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 RC3 Is Out 335

Posted by timothy from the tension-builds dept.
zzxc writes "Mozillazine reports that the third release candidate for Mozilla 1.4 has been released. It is available for download from mozilla.org. Testing is encouraged to fix any bugs before the final release. No new features have been added to this release, though many bugs have been fixed. For more information, see the release notes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.4 RC3 Is Out More

Mozilla 1.4 RC3 Is Out

Comments Filter:

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by sould ( 301844 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @04:57AM (#6292441) Homepage
    Another mozilla 1,4 rc story...

    Don't you have any sco news?

  • Gecko in konqueror... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CoolVibe ( 11466 )
    I seem to remember there was a Gecko rendering plugin for Konqueror. Does anyone here know what happened to it?

  • Firebird (Score:4, Interesting)

    by barcodez ( 580516 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @04:59AM (#6292446)
    Firebird a subproject of Mozilla is a light weight version of Mozilla seems a lot better bet to me. Opens faster, has all the same features (such as tabbed browsing and popup killing) and seems to be more or less big free. Uses less memory too (at least in my primative tests).

    • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Insightful)

      by funkmastermike ( 264946 )
      you forget those of us who use the mail client. firebird doesnt have mail/chatzilla/etc.

      • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Informative)

        by martingunnarsson ( 590268 )
        I never liked all those extra programs, I just want the browser. I think Firebird is a nice version of Mozilla.

      • Re:Firebird (Score:4, Informative)

        by havardw ( 180104 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:00AM (#6292596) Homepage
        Then what about Thunderbird [mozilla.org]?

        • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Insightful)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )
          Firebird and Thunderbird current can't share the same Gecko runtime. So if you use both you're getting two copies of the Mozilla core loaded into memory. Might as well stick to Mozilla until that changes.

    • Re:Firebird (Score:5, Informative)

      by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:07AM (#6292469) Homepage
      Firebird a subproject of Mozilla is a light weight version of Mozilla seems a lot better bet to me.

      Actually, the current Mozilla Roadmap [mozilla.org] clearly states this goal: Deliver a Mozilla 1.4 milestone that can replace the 1.0 branch as the stable development path, then move on to make riskier changes during 1.5 and 1.6. The major changes after 1.4 involve switching to Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird, and working aggressively on the next two items.

      So actually, that's where we're heading :)

      • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thrillseeker ( 518224 )
        So actually, that's where we're heading :)

        I think it would help immensely to put together a deb package that had Firebird / Thunderbird that installed it properly, put it in the menu, integrated it into Gnome, etc. There's plenty of debian users that would run it, at least alongside their other browser/email, but don't want to do an installation themselves. Bug reports and feature requests come from such users.

    • Re:Firebird (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:11AM (#6292485) Homepage Journal
      I've been using the the nightly builds since 0.5 was released. Mozilla Firebird is definitely *not* bug free (the releases are of course pretty stable), but I'm sure they could really use your help in testing it. :) The Firebird team has been really, really responsive about fixing bugs, and most bugs are usually fixed in the next nightly build.

      My personal favorite feature is the ability to customize the toolbars. Admittedly, it's been a feature in Konqueror (my other favorite browser) since the beginning, but Firebird's toolbar customization is cooler as it supports drag-and-drop, while in Konq you have to use a Microsoft Office-style dialog box.

      • Re:Firebird (Score:2, Funny)

        by Ender Ryan ( 79406 )
        Mozilla Firebird is definitely *not* bug free

        Right, but he said it was "big free". Does he mean it's not as big and bloated as Mozilla?

        I wonder if that was a Freudian slip, or just a typo :)

    • Re:Firebird (Score:2, Funny)

      by russx2 ( 572301 )
      Um... I thought Firebird was a database project of some sort?

      ;)

    • Re:Firebird (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:32AM (#6292854)
      It's nice that people think Firebird is great, but there is a lot of hard work ahead before it is anything like comparable to Mozilla.


      It might be lighter, but then it has just a small fraction of the functionality in the Mozilla suite. The 1.5 / 1.6 will not hold a candle on 1.4 until *all* or a significant amount of the functionality in Mozilla is retooled as extensions or ships with Firebird / Thunderbird.

    • Re:Firebird (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Malc ( 1751 )
      Firebird certainly doesn't have all the same features. I tried to use the latest version for a whiie, but got too annoyed with it. What is more, some of the preferences aren't accessible and I had to go in to about:config and figure it out that way, which is also annoying.

    • Flash Click to Play (Score:3, Informative)

      by Micah ( 278 )
      If you download Firebird, be sure to install the Flash Click to Play extension. It replaces Flash objects with a nice button that you can click on to view the actual Flash object.

      Having that thing makes me so happy I want to cry! It's as good as pop-up blocking for some sites with lots of annoying Flash ads!

  • The big question is (Score:4, Funny)

    by toddhunter ( 659837 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @04:59AM (#6292450)
    When do we get RC4? It's so hard to sit through these RC2 and RC3 stories waiting to get to the exciting stuff.

    • Re:The big question is (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:06AM (#6292468)
      Mozilla 1.4 RC3 is expected to be the final release candidate. It incorporates the fix for one final GDI leak bug, and some minor stuff, but unless something completely unexpected will crop up, this very same release candidate will be rebranded as 1.4 final by the end of the week.

      • Re:The big question is (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ComaVN ( 325750 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:52AM (#6292579)
        Erm, I'd say ANY release candidade is expected to be the final. Otherwise, why's is it a candidate? In my book, RC means you've fixed all bugs you're aware of at that time, so unless some others crop up, that's going to be the final version.
        • I agree about this and it's a good point. The purpose of Release Candidates should be to tell that "we don't really think there are any bugs in this release, but if any pop up, there'll be another release candidate". Otherwise, if they *know* it has unfixed bugs, they could just as well let it be another beta.

          I guess the RC term is used because only minor bugs are left or something like that, but I don't think that justifies that designation.

        • Re:The big question is (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That's not how Mozilla works. The previous release candidates mostly served to get a lot of extra testing, as well as to assess the importance of the various 1.4 blocker bugs that still remained at the time those release candidates were made. (Actually in my experience almost no open source projects actually expect a first release candidate to be the final version; everyone involved is always aware of a few last extra bugs that will still need to be fixed...)

          Yes, calling them release candidates is a bit of

          • Re:The big question is (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:18AM (#6292627)
            But that's how it SHOULD work. A release candidate is a build which is expected to become the release. If you expect that it won't be the final build, it's a beta version, not a RC. You can trick users into installing RC builds a few times, but when they realize that the builds are just more "public betas", they will stop installing RCs and that will remove this important step from the feedback loop. Calling a build more mature than it is is also a bad move publicity-wise. People expect that the release is mostly the same as or only slightly better than the release candidate, so if you know about bugs which you deem inacceptable for a release build, don't make a release candidate before fixing them.

        • Re:The big question is (Score:5, Interesting)

          by The_Laughing_God ( 253693 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:17AM (#6293464)
          I agree that the term "release candidate" *sounds* like it's expected to be a final release, and that may be true of some RC1 releases. However, it is a misleading characteriation of how the process is often meant to work (as indicated by the very fact that they're called RC1, instead of just RC -- RC2 is not unexpected) If all RCs were considered final until proven otherwise, we'd never see an announced "final release candidate", would we?

          An RC1 gets tested more than mere alpha/betas, and that higher level of testing is *necessary* for a reliable release. If they didn't release RC1s with a few known issues, the actual release would not be as "final" (e.g. programs, chipsets, etc. often don't have fully stable function or performance on all features until the "A" version. Real world RC strategy is an up-front recognition of the realities that toss minor monkey wrenches in the best intentions of the engineering and testing departments.

          An RC1 may be released with "minor" known bugs to help debug them, assess severity in the universe of real users, choose workable trade-offs, and enlist user aid in creating fixes for specific configs. Often a well thought-out Release Candidates contains chunks of testing/debugging code that is not meant to be in the final release. No matter what you might expect from the term, a 'Release Candidate" is usually not identical to the final release, even if it passes user testing with flying colors. This fact kills the simplistic assumption of many end users (we've all seen the rare release problems when debug code is removed from a stable RC)

          The more intense RC testing typically turns up a handful of issues (nothing is bug-free). Some can be fixed cleanly once noticed. Others require testing beyond the abilities of the staff. Intermediate versions may be needed to work out the intricacies of the fixes across, say, all hardware and software configs. If intermediate versions are relabeled as "mere" betas, they won't get the testing that an RC gets, and the debugging could be delayed by months. If an RC1 includes 3 subtle issues, would you insist they all be "fully fixed" before an RC2 in 12-16 wks, or would you be happier if a RC2 with 'testing code' for one of more of those subtle bugs led to a fully functional RC3 (or 4) in 4-8 weeks?

          That's why you rarely see post-RC1 'non-RC betas', and why we often hit RC3 or more: it's not that completely new issues arise in RC1/2/3, it's that downgrading from RC to v1.39b3 would have a psychological effect on the amount of deployment and testing, and project leaders know it

  • Release Notes way too bloated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djpig ( 642803 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:05AM (#6292459) Homepage
    I wish they would only put in the release notes the changes between RC2 and RC3 (and not between 1.3 and 1.4). Every time I read the release notes for the different RC's I get a strong dejavu. Must I really begin to diff them?

    • Re:Release Notes way too bloated (Score:5, Informative)

      by cerberusss ( 660701 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:51AM (#6292578) Journal
      Must I really begin to diff them?
      No, just scroll down. After the release notes, there's a section "New additions to the Release Notes".

      • Re:Release Notes way too bloated (Score:5, Informative)

        by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:44AM (#6292673) Journal

        No, just scroll down. After the release notes, there's a section "New additions to the Release Notes".

        Here's the documented "changes". Very subtle.

        Mozilla 1.4 RC 2
        • Mozilla 1.4 for Linux requires Sun J2SE v 1.4.2 Beta to run Java applets
        • JavaScript access to Flash does not work on Linux Mozilla 1.4
        Mozilla 1.4 RC 3
        • If you're using Linux binaries compiled by mozilla.org then you will need Sun J2SE v 1.4.2 Beta or the Blackdown JDK 1.4.1 compiled with GCC 3.2 to run Java applets.
        • If you're using the Linux binaries compiled by mozilla.org then JavaScript access to Flash will not work.

        • Re:Release Notes way too bloated (Score:5, Informative)

          by mlefevre ( 67954 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:10AM (#6292751) Homepage
          That's just a clarification of the stuff about Java, it's not indicative of a change between releases.

          As you might expect, the only changes between RC2 and RC3 were a bunch of bug fixes, and those don't get mentioned in the release notes - they're release notes, not a changelog.

          For the sake of the database, I won't post bugzilla links, but the list of fixes since RC2 is as follows:

          88393 (Mac) Check in a high-resolution application and document icon ...
          140357 (All) Backspace deletes text formatting,TypeInState should be s...
          189429 (All) strict javascript warning in mail3PaneWindowCommands.js
          197379 (Mac) file:// URLs from CFM mozilla don't work with Mach-O mozilla
          199443 (PC) leaking GDIs when table cell contains an image, and text...
          205360 (Sun) libxpcom.so depends on non-existent libiconv.so
          206271 (PC) News Messages being marked as read automatically
          206668 (Mac) [Mac OS X classic theme] context menu only work on frontm...
          208560 (PC) P3P summary only works once
          209033 (Mac) FIXE (Shockwave, Flash, ?) all typed letters (from kbd) appear...
          209354 (All) typeaheadfind causes major memory leaks

  • RedHat 7.x RPMS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:11AM (#6292484)
    Will the mozilla project provide Mozilla 1.4 final RPMS for RedHat Linux 7.x? It seems like they have discontinued them for all of there 1.4 beta and RC releases.

    • Re:RedHat 7.x RPMS? (Score:5, Informative)

      by whovian ( 107062 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:31AM (#6292533)
      I had long noticed this also. You used to be able to go into their ftp directory and hunt down the RH7.x version.

      Actually, it's nearly trivial to install their tar.gz packages. It involves unpacking in /usr/lib. Then copy your plugin modules and links to modules (read the latter: j2re) into the new mozilla directory. You might have to modify a couple of the permissions on the mozilla or its subdirectories, and maybe put a link in /usr/local/bin. If you are a little careful, it is not bad at all.

      > cd /usr/lib
      > ls -ld moz*
      lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 May 31 06:20 mozilla -> mozilla-1.4rc1
      drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 May 31 06:18 mozilla-1.3
      drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 May 31 06:24 mozilla-1.4rc1
    • I talked to Christopher Blizzard (of Mozilla and Red Hat fame) and he indicated he'd have RPM's built for 1.4final. He hasn't produced any since RC1.

  • Firebird (Score:5, Informative)

    by khalido ( 601247 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:14AM (#6292492) Homepage
    When Moz 1.4 final is released, will Firebird then be based on 1.4, or will it remain based on the Moz 1.3 codebase? Also Moz needs better default fonts still. I had to install the vera fonts [gnome.org] to make it look decent. In IE the fonts looks so much better. I know, thats becasue its using the fonts in windows and what not, and moz just can't include anti aliased fonts that won't work on systems x,y and z, but there needs to a system with prebuilt decent fonts. Moz is now so much better than IE, but default Moz on linux looks like a POS. Yes yes I installed truetype fonts now its fine but a lot of people don't know how to do all that. All this is becasue I had installed linux for a non computer person, who updated mozilla and then was stuck with the default fonts.

    • Re:Firebird (Score:4, Informative)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:22AM (#6292513) Homepage Journal
      The nightlies are already based on the Moz 1.4 code base. Firebird closely follows the main tree and has since day one.

    • For Slackware Users... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:46AM (#6292571) Homepage
      there is a great Gnome-Project wich adapts pretty fast to new Mozilla releases and ships with antialiased fonts [jsentertainment.com] (I didnÂt like them in the beginning but am an addict now ;-) called Dropline-Gnome [dropline.net]. I keep installing this for my newbies along with Slackware wich I prefer as a Newbie-Distro for itÂs clear structure. From this day on I stopped worrying about fonts in Mozilla. Most Gnome Apps use these fonts so it provides a consistent look&feel, too.

      But last time I tried Firebird I realised the problem was still there. The defaults are ok...but not a beauty. Well, if for non-slackware users I guess Ximian-Gnome [ximian.com] ships with antialiased fonts as well...

    • Fonts crap? Then recompile Freetype with hinting! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My fonts looked like crap too, until I understood that I'd have to RECOMPILE FREETYPE MYSELF with patented hinting algorithms enabled. Those are disabled by default, but very very easy to re-enable by just getting the SRPM, editing one variable on the few first lines of the .spec file, and doing rpmbuild -ba freetype.spec.

  • Mozilla -- Who compiles every release? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:26AM (#6292519)
    Ok, now, don't get me wrong here.. I like Moz, so this is not supposed to be a flamebait:

    Just how many of you download and compile every single version of Mozilla that's mentioned on /.?
    It takes time to download (due to the /. effect) and it takes time to compile. Very few bother to go through this process for every release.

    Is it really neccesary to mention every RC's here, or am I just being picky?

    • Why, I do! ;) (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SalsaDoom ( 14830 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:44AM (#6292567) Journal
      Absolutely I do.

      Why? Because installing and playing with new software turns out to be a pretty fun replacement for games. Games are pretty sweet, Linux has a growing little number of them. But I mean...

      I can't be the only one who finds updates fun, can I? ;)
    • Why would I compile it when I can download a pre-compiled build from the mozilla home page?
      • To get the options you want. Since there are no precompiled RPMS for Suse 8.2 with xft and gtk2 enabled, I pull down the source and recompile it with these enabled. I then add the Firebird stuff on top and compile that with xft and gtk2 enabled.
    • I don't compile every release, but I do download them all. It's nice to see how much closer to a release the project is.

      The RCs are also good for those of us that would like to use nightlies but are worried about stability. They are close to bleeding-edge without a lot of the risks.
    • Well, I'd guess most people download the binaries rather than the source.

      Either way, not I. Why go back to the versions mentioned on Slashdot when there's already a better build available from the nightlies - which I frequently compile myself for my Linux box (I stick to the binaries for Windows, though...)

      Sure, it takes time to download and compile. But it's a process that can be kicked off by a single entry at the command line, and that can quite happily be set running while I sleep.
    • Only about a quarter of those people is actually needed for each release. They can relay each other: the first quarter try out RC1, the second quarter try out RC2 etc. repeat as necessary.
    • You know what I love? ccache! .. do a freshmeat for it. I make a lot of my own RPMs... just compiled openoffice (with the ximian changes). It took around 18 hours to compile the first time. The second time it took around 3. It makes a hash of every file you compile with timestamp, parameters, input/output, etc. and simply replaces gcc's compile phase with stuff you've already compiled (assuming the source hasn't changed). So whatever you compiled previously (stored in ~/.ccache by default) and hasn't

    • Re:Mozilla -- Who compiles every release? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by localghost ( 659616 ) <dleblanc@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:42AM (#6294217)
      Personally, I use the CVS version. Most recently, I compiled it because there was a bug with Multizilla and bookmarks, and because I wanted to use Java without having to install a different JRE. I compiled it with GCC 2.95, which means I can use Sun or IBM. Plus, compiling it myself, I get Xft support, which Mozilla doesn't offer in its builds. Debian has it, but the debian packages ar never up to date. However, I am still having issues with Multizilla on the version I'm running. With any luck, that'll be fixed soon. I'll probably compile 1.4 final and use that.

      Regarding the compile time, it's not anywhere near as long as I had thought. ~1 hour on an Athlon 1600+ (1.4Ghz). It'd probably take considerably longer if I compiled it with optimization, though. I didn't see any reason to do that, though, since I only plan to run this until 1.4 final is released.

  • Time for a New Releases Section? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by beders ( 245558 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @05:27AM (#6292522) Homepage
    How about a new releases section to cream off most of these storys? Keep the main page for "stable" releases

  • 343 bugs. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:02AM (#6292598) Homepage Journal
    If i check bugzilla [mozilla.org] there are currently 343 bugs open that are:

    blocker or critical
    and
    assigned. (i did not select new 1441 bugs because they still contain dupes, or bugs that need te be cleaned).

    That is a LOT! and they want 1.4 to be the next stable release for a longer time. I think it is still time forsome bugsquasing before releasing is.

    LotÂs of these bugs are cross platform bugs (example:it wont build on true64,aix)

    One bad bug i want to note is:209896
    Bug: mozilla crashes if upgraded from 1.3.1 to RC2.
    workround: uninstall first.

    Yeah right: so every bug somebody calls (on some generic internet forum) the response will be: delete you mozilla directory first, then reinstall.

    • One bad bug i want to note is:209896
      Bug: mozilla crashes if upgraded from 1.3.1 to RC2.
      workround: uninstall first.

      Yeah right: so every bug somebody calls (on some generic internet forum) the response will be: delete you mozilla directory first, then reinstall.

      Isn't it a contradiction there? If you didn't make a good point (many major bugs left in a *release candidate* ?? I didn't know they let such things happen), I would take your post as a troll, but perhaps you just got yourself a bit worked up abo

      • Isn't it a contradiction there. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:51AM (#6292689) Homepage Journal
        Try telling here (i am not talking about bugzilla in the "every bug line) about some bug. They will point to the release notes:

        "Install into a new empty directory. Installing on top of previously installed builds may cause problems."

        That is an easy way to work around bugs. Just say "donÂt do that" in the readme.

        And yes, i think it is strange there are critical bugs in a release candidate. These should be demoted to not important or the thing should still be called a beta.... AND/OR the bug should be explained in the readme. Still time for a 1.4.1. RC4 ?

        (by the way, if you think that was a troll then never reply to it.)

    • i'ts always a good idea to uninstall any app before upgradeing it, sure 90% of the time just installing over will work, but many times it will couse problems of somesort, normaly coused by the installer deciding not to overwrite some lib or config files that are not compatible with the new version.

    • Re:343 bugs. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Wolfier ( 94144 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:46AM (#6293234)
      Has anyone logged the bug that we're unable to control the CPU use of flash/Java applets? IE can handle 50 pages of flash applets with no problem since the applets themselves are "reniced".

      15 or so Yahoo News pages would bring my Mozilla down to a halt. :(

  • why i won't switch to lightweight firebird (Score:5, Informative)

    by heymjo ( 244283 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:17AM (#6292624)
    in mozilla, type something in the adress bar , press down key and you get "search google for" , press enter and boom results are there.
    I don't want to switch to a different search field or even set up parameterized keywords to do this.. Google search with 2 keys (down + enter) is for me the killer feature as i do this well over a hundred times per day
    • Ever tried typing keywords in the location bar?
      That gives you a "I'm feeling lucky" search. Just tweak your config in order to point to the standard google page [or google groups if you google for code] et voila!
      http://texturizer.net/firebird/tips.html#beh_searc h [texturizer.net]

    • Re:why i won't switch to lightweight firebird (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gleng ( 537516 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:45AM (#6292674)
      There's an extension for Firebird which adds a google search box to your toolbar.

      Just go to Tools->Options->Extensions->Get New Extensions.

      Have a scroll through the page, there's quite a few handy extensions that you can download, and not many of them are over a few KB.
    • Er...

      Control-L <keywords> -> Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" for keywords

      Control-K <keywords> (or Control-L <tab> <keywords>) -> Google search for keywords

      I don't think I understand what's your problem...

    • Re:why i won't switch to lightweight firebird (Score:5, Informative)

      by riflemann ( 190895 ) <riflemann&bb,cactii,net> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:03AM (#6292726)
      Keywords are a problem for this?? I find it a heck of a lot faster than scrolling down lists...

      Create a bookmark with the follwing URL:

      http://www.google.com/search?&q=%s

      In the bookmarks manager, go to the properties of this bookmark, and set the keyword to 'g'.

      All you have to do now for a google search is to type "g [search term]" in the address bar and hit enter. (without quotes)

      Plus the keyboard travel for typing "g " is much smaller than for the arrow keys.

      • Re:why i won't switch to lightweight firebird (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Thanks, that's actually quite helpful. I used to just have my homepage set to a locally cached version of google, but this is much more convenient. I added one to dictionary.com for looking up words i don't know as well. I guess i should spend more time playing around with features and/or reading the documentation.

    • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@nOSpam.keirstead.org> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:24AM (#6292823)
      What do you mean you don't want to switch search fields??? You obviously had to consciously say "I want to do a search" at some point and click on the address bar before you typed the search terms, the location bar does not constantly have the keyboard focus. What difference does it make if you click the address bar or the search box?

      • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by heymjo ( 244283 )
        well sometimes i'm typing a url, then realize that i can't remember it anymore and decide to do a search instead.. the mozilla feature is absolutely the way of least resistance for this.. I know I'm having a bit of a wank over this thread but i do use it a lot honestly. I was using firebird from 0.3 onwards, then dumped it again because the feature wasn't there.
    • I was going to burn some moderation points here, but I felt I needed to reply...

      You mean you don't want to use the Google seach built into Phoenix to the right of the address bar?

      Google search with one key. See that magnifying glass? Click on it and you can switch that from Find in Page to Google or DMoz. Switch it to google and it'll stay that way, thus you can search google in one keystroke.
    • not to mention that Firebird also lacks the ability to be set to compare the page in the cache to the current page everytime the page is loaded. this ability is extreamly important if you read message boards which constantly change and need to be reloaded in order to view new content.

  • Next Netscape Version (Score:4, Funny)

    by Corrado ( 64013 ) <rnhurt@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:57AM (#6292713) Homepage Journal
    Ok, will the next version of Communicator be based on Mozilla 1.4? When will it come out? Will Netscape give up on Mozilla after this happens? I need answers damnit! :)

  • Moz 1.4 problems on install. Moz crashing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:18AM (#6292784) Homepage

    I have not been able to get Mozilla 1.4 to install on one machine (with a lot of email). I installed Moz 1.4RC3 over 1.3.1, and I get a Windows program crash message, offering to send Microsoft data about the crash.

    The release notes said to install 1.4 in a new directory, but I spent hours teaching Moz to store email in a folder other than the default. I don't want to go through that again. Moz gives the option to install in a folder other than the default, but does not make it easy.

    I re-installed 1.3.1 over the bad 1.4, and it works, no problem. The version I had downloaded does not say 1.4 RC3, just 1.4.

    On another machine, I had no problem installing 1.4. Both are running Windows XP, SP1.

    I am anxious to begin using 1.4 because I've had many problems with 1.3.1 crashing after many instances and many tabs are opened, and some are closed. The crashing seems associated with Windows XP's limit of 21 programs open at the same time. (After that, the program list is displayed in a disordered fashion. That "feature" seems to have been put in by Microsoft to discourage people from opening a lot of programs.) Mozilla's crashing seems to corrupt Windows XP, too, so that a reboot is required to restore full functionality.

    When either Moz or Firebird crashes, all instances and all tabs crash. It would be great if instances were completely separate from each other. I can buy more memory, if needed, much easier than I can repeatedly lose work.

    I've seen the same crashing of Moz 1.3 under Linux with many instances and tabs open, when some tabs are closed. I reported the problem, and there was speculation that there was stack corruption. I hope this is fixed in 1.4.

    Moz/Firebird are not perfect, but they are by far the best, in my opinion.
    • Copy your mail files to another directory. Uninstall Mozilla, then install the new one. Recreate your mail account settings exactly as they were before. Now copy your mail files back over. Should work just fine...I agree, Moz needs a good solid way of exporting then reimporting mail files to account for reinstalls and backups and such.

    • What did you expect? If you install any significantly changed program straight over an old version, it is no surprise at all if it crashes. Old / renamed DLLs, files etc. are a recipe for unexpected behaviour. Mozilla 1.4 is going to crash almost straight away if there are any dangling Moz 1.3 components around, or if it favours them over the ones in the GRE, or if the chrome is all screwed.


      Uninstall the old one or install 1.4 in a new directory and perhaps these problems will go away.

  • Rpms? Try rawhide (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    RedHat Rawhide has RPMs of 1.4 (but not RC3 based yet) that are much less buggy than the mozilla.org builds and also features antialiased text now.

  • mozilla link (Score:5, Interesting)

    by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <aaaaa@NOspam.SPAM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:43AM (#6292903) Journal
    here is an intersting website by a moz developer (which sadly is not a parody but the REAL thing.. this guy is dead serious). http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/

    Both sad and funny at the same time.

  • firebird slows down with a large cache (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Unominous Coward ( 651680 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:26AM (#6293111)
    Has anybody noticed that Firebird gets progressively slower as your cache increases? I find that when I do a fresh install, the browser is snappy, and generally faster than IE. Over time, however, I am forced to wait up to 5 seconds to load a page from a fast web server only a few hops from me.

    Clearing the cache seems to fix the problem somewhat. I also reduced the disk cache size to 5MB. Has anyone else had a problem like this?

  • Really... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nhaze ( 684461 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:31AM (#6293142)
    I don't think we get enough Mozilla RC updates. Maybe we can start getting updates letting us know the status of nightly builds.

  • Triple-clicking the location bar in Windows (Score:5, Informative)

    by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:34AM (#6293156)
    First, there are two pref's I have set up in user.js so that the first click that brings focus to the location bar selects all. Without this I'd go nuts, since I like to press "s" and have slashdot immediately appear, "sc" for sciencenewsdaily, etc.. This solves half of my problem.
    user_pref("browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll", true);

    user_pref("browser.urlbar.clickAtEndSelects", true);

    Now for the heart of my complaint. In Mozilla 1.2 and before, once you had focus on the location bar, double-clicking the location bar selected all, just as it does in Internet Explorer and numerous other Windows apps that have boxes for file names and URLs.

    In Mozilla 1.3, the behavior was changed to: double-click selects a "word", and triple click selects all. The philosophy being, the location bar is like a mini text editor, so it should work like an editor. See this Usenet thread [google.com]. (Frankly, the "word" that is selected after double-clicking has never been of much use to me.)

    The problem is, I think (this is my theory) there is something fundamental in Windows where "triple-click" is not a real operating system event, like double-clicking, so some other kludge is used to time the clicks. Or maybe Windows XP or the mouse driver is just broken, I don't know. But anyway if I have the mouse speed set for fast clicking, I can't get triple-click to work at all. If I set the mouse speed slow, I can triple-click as long as I click not too slow and not too fast, but you have to get the timing just right. Half the time it seems I get it wrong and have to try again. And I hate having to set the mouse speed slow because that screws up what I'm used to with other apps.

    I know this isn't the right forum for bug reports - I've been meaning to study this problem in more detail, logging Windows events and times so I can make a convincing case and write up a useful bug report, but time has just been slipping by and I'm afraid the final release (an important one from what I hear) will happen before this can be properly addressed. I will try though, I promise. :)

    Am I just being fanatically nitpicky, or does this bother anyone else? (Well, at least I got it off my chest...:)

    • Re:Triple-clicking the location bar in Windows (Score:4, Informative)

      by Briareos ( 21163 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:03AM (#6293335)

      Why click in the URL bar anyway? Just hit CTRL-L and type away, since you're going to use the keyboard anyway...

      (CTRL-L also selects the whole URL bar, so you can start typing right away.)

      np: Senor Coconut - Musica Moderna (El Gran Baile)

    • Granted, I'm a bit behind (using Mozilla 1.4a here at work), but why not just click once? Clicking once selects everything in the location bar. Same as in IE. As I see it, double-clicking to get a word is an improvement - double-clicking in IE does nothing but the same as single-clicking, unless you pause long enough to have the second click just place the cursor. There are times when I just want to alter a small part of the address, and double-clicking allows me that option.

      Anyway, as another poster n

  • Mozilla in Panther (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sophrosyne ( 630428 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:48AM (#6293707) Homepage
    Using the developer preview for Panther, Mozilla refuses to work.
    I hope they can get this issue fixed before the Gold Master.

  • Just -one- more monolithic version, please? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jahf ( 21968 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:50AM (#6294289) Journal
    I really hope there is a Mozilla 1.5 ... the roaming code finally is about done and it would be really nice to have a final version of the monolithic Mozilla that includes roaming. It is one of the biggest corporate (and geek for those of us who implemented it at home) features that never got recoded into Mozilla from Netscape 4.x

    See this bug:

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1240 29

    if you're interested in the feature. I didn't hyperlink it since their Bugzilla doesn't like requests referred from /. ... copy and paste the link to see the item. It looks like it will go into Beonex and hopefully the standalone Mozilla browser, but alot of companies have adopted the monolithic Mozilla and it will be some time after the change to standalone versions before they switch again.

  • Spellcheck in text boxes? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joe Tie. ( 567096 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @12:11PM (#6294935)
    I remember hearing talk quite a long time ago about plans to allow spellchecking of textboxes, such as on slashdot, from a menu in mozilla. Anyone know if this feature is still planned once the dictionary is offcially added in? I'm using Mozilla for the moment, as the spellcheck feature is broken in the cvs build of kde right now. And for the most part I actually prefer it to konqueror, but that spellcheck is to me the killer feature which dictates which I use.

  • MacOS9? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @03:45PM (#6297396) Homepage
    I haven't seen a MacOS 9 binary release for a long time... not since v1.2.1 anyway. Am I left to compile on my own or has the Mozilla project dropped support altogether?

Slashdot Top Deals

If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.

Close