Mozilla Now Even Includes The Kitchen Sink 295
zzxc writes "Mozillazine reports that a 'kitchen sink' easter egg has been added into Mozilla by a patch to bug 122411. It shows an ASCII art animated kitchen sink. This was prompted by people complaining about Mozilla's bloat - that 'it includes everything but the kitchen sink.' You can see this xhtml demo by going to about:kitchensink in a recent Mozilla nightly, or at mozilla.org with an older mozilla build. Please note that this is not actually included in the browser package, so it doesn't add to mozilla's bloat. Instead, about:kitchensink directs the user to the xml document on mozilla's website."
Next addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next addition... (Score:4, Funny)
(did I say that right?)
Re:Next addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Even simpler (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even simpler (Score:2, Funny)
In spite of this, I like Mozilla.
Who needs a kitchen sink? (Score:5, Funny)
A toaster for me, plz... (Score:2)
Re:Who needs a kitchen sink? (Score:2)
Old news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old news... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old news... (Score:2)
Re:Old news... (Score:2)
Re:Old news... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong color (Score:2, Informative)
trying to simulate a BSOD crash?
Wrong color. The BSOD uses background color #0000AA (text mode color #1) by default, while about:mozilla uses #000080 (a bit darker).
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another example of the ease and simplicity of MS Windows! How could anyone use arcane and complicated systems like Linux/UNIX when Windows provides all the functionality you need with simple easy-to-remember commands?
P
Re:Old news... (Score:5, Insightful)
And followed by insisting that anyone who thinks something like that should be expected to work in the first place is a drooling half-wit...
Re:Old news... (Score:2)
Well, I know for sure MS wouldn't do easter eggs just for silly suggestions...
Re:Old news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it does:
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31 (Red Letter Edition)
everything but the.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:everything but the.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:everything but the.. (Score:2)
In IE6 (Score:4, Interesting)
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using style sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
The system cannot locate the resource specified. Error processing resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'.
Re:In IE6 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In IE6 (Score:4, Informative)
Have a google search with:
site:w3.org xhtml "cannot be displayed"
This is an old bug, Microsoft seems to be too absorbed with DRM to care about it.
Re:In IE6 (Score:2)
It appears to be valid XHTML [w3.org] and valid use of CSS [w3.org], so your comments seem strange, unless they serve different documents for different user agents. Have anybody tested this?
Re:In IE6 (Score:2)
IE seems to take no notice what so ever of the MIME type specified in HTTP headers. It also takes no notice of the charset specified in HTTP headers :-(
This is why the IE problems with this page are nothing to do with the fact that it's served as text/xml -- it SHOULD be served as'application/xhtml+xml' [w3.org] since it's a XHTML 1.1 document.
However there are not many browsers that support application/xhtml+xml [w3.org]...
I think the only way around this is to serve different MIME types to different clients for XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1.
Re:In IE6 (Score:2, Funny)
kitchen sink? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:kitchen sink? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:kitchen sink? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:kitchen sink? (Score:3, Insightful)
For the Trek asciiart, someone actually sat around for hours to get the ~ or the ` in the right location. A true waste of time, but I admire their effort.
Nice but... (Score:5, Funny)
Easter Eggs (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone know any more of these 'features'?
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:2)
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:2)
Uhh, wow, that's... interesting. Now how does one go about disabling a plugin under Mozilla/Phoenix under Win32?
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:5, Informative)
Have a look here [fairding.com], they list most of the about: URIs, as well as some other forgotten easter eggs.
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, if you want to try some of these tricks, you can get an old version of netscape from http://browsers.evolt.org/index.cfm/dir/navigator
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow - Ctrl+Alt+F still takes you to the FishCam!
I remember the first time I discovered this by accident!
Going META (Score:5, Interesting)
bug 56061 - about:about [mozilla.org]: RFE to display a clickable list of all the supported about:*
Re:Going META (Score:2)
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:3, Informative)
Using IE6, clicking that link results in going to res://mshtml.dll/about.moz the page displays nothing, but they took the time to make the background blue.
Re:Easter Eggs (Score:2)
I was on the phone and was just randomly clicking and dragging to pass the time. That's the only hint I'm going to give. I don't know how well-known it is, but in case it's not I don't want to spoil it. Besides, if it is well-known then you can easily find out what it is somewhere else anyhow.
It's the first time I've ever found an Easter Egg myself (in anything) before so I was kind of thrilled! I was totally not expecting it.
BTW it's also in Netscape 7.01.
Ascii art (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is ascii art is particulary appropiated, all those letters seems to be flooding mozilla zine and slashdot discussion forums.
For those who didn't notice (Score:3, Interesting)
all those letters go poop, PooP, and so on. So your second comment is spot-on, especially the latter part
Playing "catch up" to EMACS (Score:5, Interesting)
Several releases of Emacs have also used a kitchen sink as a launcher icon.
both playing catchup to Nethack (Score:2)
in related and more serious news :) (Score:5, Informative)
The outstanding bug list has been mirrored here:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/bugs-2003-02-22.html [phule.net] because it's not very nice to bugzilla.mozilla to link directly to it. At least not from
Re:in related and more serious news :) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:in related and more serious news :) (Score:2)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184
(Quick way to open - instead of copy/paste - if you use moz and tabs, and there is no blank space in the middle of the URL, double-click it to select, then drag to a new (or existing tab)
Actually not working yet... (Score:2, Informative)
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
"if you don't like the bloat, use phoenix!"
But it didn't. Instead someone pointed out about:mozilla which has been in there since like Netscape 2 I believe, maybe even before. I can't believe it got modded up and people didn't know about it. Anyway, if you want the kitchen sink and only the kitchen sink, use phoenix. ^_^
Re:Wow (Score:2)
just proof that someone will always bitch about something, even if it's free.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Wow. I really wish I'd kept my sizes file, because it showed a difinitive decerease in the sizes of Phoenix's tarballs over a three month period. The Windows version has decreased the most in size at a decrease of 1.1MB from version 0.3 to 0.5, the Linux version dropping by 0.4MB, and the OS/2 version remaining static at 12.5MB (compared to the 16.5MB current release of Mozilla for OS/2).
The only thing that may have doubles{sic} in size over the past few releases is the phoenix directory, since they're now including builds for several more languages and system library versions.
Amazing how people will troll about anything, though.
Wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
Phoenix has [almost always] shrunk over its releases. Here we go:
The latest Win32 nightly is 6,320 KB and the Linux version is 8,964 KB.
another easter egg (Score:3, Interesting)
WRONG (Score:2, Troll)
It is "supposed" to be blue, just like everything else in Windows is blue, because Bill and his cronies are a bunch of blue-blooded capitalist tools.
Many things (including about:mozilla) in Mozilla are red for quite the opposite reason.
This will be modded down because neither side likes to admit their political leanings, but it's true nonetheless.
Re:WRONG (Score:2)
Surveys show that blue is the favorite color of more people than any other color. Even in this Slashdot poll on favorite color [slashdot.org], blue got over twice as many votes as green, the second-place color. And what do you know, the second most common color in Windows XP is green!
The color blue has been shown to have a soothing effect on people. Many people experience anxiety when they try to use computers. Microsoft probably conducted extensive user testing and surveying to get just the right shades of blue. Notice also how the Windows background has blue skies and fluffy white clouds. It helps to put people at ease.
While a BSOD is still bad, IMO it doesn't look quite as ominous as a red or black screen of death would look. On a side note, I think the BSOD color can be specified in win.ini.
Re:another easter egg (Score:2, Informative)
Every version of Netscape going back to 0.9 had the about:mozilla easter egg, where it would display a red screen and a funny fake bible verse.
Early releases of IE poked fun at Netscape by having a blue screen with their own bible verse. At some point, they got politically correct and removed the bible verse, just leaving the bluescreen. Meaning it really has nothing to do with the Mozilla.org project, just crashy ol Netscape.
However, nobody seems to remember what the IE bible verse was. So, if anyone has IE3.0 or IE4.0 out there, give about:mozilla a shot and post what it says.
about:mozilla (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're stuck on IE, here it is:
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31
(Red Letter Edition)
Also see The mozilla museum [snafu.de] and The hidden features of mozilla [rigaut.com]. Its about the old netscape, but still very enjoyable and sometimes hilarious.
It was going to be a sink *and* a urinal (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Well, you know what they say (Score:5, Funny)
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times!!?? You stupid kitchen sink!"
Re:Well, you know what they say (Score:2)
Did I metion that you get plenty of junk in between? It would be quicker if you divide all the values to move everything into the ASCII range (for English anyhow).
Re:Well, you know what they say (Score:2)
Re: (turn off water ;-)) (Score:3, Funny)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Mozilla Doesn't Include the Kitchen Sink... Yet (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't. If you read the later comments in the bug, you'll see that drivers@mozilla.org (the project managers) have vetoed about:kitchensink. It's not likely to get into Mozilla unless the patch can be modified so it only affects Mozilla (right now it affects most Mozilla-based browsers, including Phoenix, Galeon and K-Meleon). Even then, I still have doubts that it will get in.
Re:Mozilla Doesn't Include the Kitchen Sink... Yet (Score:2)
urgh:
This is rather silly: the whole document is a full 19K (view page info). Not exactly the smallest piece of 'code', but 19K in a 12meg(compressed) install (50 meg in my mozilla install directory) doesn't sound like that much bloat to me.
(of course, this is the sort of attitude that leads to bloat in the first place).
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
NTLM easily explained [toastytech.com]
This is what. (Score:2)
XHTML? (Score:2)
Dude, this is xhtml in name only - this is good-old javascript! (view source)
Hey, Mozilla, bloated but works well. (Score:2)
From Developer.mac.com [apple.com]
Safari is still Beta, but it still kicked IE's fat ass.
I think we flooded it ... (Score:3, Funny)
hope they don't add a about:shower
Netrek Had This (Score:3, Interesting)
The Paradise [sourceforge.net] game client already had a kitchen sink [sourceforge.net] (version 2.2p8).
This variant of the game Netrek [netrek.org], which completely revamped the gameplay of the original and added a ton of 'features', many of which tended to irritate purists of the game. The client developers added a little outline kitchen sink which would pop up on the screen when a given button was pushed, along with the phrase 'Kitchen sink activated! Bad guys beware!'
Just a piece of trivia for you, and a great game at that.
My favorite over-featured software in-joke (Score:5, Interesting)
Disappointed (Score:2, Funny)
This is totally false (Score:5, Insightful)
How about doing some tiny little bit of fact-checking? Who needs news if it's false?
Re:This is totally false (Score:3, Insightful)
Get back! (Score:2)
It's not actually in folks! (Score:5, Informative)
As for IE sucking a log on this, well, it's 100% valid XHTML and CSS with decent DOM use, so I'm not surprised IE won't view it.
geez... (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Put another way, here's another story. In the early days of the interstate highway system, there was a problem with the roadway signage where, because the signs didn't give people enough warning that an exit was coming up, drivers kept colliding with the signs, destroying them, while trying to veer off the highway at the last minute. When the project engineers were told about this, the solution they came up with was simple, elegant, and completely wrong: build a sign strong enough to withstand an impact from a car moving at highway speeds.
The lessons there should be obvious. Rather than identify what today might be called the usability problems of the signage system, they focused only on the sign device itself. Their solution didn't make the problem go away, and it probably made impacts with signs much more dangerous for people in the car. The right solution, which we have since moved to, is to come up with standards to give people more information ahead of the exits so that collisions like this are much less probably.
I think the Mozilla people are falling for the same trap. They've heard the complaints, but rather than take them to heart, they poke fun at it -- and in fact adding in code for this easter egg, even if you are downloading the xml from mozilla.org's servers, is only adding to the application's bloat. Like the splash screen example, this is itself a great sign *ahem* that the project developers aren't listening to the concerns of their users. Rather, it's just starting to seem like a colossal exercise in self-gratification.
Good thing I can use Safari :-)
Re:Better than IE (Score:2, Informative)
---
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using style sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
Parameter entity must be defined before it is used. Error processing resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'. Line 85, Position 2
%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^
---
Now is MS bitching about the W3 or Mozilla?
Re:Better than IE (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that this was going to be an Easter Egg, but someone somewhere along the line thought better of it.
Re:Why is this XML? (Score:2)
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:5, Insightful)
The page is valid XHTML [htmlhelp.com]. If IE can't render it, that's its problem. Most of the IE-only pages are not standards-compliant, and that's the problem.
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of hypocritical to talk about sites that just don't work in Mozilla and other browsers, and that you shouldn't support companies that make sites like that but when a site like this works only in Mozilla it's just fine
Oh what a load of troll-scented crap. This isn't a "site", it is a silly easter egg built into the program. This is not a page with actual information, it's not meant for consumption by the general public (i.e. my grandfather is not going to search on Google for "kitchen sink", find this, and be disappointed that it does not work in IE). It is a "feature" specifically for Mozilla users.
Would you complain the same way if a Mozilla skin or XUL extension didn't work with IE? Of course not. It's not meant to.
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:2)
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:3, Insightful)
As you point out, the cycles are no problem when it is idling. Just a possible problem when animating ascii. (I wonder of other browsers would do better at ascii animation consumption of cpu cycles?)
As for RAM, who cares? RAM is cheap and getting cheaper by the day. Just look at the things we can do with computers today while jerking off vs. the things we could do with our computers, say in 1990.
Unfortunantly, having so much capability takes RAM.
We could trade RAM for capability and go back to using Commodore 64's.
I imagine in 10 years everyone will complain that Mozilla takes up 9 Gigabytes of RAM! Why can't it be efficient like back in 2007 when it only needed 768 MB of RAM? Of course, nobody will mention what Mozilla can do in 2013 vs. today.
Could Mozilla be made to have the same capability and use less RAM? Yes, undoubtedly. What would it cost? Development effort.
I believe there is some fair tradeoff of using computer resources (cycles, RAM, disk, etc.) to shorten development effort. Use higher level languages. Higher level abstractions. Yes you can be more efficient by working at a lower level of abstraction, but the development effort is higher.
Why don't we write everything in assembly language? This used to be a huge argument between the "high level language" camp and the "assembly language only" camp. The evidence was clear. Assembly programs were smaller and faster. More efficient by every possible measurement. So why aren't we still writing programs that way? Why don't we still use GOTO instead of structured programming constructs? Why was object oriented programming introduced? Why do we even tollerate the existance of interpreted languages, and even worse, inefficient languages that use dynamic typing such as Lisp, Python, JavaScript, etc.? Don't people know that static typing allows much more efficient compilation?
My hunch is that people don't care. They value productivity more.
If you could have your new super-duper software package (Office, word processor, browser, <insert software package of choice>) released nine months sooner, but it would use 30 % more RAM, would you take it?
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:4, Informative)
Since it's my habit to visit voyeurweb.com and download everything I can find in a new tab (which usually loads about 10 60k images per page), I've discovered that I can usually open about 70 tabs before things go wonky.
I close a few tabs, and things go back to normal.
When I try the same thing with IE (LOTS of open windows since IE is teh l4m3 and doesn't do tabs), I usually get a crash or lockup at around 40 open windows.
Anyway, on the box I have that only have 8MB card in it, the number of tabs full of pictures I can open is much, much lower. Maybe 10 or 12, before wonkiness sets in.
The 8MB graphics-card machine is a Linux box with a Matrox G100. The rest of my PCs are running W2k or Linux with some higher form of ATI card.
Re:Wow, just what mozilla needs (Score:4, Informative)
You just made a friend (Score:3, Funny)
Re:opening kitchensink locally (Score:2)
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
I sit on the side of seeing the EXACT same hardware running Windows, Linux (Netware, BSD, OS/2, and BeOS for that matter) all side by side.
I've seen IE on Windows and IE on the Mac. Compare Mozilla on Windows then to the Mac. Now take a look at Linux. How about Safari. Wow.
Now -- go to your Windows box. Transfer 8G out while getting 9G dumped to you while encoding a video stream while ripping a CD with the music playing and even have another operating system running to see IE6 about: mozilla
all while posting to
Go ahead try it... If a Windows user were to sit down and _learn_ to use Linux or a Mac as they did, at one point, _learn_ to use Windows then, and only then, do I think people will begin to understand. I show them daily...
Yeah, yeah yeah -- in Russia this may be off topic.
Re:IE includes the kitchen (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How recent a nightly? (Score:2)
http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/web-developer/exam
Re:features, functionality and bloat (Score:2)