Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 1.4 RC1 401

Posted by michael from the freshmeat dept.
Mister.de writes "Mozilla 1.4 RC 1 is out. We've added lots of features and fixed lots of bugs since Mozilla 1.3. Help us shake it down in preparation for Mozilla 1.4 final. More information is available in the release notes. Mozilla is an open-source Web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.4 RC1 More

Mozilla 1.4 RC1

Comments Filter:

  • What's that other Internet Explorer thing again? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:39AM (#6082972) Journal
    "Mozilla is an open-source Web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability."

    He actually explained to us what Mozilla is on Slashdot. Priceless. =)

    In any event, I'll do my part in bug testing since I am not smart enough to contribute useful code myself. I love the open source model: even though everyone isn't a computer scientist, we can all still do our part in making a terrific program.

    PS: .

  • I'm a Mozilla user, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:42AM (#6082986)
    I really don't think it's necessary to announce every release cnadidate when there will likely be a couple. Alpha/beta/final? Great. RC's? Eh.

    • Re:I'm a Mozilla user, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ATAMAH ( 578546 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:05AM (#6083070)
      Considering that people who get the release candidates use them and report bugs so that they are fixed in next releases - yes, it is necessary to anounce every release candidate.

    • Re:I'm a Mozilla user, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I really don't think it's necessary to announce every release cnadidate when there will likely be a couple. Alpha/beta/final? Great. RC's? Eh.

      No, it's not necessary, but I think it's good to shamelessly promote an alternative browser to Micro$oft's advertisement-laden thing. Where else would Mozilla get the free publicity. It doesn't have $20 billion in the bank and a stranglehold on the computer industry, so isn't Mozilla at least allowed to dominate our little Slashdot?

  • So is this the version that mozilla moves to a firebird type of functionality.

    • Re:Firebird (Score:2, Informative)

      by pompousjerk ( 210156 )
      No, they're hoping to do that in Mozilla 1.5 [mozilla.org].

    • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Informative)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 )
      you mean, "Mozilla Firebird"? According to The Mozilla Branding Strategy [mozilla.org]: When referring to Thunderbird or Firebird before or during the 1.4 release cycle, make sure to use the project name with Mozilla pre-pended as "Mozilla Thunderbird" or "Mozilla Firebird" instead of Mozilla alone or Firebird/Thunderbird alone.

      and then Use the names "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" to describe the Firebird and Thunderbird projects after the 1.4 release.

      Which I guess makes the old, Firebird-DB problem kind of moot

  • hey hey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:44AM (#6082994)
    Mozilla on Windows now has support for NTLM authentication. This enables Mozilla to talk to MS web and proxy servers that are configured to use "windows integrated security".

    Excellent. This was the only reason I kept a copy of explorer around. Now to see if it works. :)

    • Unfortunately (Score:5, Funny)

      by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:50AM (#6083017) Journal
      Unfortunately Microsoft will change how NTLM authentication works soon because of this, and the Mozilla team will be forced to change Mozilla to meet these changes, and the process will repeat, just like with aspects concerning samba, and then I might change myself to support the ability to convey my thoughts without run-on sentences.

      • Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)

        by SimplexO ( 537908 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:33AM (#6083149) Homepage
        Unfortunately Microsoft will change how NTLM authentication works soon because of this, and the Mozilla team will be forced to change.
        I know you got modded Funny, but if you are serious, you shouldn't be too worried about NTLM now on windows. Maybe in the future, when they get it under Linux, though.

        See, they just use the Windows dll, and if that gets updated, Mozilla should just be able to get things done.

        Good thought, bad example.
        • Not so fast.

          If MS changes the Windows dll, do you think there's a small chance they will also change how that dll is accessed, thus cutting Mozilla out? Ya think?

          Then, once Mozilla has its own cross-platform, built-in NTLM, MS will really change NTLM, but at the server level, so that Mozilla has to start all over again.

          And still someone will say, "not an abuse of a monopoly." Har har.

          • Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @07:50AM (#6083902)
            If MS changes the Windows dll, do you think there's a small chance they will also change how that dll is accessed, thus cutting Mozilla out?

            No, I don't think there's a chance of that. MS would not change the public API. Not only would it break products that depend on it, changing the API would also break other versions of IE (not to mention other Internet-aware applications). MS has changed the unpublished API before, resulting in broken applications that relied on it. Wah...that's why one shouldn't use those calls.

            Then, once Mozilla has its own cross-platform, built-in NTLM, MS will really change NTLM, but at the server level, so that Mozilla has to start all over again.

            This assumes that MS has magic powers to instantaneously retrofit all of its software throughout the world to comply with the new format. I don't think anyone, even on slashdot (except maybe you), holds this view.

      • Re:Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)

        by samael ( 12612 )
        if they change it, all thos corporate customers who are running older versions of IE/Windows will get very upset at not being able to use their clients on their servers.....

        • Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:02AM (#6083467)
          I think you are confused.

          As somebody who has witnessed the horrors of ever-changing SMB dialects (that computer can't see that other computer for some strange reason, everything changes after service-pack and update) and the mysterious incompatibilities between Word versions (sometimes even within the same version depending on installed printer drivers etc.) I have learned something about Windows users:

          Most will suck it down like anything else.

          Thankfully, Europe is waking up and starting to implement big Linux-based installations and Microsoft's "designed for incompatibility" strategy will actually start to hurt them in Europe.

          • Re:Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)

            by fr0dicus ( 641320 )
            In my experience people aren't switching as such, but they're not upgrading either, and just sticking with what they have and taking the pain of newer things being difficult to integrate. At some point it just doesn't become economical to keep rolling out windows for precious little needed extra functionality.

    • Re:hey hey (Score:2, Informative)

      by r0xah ( 625882 )
      I never even thought about moving over from IE to Mozilla or any open source browsers after previously using Netscape 4 and lower versions a few years ago, but with how well done these browsers are and their customability you really can't beat them. They have something for everybody and once you install one it is as easy to use as IE and less prone to crashing. Also it does not have hidden files it saves of everything you do on the internet that it does not tell you about and you can't delete from a menu

      • Re:hey hey (Score:4, Funny)

        by lewp ( 95638 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:54AM (#6083342) Journal
        Also it does not have hidden files it saves of everything you do on the internet that it does not tell you about and you can't delete from a menu in the options.

        Mozilla drone #325432 to Fearless Leader:
        Have infiltrated r0xah's computer. My hidden files have not been found. What a trusting fool he is. Hahahaha!

        *end transmission*

    • Re:hey hey (Score:5, Funny)

      by unsinged int ( 561600 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:24AM (#6083123)
      "windows integrated security"

      Neat trick. I thought those two were divergent.

      That's a math joke.

      Ummm...nevermind.

  • Moz 2.0 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:45AM (#6083000) Homepage
    If the next release is to be based on Firebird and Thunderbird, that is separate components instead of the suite, call the thing 2.0.

    It's a huge change in the code base, it's a huge change in the user interface, just call a spade a spade and release it as 2.0.

    What is the rational for calling it 1.5? That'd be more confusing, in my opinion, than letting everyone know "Hey, big changes here. Check it out."

    Do everyone a favor and call the release after 1.4 2.0.
    • I totally agree. The changes coming to mozilla are of the same degree as the change from GTK 1.* to GTK 2.*. In this case, there was a major version number shift. I think it would only be fitting that the mozilla guys do the same. Plus, it looks better with a bigger version number, makes it seem more mature.
    • Firebid is based on the Mozilla code base to begin with. It's not really that big of a change in the code base from what I can tell.

      Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

      • Re:Moz 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by afidel ( 530433 )
        Considering it's a complete redesign of the UI, a breaking of the suite into seperate components that are not interlinking, and the fact that third party code works completely differently I would say a move to a 2.0 version would be completely justified.

    • Re:Moz 2.0 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Adam9 ( 93947 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:17AM (#6083106) Journal
      Well, to catch up with RedHat, Mandrake, and everyone else I think it should be Mozilla 9!

      • Re:Moz 2.0 (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Firebird 6.0" might be appropriate.. that's about where Internet Exploiter is at the moment?

    • Re:Moz 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:42AM (#6083179)
      The next release won't be 2.0. Although the front end is changing to the new toolkit, and the all-in-one suite is being abandoned, the code at the core will (the Gecko layout engine, necko networking library and so on) still be the same and, in particular will not represent a big break in backward compatibility from 1.0.

      However, in the 1.5 and 1.6 cycles, it is anticipated that there will be some big backend changes (code simplifcation, rearchitecture work) that will break API compatibility with 1.0. There is also a move to distribute the core librarys seperatley in a form called the Gecko Runtime Environment, which will make it easier for other products to utilise part of Mozilla without needing to distribute the whole suite in their application. All of this means that 2.0 isn't a sutiable name for a few release cycles yet. In addition, it is quite possible that the version numbers of the front end and the back end will no longer be the same (for example the next release might be Firebird 0.7 with Mozilla 1.5)

    • Re:Moz 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aanallein ( 556209 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:55AM (#6083216)

      Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

      If you remember the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto [mozilla.org], you'll see that one of the most important point of that release is:

      A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed (XUL 1.0 is an API), until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Mozilla 1.0 is a greenlight to hackers, corporations, and book authors to get busy building atop this stable base set of APIs.

      So unless and until we go break the APIs, or do other major work at that level of the program, there is not yet a reason to call it Mozilla 2.0. Because once again, it's not the occasional end-users which are Mozilla's customers, it's the people embedding Mozilla in various products, the people distributing releases based on Mozilla. And those don't care about some silly little front-end changes.

      • Silly me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:24AM (#6083284) Homepage
        Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

        Silly me, I'll just crawl back into the server rack now. Unlike the kernel, it *is* an end-user product. The Mozilla team can go "it's just for testing" all they want, but it's not the truth. It is being deployed on Linux machines as the end-user browser.

        If you remember the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto, you'll see that one of the most important point of that release is:
        A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed (XUL 1.0 is an API), until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Mozilla 1.0 is a greenlight to hackers, corporations, and book authors to get busy building atop this stable base set of APIs.
        Personally, I would consider the separate browser and mail spin-offs as a completely unforseen development since 1.0, and that this would have been an excellent policy if they had continued on a unified tree.

        However, what they are doing is changing Mozilla drastically, both in terms of structure, as well as the changes that have been made to the browser and mail components, and this is not a natural successor to the 1.4 release, rather a separate branch since 1.0 (or whenever these spin-offs started, haven't kept track).

        To me, that suggest that the browser should have version 2.0. It would far more accurately describe it to the end-users you claim do not exist. Nothing would be easier than to specifically state that the XUL 1.0 API has *not* changed, and that all things working in 1.0 will continue to work perfectly in 2.0. The people that need to know (developers and whatnot) would care enough to find out that "nothing" has changed, while the people actually using Mozilla will be made aware that there's been a huge change.

        Kjella

        • Re:Silly me... (Score:3, Informative)

          by McDutchie ( 151611 )

          Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

          Silly me, I'll just crawl back into the server rack now. Unlike the kernel, it *is* an end-user product. The Mozilla team can go "it's just for testing" all they want, but it's not the truth. It is being deployed on Linux machines as the end-user browser.

          Indeed - and not only on Linux,

  • woohoo! (Score:3, Informative)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:46AM (#6083002)
    This gets rid of the major bug that prevented me from installing 1.4beta on my windows box. Good to see all the bug fixes and feature improvements. Unfortunatly the 1.4final release is likely to be one of the last for the Mozilla suite. I know a lot of the devs like the more componentized Firebird series but as an end user I love the suite. Guess I'll just have to suck it up and get used to it =)

  • Any word on how the new AOL deal impacts Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:46AM (#6083003)
    Some links:
    "Does Netscape Deal Mean 'Game over' for Open-Source Browsers?"
    http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/2 1639.html

    Microsoft pays AOL 750Mil for killing Netscape. Gives 7 year license to use Microsoft Internet Explorer:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1011296.h tml?tag=nl

  • IRIX version information? (Score:4, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:48AM (#6083013) Homepage
    Perhaps someone from the Mozilla project will read this...

    I notice that there's an IRIX version of Mozilla available from the nightly build collection, yet there is no IRIX version on the offical releases page [mozilla.org]. I know SGI maintains a port of IRIX on their OSS [sgi.com] and freeware [sgi.com] sites, but these are usually out of date. I think it would be nice to see an IRIX download of the final releases on the actual Mozilla site. If the hardware already exists to build the nightlies, I wouldn't imagine it would take much time or effort to build and tar up the final versions for download as well.

    Or at the very least, how about add the links to SGI's two download sites to the Mozilla release notes [mozilla.org]. OpenVMS is even listed!

    Just my $0.02. I've been using the nightlies for a few weeks now and am very happy with the progress that has been made since Mozilla 1.0.

  • NTLM Again (Score:5, Informative)

    by mkelley ( 411060 ) <slashdot@mkelley.DALInet minus painter> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:50AM (#6083018) Homepage
    NTLM works, but not on 98. Works fine in NT and 2k. So to say it works is a little disingenuous. And yes, I did post this to bugzilla.
    • Where on Bugzilla?

  • The MOST important change (Score:5, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@ g m a i l . com> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:51AM (#6083023) Homepage Journal
    Probably the coolest change of all in this release, is the ability to build Mozilla for Windows using only GCC! Whoo hoo! No more VC++ crap! Can we get a build for Cygwin/XFree86 next? That way those of us forced to use Mickeysoft can go all Unix software!

    • Re:The MOST important change (Score:5, Informative)

      by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:37AM (#6083161) Homepage
      Well...*mostly*. From the release notes:

      "# Due to the nature of C++ compilers, libraries built with GCC will likely be incompatible with libraries built with MSVC. For example, XPCOM plugins will not work. This includes the Java plugin.
      # Due to the use of MSVC-specific code in the tree and the relative immaturity of the w32api, certain functionality will not be available in the GCC build. The dependency tree for bug 203303 tracks the list of MinGW GCC-specific issues.      "

      No Java, and other, unspecified, non-working bits. Hmm...I think I'll wait until it's a little older before I try to build on Win32.

  • Oh great it's a virus installer (Score:5, Funny)

    by akbkhome ( 564173 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:52AM (#6083027) Homepage
    From the release notes:
    "Launch file" after downloading has been enabled for .exe files


    Isn't this taking IE emulation a bit too far!

    • Re:Oh great it's a virus installer (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:42AM (#6083558)
      Isn't this taking IE emulation a bit too far!

      Don't give your question marks viagra.

      and IMO this feature should be disabled by default. If you don't know how to enable it, you probably wouldn't know why you shouldn't.

  • Lemme get this straight . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:55AM (#6083035) Journal
    I might have to read over the Mozilla Roadmap [mozilla.org] again, but 1.4 will be the last release based on the XPFE-based Navigator, and will replace 1.0 as the stable release. And starting with 1.5 it will be based on Firebird, which is XUL-based browsr?
    • Since we're getting things straight...
      XPFE *IS* XUL. The Phirebird folks also use XUL, only they use it differently and, some would argue, better. The XUL that describes the XPFE UI is rather monolithic, having been around for quite a while, and hacked on heavily for all that time. The Firebird XUL tends to be much leaner - due, in large part, to the componentization (I think I just made that word up) which is at the core of the new Mozilla roadmap.

  • It's fast (Score:5, Informative)

    by YellowSubRoutine ( 230089 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:55AM (#6083038)
    I'm posting with my fresh and shiny 1.4 RC1, and I have to say that the subjective speed is increased significantly over 1.4 beta.

    It feels on par with opera now...
    Congrats to the mozilla team

    Btw... why is RC1 announced on slashdot? wouldn't it make more sense to kick their ftp servers in the nuts when 1.4 is finalised?

    • Re:It's fast (Score:2, Informative)

      by minnkota ( 576497 )
      Btw... why is RC1 announced on slashdot? wouldn't it make more sense to kick their ftp servers in the nuts when 1.4 is finalised? 1.4 will be replacing 1.02 as the stable version of Mozilla. The team would like as many people as possible to pound away on this build to look for any remaining showstopper bugs before the final release of 1.4 is pushed out.

  • It's very fast! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:07AM (#6083075)
    Wow.. although there is a problem when you upgrade it from previous version, but it's quite good.

    The feeling of bulky and heavy program is gone.
    It's very fast when it is being launched and it loads HTML pages.

    Well... probably Apple's decsion of choosing KHTML over Mozilla affect this thing. Before the Apple's decision, Mozilla was bulky and slow. Mozilla people may noticed their problem and don't want to lose its anti-MS user base. :)

    You are going to love this browser.
    Work with various HTML pages better than the Safari also. :)
  • Well, I'm glad they are going good at Mozilla, but Firebird needs the work guys... It crashes for me on certain common dialogs pretty often (like the drop down menu, but that's probably because nobody can code selects correctly). But that's off-topic. The question is when are they going to take the browser component of Mozilla Firebird and put it with the rest of the stuff that makes the old mozilla cool (Chatzilla namely)? If I had a browser like that, I'de never go back. Firebird is phenominally fast

    • Re:Buggy (Score:5, Informative)

      by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:28AM (#6083130) Homepage
      Mozilla and Firebird both use the exact same engine - Gecko. And since Firebird is built off of the same trunk as Mozilla, the version, and hence capabilities, of Gecko are the same. Almost all of the differences between the Mozilla Application Suite and Mozilla Firebird (to use the correct terms) are UI and removal of non-browser components.

    • I'm pretty sure you're talking about bug 184202.

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184202

      The big change is going to happen after the release of 1.4.

  • Junk Mail Controls? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Traderdot ( 677425 )
    Been using Mozilla Mail as my primary mail client since 1.3 (now using 1.3.1). Bayesian filter is great. However, I've had a problem where the junk mail is recognized as junk but is not automatically moved to the junk mail folder. Can't seem to fix this no matter what settings I change.

    I looked at the latest release notes and didn't see anything about this being fixed. Anyone else experience this problem/have a solution?

    • Mac OS and Windows: Using ATI video drivers will lead to random crashes on many sites.


    How the heck are RANDOM CRASHES an acceptable release time bug? Especialy with the many MANY users out there who have integrated ATI chips?

    ah yes, and here is another good one. . .

    • Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.


    Err, I am NOT using 1.4 RC1 any time soon, I have OCD and I compulsivly click on white space on a website while reading it. (no, seriously. . . .)

    • Dialog Boxes and Windows

    • If Mozilla is locked up but doesn't seem to have crashed, make sure there are no dialog boxes still open.


    Ah, oh well, IE still has this one (thanks to Acrobat Reader "checking" for updates, which can be hard to spot behind ten gazzilion different IE windows open!)

    • The attachments will not all be shown or you
    • may experience a crash when attempting to display them.


    Noooo comment. . . .

    Seriously, people, say it with me, s-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.

    Oh well, it is RC1 for a reason. . . . hopefuly the final RC doesn't have any KNOWN crash bugs. . . . heh. . . . hopefuly. . . . (I really hate it when a software's suggested fix for a crash is "not to do that". Excuse me, but unless I hit the computer with a hammer, I expect it to WORK. ....)

    • Perhaps you would like to help improve the product? You are welcome to join.

      Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.

      Eh? Using Mozilla 1.4 RC1 and I'm not seeing this. In fact, I've never had that before.

    • Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:50AM (#6083202)
      How the heck are RANDOM CRASHES an acceptable release time bug?

      You're right, they're not. So I suggest that you complain to ATI that their graphics card driver is full of bugs and can lead to random crashes of applications that use graphics in a serious way. They already admit that the problem is at their end so you may as well let them know that you find it unacceptable.

      For what it's worth, I'm not sure if this particular crash is actually still happening. It's been in the release notes for ages, but I don't recall many reports of it happening recentley. Maybe it's been fixed by the latest driver upgrade.

    • Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by afidel ( 530433 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:06AM (#6083240)
      The ATI bug is a bug with ATI, not with Mozilla, so it's really not their problem. Badly behaving plugins really shouldn't crash the app, but hopefully that will be fixed before 1.4final (this is an RC as you pointed out). Mozilla is the most stable piece of software I think I have ever worked with, I use it 8-14 hours a day, 6-7 days a week and I haven't had a crash in like 6 months. Much better than IE even though I use IE maybe 2% of the time!

    • Re:THAT'S considered an acceptible release bug??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jesser ( 77961 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @03:37AM (#6083422) Homepage Journal
      Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.

      That's bug 30841 and it was fixed a year and a half ago. It's still in the release notes because the wrong bug number was listed in the release notes, and the semiautomatic check for fixed bugs (which I believe involves Asa using the "collect buglinks" bookmarklet on the release notes and scanning for fixed bugs) didn't catch it.

      Please don't judge Mozilla's stability based on the release notes. Instead, judge Mozilla's stability based on how often it crashes when you use it. (Some Mozilla developers have access to MTBF statistics from Talkback, but that's most useful for determining the relative stability of different Mozilla releases.)

  • Mozilla "Classic" isn't dead yet / other comments (Score:5, Informative)

    by minnkota ( 576497 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:38AM (#6083164)
    There's been a lot of discussion about how Mozilla 1.4 will the be the last version in it's current form, as Mozilla 1.5/2.0 will be based on Firebird... Keep in mind that one of the goals for 1.4 is to replace 1.0.x (currently 1.0.2) as the stable distribution version. So while future versions will have drastic changes to the GUI framework, 1.4 will live on with small fixes for those that aren't needing or wanting the very cutting edge. Just as there are many current unix and linux distributors shipping 1.0.2 today, there will be many shipping 1.4.x a year from now. As for the version number discussion, my vote is to call the next version 1.5... I think the version 2.0 title should be reserved for a refined, heavily tested version of Firebird. Much like the extensive testing that went into the current flavor of Mozilla before 1.0 was released. Maybe I just don't like version number bloat...

    • Re:Mozilla "Classic" isn't dead yet / other commen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rgsmith ( 473418 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:08AM (#6083246)
      I completely concur that using 1.4 as the latest 'stable' makes sense, until the 1.5/2.0 version becomes tried and accepted as stable.

      Release version numbering should follow major changes in the base code. The specifics listed thus far in this discussion reflect that this will be the case with Mozilla in it's next release (*Disclaimer* - I didn't spend time researching them myself, so I'm basing this comment on earlier comments in this discussion and understanding of Mozilla's development in general).

      A classic example is Redhat, of course. With versions 6 and 7, the *.0 release was widely considered stable and tested enough for the typical end-user, but not for 'enterprise level' deployment, esp. on the server side. I have read many comments (and agree) that most businesses waited for a version *.1, *.2, or *.3 before migrating, giving the time necessary to fix any unforseen issues that didn't appear in normal testing.

      I concur that a move to a version number of 2.0 is warranted when the change is made to Firebird. The 'refined, heavily tested' version cannot be made available until after the initial release (into production environments - testing will NEVER be able to account for all possible situations).

  • small bug (Score:5, Informative)

    by Squarewav ( 241189 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:39AM (#6083168)
    one small bug with mozilla 1.4x and win xp is that when you try to save a file mozilla will add stuff to the file name, for example file.mpg will be saved as file.mpg.mpeg. that by itself isnt a problem but when you run across a file like file.avi.torrent mozilla insted of launching bittorrent will try to save the file as file.avi.torrent.avi which is a pain in the ass

  • While I'm excited about this, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:55AM (#6083217) Homepage Journal
    I'm absolutely thrilled with Firebird at the
    moment. I've replaced IE on family member's
    machines with it, and have the binary version
    running on Gentoo. I have had 0 problems so far
    with stability or website compatability. I only
    wish some kind gent would role the ebuild for
    the source so I can emerge it into Gentoo from
    portage. I'm entirely too lazy to do such a thing
    what with RTCW Enemy Territory taking up my free
    time.

  • Hopefully Mozilla Mail POP3 bug is fixed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuckyDucky ( 677303 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:35AM (#6083303)
    I'm hoping the next version of Mozilla mail fixes the POP3 bug, where it's impossible to log on to certain POP3 servers that require the account name to be "@". Mozilla always sends just "" to the server and its impossible to tell it otherwise. The attitude of the developer in a bug report I saw was ridiculous. He sounded outraged that POP3 servers exist which require the domain name. There are many web hosting sites that require it. I hope they fix it...

  • This is disgraceful... (Score:4, Funny)

    by AtomicX ( 616545 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:54AM (#6083344)
    What! - No MP3 player? I'm shocked.

  • IMAP is not good enough (Score:3, Informative)

    by fluor2 ( 242824 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:36AM (#6083541)
    What I really miss in this open-source community is an IMAP/SSL alternative. I run this IMAP/SSL stuff at work, and I do have to say that its VERY slow. Sometimes connections times out and stuff like that. But the most irritating problem is that the IMAP standard is only Client Side new-messages-checking, thus the client have to check each IMAP folder for new messages (I right click on them in Mozilla and check "check this folder for messages"). This is so sick, coz my users create new folders almost every day, and they have computers both at home and work.

    When some computer at home gets the new messages (using IMAP/SSL) they run filters on that message instantly, and moves them around. Thus I have to check EVERY folder at work if both computers are on-line at the same time. I hate it I hate it I hate it :(

    So bring me some IMAP/SSL alternative, and a more server-side program like exchange.

    • Re:IMAP is not good enough (Score:4, Informative)

      by David McBride ( 183571 ) <david+slashdot@d ... minus physicist> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:58AM (#6083592) Homepage
      Two things:

      1) There is an internal Mozilla preference to tell Mozilla to check *all* IMAP mailboxes, rather than just your INBOX. Enter ``about:config`` in the address bar and create the following boolean pref:

      mail.check_all_imap_folders_for_new

      and set it to ``true``.

      2) IMAP is not client-side check only -- the protocol allows for server-side checking and notification. Have a look at the new GPL IMAP server called Dovecot [procontrol.fi] which has support for this.

      Although it's not been released as stable yet, it's current version number is 0.99.9.1 (sound familiar? :) Once we're happy that the last bugs are squished, it will most likely replace wu-imapd on our site IMAP servers.

      Cheers,

      David

  • "Always show this dialog before handling files..." (Score:3, Informative)

    by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:58AM (#6083799)
    If anyone keeps getting that dialog asking what helper application to use every time you download an MPEG or other type of audio file, please go to Bug 48948 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48948 and report what OS you are using and anything else that would help Mozilla developers fix the problem. It's driving some of us bonkers, but the developers cannot reproduce the problem!

    To see if you experience this bug, click on this link [chem.uva.nl], uncheck the "Always show this dialog..." checkbox, then click the link again. If the dialog pops up again, you're seeing it.

  • Oh man, will there be no OS9 builds, ever? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @07:48AM (#6083895)
    My computer at work is running OS9.2 and I can't go in and upgrade it to OSX. (Not only would I have to pay for it, but our tech support wouldn't be able to work on it.)

    By far the best browser on OS9 is Mozilla 1.21, but a lot of things were broken on 1.21, especially Mail. Would it really be that hard to merge in all the improvements that have been made since then and release 1.4 for OS9? I'm sure I'm not the only person in this position, forced to run OS9 on my office computer. In fact, I'm almost sure there are more people in this boat than there are HP-UX users... so what gives?

    • > Would it really be that hard to merge in all the
      > improvements that have been made since then and
      > release 1.4 for OS9?

      In a word, yes. We spent months looking for someone or some group willing to maintain the OS9 version with its separate build system and such, and no one was up to doing it.

      It'd take a few weeks of work for someone who really knows what he's doing to merge in the changes at this point and then fix up all the resulting build system issues.

  • Mozilla is great, BUT... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by norite ( 552330 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @08:44AM (#6084095) Journal
    I wish they'd sort out the Composer side of things, it's totally bug ridden, and it needs some serious updating. They are really little, silly, dumb bugs, that totally wind me up, and these are by no means consistent bugs; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. here they are, and they are by no means the full list:

    Writing some HTML/javascript, then hitting to save button, only to find it hasn't worked - because it didn't save it!!!

    Copy and pasting. Sometimes that doesn't work at all!!

    If you have a large space in between text paragraphs, not being able to delete the spaces

    Not being able to change the font sizes

    The table editing form has taken to "jumping" whenever I select an option, or save/cancel the edits

    OK I know that Mozilla is primarily a browser, and composer is essentially a bolt on extra, but it's handy for knocking together some web pages quickly and being able to preview the results. at the minute i'm having to use something like notepad to make sure the code is saved and those spaces are deleted. Sometimes I'm even forced to open up frontpage (shiver!) just to get that pesky table deleted or resized...yes I know I can look at the code, but if you've got several tables nestled inside each other, or a 4 column, 20 row table, visually it's quicker...

    Does anyone else have similar hassles with composer? The Mozilla team are doing a great job, Mozilla is by far (in my opinion) the best browser on the block, but if any of the Mozilla team are reading this, can you please sort out composer?

  • Mozilla 1.2.1 mailboxes don't migrate? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by truth_revealed ( 593493 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @09:37AM (#6084331)
    I've tried and failed twice to migrate to versions of Mozilla above 1.2.1 without success. None of the new versions seem to like the older mailbox format. I never had trouble migrating the mozilla mailboxes prior to 1.2.1 - going from Mozilla 1.0.x to 1.1.x to 1.2.x went without a hitch. Anyone have any suggestions?

  • Password Manager Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lawrence_Bird ( 67278 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @09:56AM (#6084430) Homepage
    I tried this as askslashdot, but was spurned. Is there any way to get my passwords out of Mozilla in a plaintext visable state? I have so many saved usernames/pw that I am feeling very uncomfortable that one day a file is corrupted and they are lost. It seems, though I'm not entirely sure, that simply backing up the data file is not a guaranty of resuablility on a clean install. Can sombody somebody who knows whats what with how pw manager works either point to a document or shed some light on this? Thanks

  • Nvidia driver problems in 1.4b (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thing 1 ( 178996 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:11PM (#6085116) Journal
    I have an Nvidia GeForce 2 Ti, am running Windows 2000 Advanced Server, and upgraded to 1.4b when it came out (around 2003/05/08). I changed nothing else on my system, and all of a sudden the video started acting screwy. StarCraft wouldn't start up until I exited Mozilla; right-click on the desktop and select Properties, then the Settings tab and it showed the screen dimensions at 9999x9999; DOS Prompts couldn't go full-screen; some icons/screen elements wouldn't repaint properly.

    I discussed this with the Mozilla developers and they said they had never seen the issue, and that it must be something else on my machine.

    So I downgraded to 1.3, and the problem went away. It's most definitely something to do with Mozilla 1.4b.

    Has anyone else experienced this problem? And if so, does 1.4 RC1 have it?

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Close