave all that fine-grained JavaScript control stuff as it is, and where it is (under Advanced). What is needed is an "enable pop-ups/pop-unders" checkbox in, say, the main navigator preferences screen. This is a "digestified" function, i.e. it may do various things, which are not precisely-defined, but whose intent is to defeat what people commonly refer to as "pop-ups" or "pop-unders".
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, for example, In MacOS X OmniWeb 4.1, the pop-up stopper preference text reads:
"Scripts are allowed to open windows:"
(and there are three choices)
* always
* only in response to a link being clicked
* never
and this seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. The word "scripts" could probably be changed to "web pages" or even "web sites" for better comprehesion by beginning users.
~jeff
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the entries after the first (I'm going by what the poster wrote; I haven't run 0.9.7 myself) can be read as if prefixed with "Scripts are allowed to ...". So make that the heading! "Scripts and Windows" makes
little sense, since most of the entries are unrelated to windows. This
change would require that "Enable Javascript" be moved to its own section,
which seems appropriate anyway.
(I guess someone wanted "windows" in the heading so that people looking to disable ad windows would see it; but this is "advanced" configuration, and I think anyone going here would know that it's really a script preference.)
On to the original matter: "Open windows by themselves" is gratuitously ambiguous. "by themselves" seems to go with "windows", which could either mean that windows open in a separate part of the screen ("by" as in location"); or that windows spontaneously open without external cause ("by" as in agent). Neither one is really right.
If you change the heading as I suggest, it reads, "Scripts are allowed to open windows by themselves". This is an improvement, because "by" as in agent clearly refers to "scripts". But the "by" as in location interpretation is still possible, so it remains confusing.
"Scripts are allowed to open windows automatically" reads with no ambiguity to me, and seems no worse in any way. So I would suggest "Open windows automatically" as the text for the checkbox. "Open windows without user input" isn't bad if you want to be more explicit.
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:2)
Usability is such a weird thing, but it seems like it's something that's slowly infusing into the open source movement, which is great. It's one of those things that non-programmers can do if they have a knack for it. It's certainly one of those thngs that few programmers can do alone... programmers have to realize that they just think differently than the rest of the world.
None of this should take anything away from your accomplishments, mpt: I want to genuinely thank you for doing what you do. If it seems like
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:2)
Will this preference make it to the GUI?
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
I don't like the options stated here:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
x Open Windows by themselves
x Move or resize existing windows
x Make windows flip over or under other windows
x Change status bar text
x Change Images
x Create or change cookies
x Read cookies
I propose instead:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
Javascript code may:
x Open windows on page load/unload (pop-up and pop-under ads)
x Move and resize existing windows
x Change window ordering (pop-under ads)
x Change status bar text
x Change images (mouseover highlighting)
x Create and change cookies
x Read cookies
First, the other options definitely belong as a sub-item as the first one, disabled when it gets disabled. (If it's actually this way in the dialog, sorry, my Mozilla isn't quite new enough to have your feature. I'm going by the bug report.) There should be a little label to explain the wording of the subitems, since they are stated as what the code is doing ("open a window") rather than what you're doing ("allowing them to open a window").
Second, I really don't like the "by themselves". Obviously everything in Javascript happens because of some event firing. I think on page load/unload is more clear. (Or some other way of precisely stating what events you're talking about.)
Third, it has in parenthesis a common use of several features. This should give a better understanding of what you'll be breaking.
1st actual release on ideal release day! (Score:2, Interesting)
If you take a look at the mozilla development roadmap [mozilla.org], you'll believe me. Don't blame me for another exact release you see (0.9.5), 'cause
Anyway, the mozilla dev team have made a great work in a great manner, for many this could be a cool gift for the season. Thank you, and have a nice vacation everybody.
You Know What This Means? (Score:2, Funny)
Only two more releases before they... umm... add another digit of precision to the version number. :)
Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:3, Redundant)
Ive been using mozilla for awhile now, and Im very very impressed with how it just gets better. It renders quicker the IE6 which is impressive, and the Tab feature (people call an Opera ripoff) is great. You can install it into a directory with an older version of mozilla, it doesnt create a new secure directory. That salt directory it made was rather annoying.
Using it as a daily browser for both work and home, I do have a few problems with it. Some javascripts dont work with internal business sites. (LiveLink and Eroom which we use for documents and communications) No spell checker yet. (But im told its coming.)
And at home, I cant use my online banking with it, but everything else seems to work fine.
Newsgroups reader seems to be work in progress, the nightly builds seem to have a few bugs. But I am downloading the daily builds and it could be me.
BTW, I could swear the 0.9.7 directory was on ftp.mozilla.org for the last couple days.
-
I'm too shy to express my sexual needs except over the phone to people I don't know. - Garry Shandling
Re:Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:2, Informative)
Of the banks I am working with, Wells Fargo doesn't work (not even with Netscape 6) while American Express, Discover and AT&T work just fine.
Re:Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:2, Informative)
Two of them are Evangelism bugs, which means that Wells Fargo are using non-standard (or even invalid) standards that Mozilla does not support (such as ).
See the bugs here:
* http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
* http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87351
And finally, there is one Mozilla bug that is triggered with this site, although quite minor; you are not able to tab through all the widgets on the site:
* http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11411
Hope this helps.
Re:Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:2, Interesting)
Excuse me? A spell checker? It's a browser. Say it slowly. BROWSER. What are you, a grammar nazi, spell-checking everyone's webpages now?
Re:Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:2)
Who's calling it an Opera ripoff? I started a thread [google.com] about it on the Mozilla newsgroups way back in 1999.
What do you want to see for 1.0? We need input (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
On the Mozilla roadmap, it shows Mozilla 1.0 following the same start, freeze, release timeline as the rest of the builds. I personally feel it should be started, frozen for twice as long as usual with drivers@mozilla.org being the only ones who can approve changes, then submitted to longer-than-normal testing period.
I would also like to see better documentation, and improved features. I think this release stands for Mozilla, and it should be something Mozilla.org should be proud of. We shouldn't rush into it. I would be perfectly happy if it wasn't released until the end of summer, 2002.
What do you want to see in Mozilla 1.0? Do you agree it should follow an extended schedule compared to most milestones? What features would you like to see improved or added?
You can also talk on newsgroups like netscape.public.mozilla.general
Let's make Mozilla 1.0 fantastic!
Stable, Documented API (Score:5, Interesting)
The original vision is still critical, and I want to see more projects like the fantastic pubmed [mozdev.org]. These things are going to be what really kicks mozilla in to high gear. I really believe that third party stuff like this will make mozilla worth having.
1.0 is all about stability. The browser itself is certainly stable enough to go 1.0. You can add the UI enhancements for 1.1, but make the core solid so people have the platform. Then we'll start to get the plugins that we so desperately need too.
Re:Stable, Documented API (Score:2, Insightful)
See: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
Re:What do you want to see for 1.0? We need input (Score:2)
Speed, Stability, Power (Score:2)
In that exact order.
Freeze it for 1 month and work on bug fixes, and for a month work on just increasing its speed.
The only thing Mozilla needs is speed and stability, it has the power.
Thanks Guys (Score:3)
New Mozilla just dropped my bookmarks! (Score:2, Informative)
This sounds to me like a serious bug. When upgrading I don't want my bookmarks to be removed. All other settings (like subscribed newsgroups, proxy settings, mail folders, and even the history) are preserved. But not the bookmarks!
Greetings,
Re:New Mozilla just dropped my bookmarks! (Score:2)
ITs a bug, it happened to me too (Score:2)
The same thing happened to me when i upgraded from around 0.94, i lost some of my bookmarks but not all of them
Mozilla has been released ! (Score:4, Funny)
o . . _.-_ .,,,' ._-_ ^^; .,}
o __.'..o."-.
o . . .
o. .
o _-\" . `""
o.
Yay! Drop lists work (Score:2)
Re:Yay! Drop lists work (Score:2)
--Asa
A Question About Mozilla (Score:2, Interesting)
I visit a lot of Cyrillic sites, and the header of the window that is encoded in cyrillic is always shown as a set of question marks. Even worse, when I bookmark such a site, the letters in Bookmarks are not shown as cyrillic but as additional latin symbols (the same way as if a cyrillic page is shown in Western encoding).
Is it Mozilla or just silly me?
Some things about Mozilla are broken now. (Score:2)
This site Chess Line [cjb.net] totally screws up now in the newest mozilla
Need to make Microsoft support more standards (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is one thing I'd like to see improved in the next release of IE it's CSS selector support. CSS Selectors level 3 is basically finished, Mozilla supports most level 2 selectors, and yet IE6 trails with very limited support. Yes, you can select an element that is within another element (descendant selectors) but IE6 lacks support for a huge array of other selectors such as child, sibling and selectors based on attribute value(s).
This selectors point may seem very trivial to web authors used to writing for IE because they merely give an element a class and write a new rule for it. But that bloats the HTML/XML significantly, and can give the programmer a headache, not forgetting the problems of handling inheritance propeties.
With CSS2 selectors, I can say, td[class ~= "body"] > p:first-child { font-weight: bolder; } and have the first paragraph child of a table cell who's class attribute contains a value "body" go bolder. I can't do that in IE6 as effectively.
C'mon Microsoft, you helped create the selectors standard, now let's see you implement it!
Mozilla Release vs. Mozilla Nightly (Score:3, Informative)
So I installed Linux. Haha, no. I first searched the bug database and didn't find anything on either of the error messages. Uninstalled via Control Panel, which gave me another error, something about an uninstall log and the Registry. I said, screw it, and just deleted the c:\program files\mozilla.org folder. Wasn't ready to give up yet, so I went to mozilla.org and downloaded the latest nightly build.
Installed that and Mozilla has been working perfectly. It's fantastic, and my father-in-law, who was very fond of Netscape and has suffered the past year and a half with IE, absolutely loves it.
I'm not sure what the differences between the 0.9.7 release and the nightly build I downloaded are; I'm just happy I got the browser to work -- it's fantastic. If it's of any interest, when I was first downloading Mozilla, I used the 209kb net installer. It said it found CRC errors when it was verifying the files, but redownloaded them. Perhaps my problems stemmed from that... but the nightly is holding its own with IE right now (IMHO).
Back button behavior? (Score:2, Informative)
Please tell me if I'm a doofus and there's a setting that controls this. I can't find any such thing. Or is this the "correct" behavior of the Back button? TIA.
Edit boxes in mozilla (esp. MailNews) (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried looking for it in bugzilla but couldn't spot it - I suspect I'm probably searching for the wrong thing though. Maybe it's something wrong with my setup?
Apart from that, it's all coming along rather well and I use it as my main browser and mail client on my primary work machine. The only real thing left from my point of view is to trim down on the memory leakage (eg try switching between IMAP folders with the welcome page visible in the preview pane and watch Moz chew another 30-50k).
Weird bug in this one (Score:2)
Finally, a Mozilla I can *use*! (Score:2)
But I just got the 0.9.7 binary for OS X, and it kicks all ass. Finally, a Mozilla that is stable, fast, and featureful enough for daily use has been released... and I now have an outstanding (and [Ff]ree!) browser I can use on this OS.
Bye bye, IE. Bye bye, OmniWeb. Thanks, Mozilla team!
native widgets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a partial adoption of native widgets in progress? Bug 112980 [mozilla.org] seems to imply so but details are scanty. The bug does not even have a description, only a title and comments.
If the Mozilla team has finally caught on to the importance of respecting platform UI standards, though, hats off to them.
Tim
Try this out (Score:2)
In Windows 2000, I've checked my Hotmail account with both Mozilla and I.E. Surprisingly, Microsoft's own hotmail website works better with Mozilla than with their own IE browser!
Try it yourself when you get a bunch of messages that need to be deleted:
Check the checkboxes for the messages you want to delete. Mozilla will react instantly, while IE lags 5-10 seconds to react to the checkbox. Am I the only one who has that problem in IE at the Hotmail website?
This happens for me on a BP6 with dual 533 Celerons with 512 Megs of PC133 - Perhaps it's time to upgrade
VIEW SOURCE still sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
The same behaviour was a huge problem for printing in Netscape. Rather than print what was in the browser's memory and on the screen, netscape would do a GET request on the URL. If it didn't come back with the right results - oh well! Too bad...
Why on earth can't we simply see what's in the browser's memory already? It seems this is the EASY thing to do and Netscape (and now Mozilla) are unnecessarily complicating the matter.
Re:VIEW SOURCE still sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
> AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME
Which, with client-side scripting involved, has nothing to do with the source that was served from the website (consider a page that dynamically creates and appends some elements.
The fact of the matter is, there is no good reason to keep the source once it has been parsed, so Mozilla do it. The only place the source stays is in the cache. Thus the problem becomes one of extracting the correct cache entry.
And Mozilla always prints exactly what you see; it prints based on the DOM, not on the source.
Re:Goody Goody (Score:3, Troll)
Ooh Wow, another Microsoft indentured servant!
It's obvious you haven't used Mozilla recently (like, the last three releases). Fantastic standards-compliant browser with excellent USER-FRIENDLY - as opposed to ADVERTISER-FRIENDLY - customization and privacy options.
And on my system, using Mozilla's quick start option, it loads FASTER than IE.
I'd love to chat, but I'm gonna rush off to get the new release!
Re:Goody Goody (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Goody Goody (Score:2, Funny)
Well, if they're nearly as talented as those behind Windows XP [slashdot.org], then you my friend are screwed!
Re:Goody Goody (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Goody Goody (Score:2)
Until some robber happens to cruise through your neighborhood and sees your nice house and walks in the door
As Jack Handy once said: "I can envision a world entirely at peace. And I can see us invading that world, cause they'd never expect it!"
Re:what, no freebsd ? (Score:5, Informative)
mozilla.org provies binaries for linux, mac (9 and X) and windows. Other builds (the dozen or so other platforms you're used to seeing at ftp.mozilla.org) are contributed by "platform champions" who take the time to make binaries so that you don't have to.
It's late in the week, christmas and the new year right around the corner. Give folks a little time (usually only a matter of days) to make those builds and send them in to mozilla.org.
Or you could do one better and make a build and contribute it to mozilla.org sooner. See Building a Mozilla distro [mozilla.org] for tips.
--Asa
Re:what, no freebsd ? (Score:2)
sadly, they dont yet have a freebsd binary download, as they did for 0.9.6
Umm, so why not just pull down the latest nightly build for FreeBSD? [mozilla.org] Moz is getting them up there perty darn regular now. Heck, it's more up to date then 0.9.7! Just untar that bugger into your home directory.
It's even a faster install then a package. This is what I'm using at this very moment until the port gets completed. Wanna work 0.9.7 into Galeon's compile and all when it's ready.
Re:Freeze that Jelly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freeze that Jelly (Score:2)
Too bad they introduced 3172 new ones, and broke 1586 things that worked before though. </not entirely sarcasm>
Re:Freeze that Jelly (Score:2, Interesting)
Take for example i386 machine instruction set. It is a disaster but a frozen one. RISC is much better but because i386 is frozen it lives. Mozilla will be the RISC of browsers forever if it won't freeze. Or at least make a 'stable' 1.0 release we all work on bug squashing in while they work towards 2.0. Maybe that is already their plan I hope so.
Re:Dammit! I *just* downloaded 0.9.6 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure you said that with a wink, but in case not I'll tell you why we release software late in the evening on Fridays. It's because we bust our butts all week trying to get it wrapped up before the weekend. If we work hard and luck is with us we get it out late in the day Friday. If we run into unexpected problems then it's sometime the following week. Fortune smiled on us this milestone cycle and I think we've got something really good to offer (and on time too
--Asa
Re:Dammit! I *just* downloaded 0.9.6 (Score:2)
Anyway, it's not supposed to be insightful, I'm just expressing frustration.
Re:REALITY CHECK TIME (Score:2)
Amen! I'd love to hear that news. Making Mozilla better gets us closer to hearing something like that. There are lots of ways that you can help to make Mozilla better. See getting involved [mozilla.org] page for some of them.
--Asa
getting involved (Score:2)
I was a good little Mozilla user and filed a detailed bug report, including instructions on how to trigger it. After several days, I got a suggestion to try a newer build and the bug was closed. Great. Way to go. I now have sites that validate perfectly at W3's validator (so bad HTML likely ain't to blame) and render perfectly in all other browsers including older versions of Mozilla, but are broken in the newest versions. I gotta hand it to you guys, I was really starting to think I could forget about all the stupid little workarounds I have to do to deal with stupid little layout bugs. So much for that.
Re:getting involved (Score:3, Informative)
You failed to include why the bug was closed, which makes me suspect they had a valid reason for closing it. And not verifying it with a build from the exact day you filed the bug is an acceptable reason.
Last I heard, 300+ bugs were getting fixed a week. That's a lot of changes - some of which fix other bugs, so it's only reasonable for you to go d/l the latest build (making sure to note it in your bug report, so they KNOW that it's a valid bug) when you comment on a bug.
Re:REALITY CHECK TIME...Head up your ass??????? (Score:2)
Really? so if you pay any attention at all to ***REALITY****, which appears to escape you, you might have noticed the following:
1. The Linux market share on the PC desktop is so small to almost unmeasurable (as related HERE on
2. That a key component to getting mindshare on new desktop users or those desktop users who are thinking about getting away from Windoze is the browser and the related email/chat/IM clients
3. That a browser needs to support ALL the MIME data types that IE does AND offer a better browsing experience than IE, Zilla is close but not their yet
4. Every new generation of MS OS provides additional "lock in" from the OS to the hardware and the apps and that means that it becomes harder with each generation to offer an alternative paradigm and get it accepted....both O2K and OXP have substantially better OS integration than they have ever had...making a steeper hill for any other product to climb
TO THE *NIX POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BIGOT(S) who wrote the above post and the asshole who modded my parent post as "Flamebait"
"Making all athoratitive statements like that leads only to flame wars and not better browsing
NO, making rational discussive statements about the REALITY of a product leads to further discussion about the product
further discussion leads to an open exchange of viewpoints
and that can lead to involved parties reassessing their approach and priorities and, if they're smart enough, making changes that lead to an even better product
The Stallmanian Political Correctness, *NIX Style you would insist on leads to the inane belief that "If you build it, they will come."
Microsoft, whom i know very, very well, loves having fools and cheerleaders on other products development teams.....
....because while everybody on some other project is reassuring each other with heartwarming "Shit, man. This thing is Da Bomb!"
MS just quietly goes out and locks in another market.
From a market share point of view, if ALL the users and readers of
MS would throw a party and have a large laugh at the people who don't seem to understand that they have just deprived MS of a whooping
I have had 3 customers of mine call me in the last month INSISTING that they had to upgrade to XP NOW!
i explained to them that XP is pretty much a simple dot upgrade to 2K and there was absolutely no reason to upgrade if they were having no problems with 2K and that, in 2 of the 3 cases, that XP doesn't have certified drivers for some of their h/w...they all DIDN'T BELIEVE that XP isn't the "greatest new OS of all time" and that their systems wouldn't work so much better with XP installed
THAT'S the mentality that Zilla, et al have to suceed against and that won't happen unless the products are way better than the competition (sa, "Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton Christensen)
My respect and admiration goes out to all those actually working on Zilla/Opera/Netscape..i've spoken to number of them...they actually making a difference and fighting the good fight
Bigots like you just make rational and reasonable discussion either difficult or impossible
BTW, it's bad enough that you're a narrow minded anti free speech bigot, please learn how to touch type
Re:REALITY CHECK TIME (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:REALITY CHECK TIME (Score:2, Insightful)
No. it's at version 0.97. Wait for 1.0. That will be ready. Will it be free of bugs? Probably not. Will those bugs be resolved more quickly than those on closed-source browsers? yes.
If you're talking ideology, why on earth are you running windows at all?
Re:Excellent. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mozilla obsolete (Score:4, Insightful)
//redirect for people with a less than
//version 4 browser
var NS4 = (document.layers);
var IE4 = (document.all);
var ver4 = (NS4 || IE4);
if(!ver4)
location.href= "notsupported.htm";
and hotmail.com works just fine for me on mac, windows and linux mozilla 0.9.7 builds.
--Asa
Re:Mozilla obsolete (Score:2)
And from the "unsupported" page:
meta NAME="GENERATOR" Content="Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0"
Re:Mozilla obsolete (Score:5, Informative)
Except for downloading attachments. This is a big one IMO since it appears to be a genuine cookie handling bug and not some quirk of hotmail.
Bug 105917 [mozilla.org]. Target fix release, 0.9.9
Re:small bug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:back button (Score:2, Informative)
Fortunately, I think they're finally fixing it.
See these:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112