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 IT

Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla Suite 1.7 Released 339

Posted by Zonk from the get-your-dinosaurs-here dept.
ESqVIP writes "Not long after Firefox 1.0.2 is out, there's a new public release. Just like the other 1.0.x releases, this is mostly a security fix. The release should hold for a few more days and we could also get bug 171349 (wrong icon displayed on Win9x) fixed. Mozilla Suite, on the other hand, has quite significant changes, some of them "imported" from Firefox. As announced before, this might be the Suite's last major release from the Mozilla Foundation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla Suite 1.7 Released More

Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla Suite 1.7 Released

Comments Filter:

  • 1.7 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- ( 624050 )
    Could you be more specific in your summaries please? I am already running 1.7.6. Just saying 1.7 implies (to me) 1.7.0, which would not really be news...

  • Mozilla 1.7.*7* (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jack Comics ( 631233 ) * <jack_comics @ p o s t x s .org> on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:27AM (#12253025) Homepage
    Just a correction to the original story, Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla Suite 1.7.*7* was released today, not 1.7.

  • A good sign (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:27AM (#12253026)
    The great thing about open source is that security flaws are found and rapidly fixed.

    We all know people who argue that the large number of Firefox security fixes is bad -- but in fact, it is the mark of healthy and vibrant software.

    • Re:A good sign (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nacturation ( 646836 )
      We all know people who argue that the large number of Firefox security fixes is bad -- but in fact, it is the mark of healthy and vibrant software.

      So with Windows and IE having numerous bug fixes, does this mean that Microsoft software is healthy and vibrant?

      • Re:A good sign (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BackInIraq ( 862952 )
        With regards to security fixes, there is an additional stipulation: large numbers of security fixes are the mark of healthy and vibrant software if and only if they come out before hordes of machines running your software are converted into zombie boxes spewing spam, DOS attacks, etc. across the internet.

        So Microsoft still loses. :)

  • At least 1 fix (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pmkool1 ( 827418 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:27AM (#12253028)
    This should fix the Add/Remove Programs bug where installing a new version over the old version leaves the both entries in the Add/Remove list.

    Other than that, mostly just security issues.

    • Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tim_F ( 12524 )
      All installing 1.0.3 did for me was leave 1.0.2 as the removable option. This hasn't really fixed anything it seems.
    • And so it is.

      But
      HKLM\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is still there
      HKCU\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is still there

      Still
      HKLM\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox\1.0.2 (en-US) is gone
      HKCU\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox\1.0.2 (en-US) is gone

      Two out of 3 ain't bad.
    • I thought they advised you to uninstall the old one first?

      (Or did they stop doing that when it left beta? I've lost track of the Windows version a bit...)
      • If that's the case, then they shoud stop offering it as an update through Firefox's update feature. Firefox tells me there's an update available, and when I click on the little icon, downloads and launches the installer.

        If I'm supposed to uninstall the existing version first, then either it shouldn't do that, or the installer should do the uninstall for me. The alternative is to download the installer using the update feature, cancel the installation, uninstall Firefox, find the installer (wherever it is)
        • I have looked at this, and I think they have stopped asking you to do that. My mistake for commenting on how it integrates with an OS I don't use much anymore...

  • D'OH (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ReverendRyan ( 582497 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:27AM (#12253029) Homepage
    Now if the update system would just not require a reinstall.

    Most of the people I've converted aren't great at installing software, no matter how simple it may be.

  • Did they fix the bug where Safari owns it? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:28AM (#12253033)
    I sure hope so.

  • Windows add/remove programs... (Score:3, Informative)

    by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:30AM (#12253045) Homepage Journal
    Woot!

    In Windows Add/Remove Programs, I now only see one version of Firefox-- 'Firefox 1.0.3'.

    This will please many people.

  • Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:32AM (#12253052)
    I have noticed that firefox isnt the fastest starting up on a windows computer, same on my linux machine, but I installed Mozilla couple of weeks ago and it started up almost as fast as IE. Then in this release it says "Size and performance have improved dramatically with this release. When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster to open a window, has 9% faster page loading, and is 5% smaller in binary size." I am about to install and try it. But why can FireFox not take this and use it to make it's start up times faster??!?
    • And everyone knows 82.5% of statistics are made up.

    • Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jcupitt65 ( 68879 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @03:54AM (#12253484)
      At the moment the Mozilla suite has a more recent version of gecko under the hood. The next firefox (1.1 I think it's going to be called, due out in a few months) will be switching to this and get these improvements too. It'll fix some bugs too, eg. the slashdot rendering problem.
      • The /. bug is infuriating, because it has been fixed in the trunk build since soon after it was reported. Are you saying that Seamonkey's Gecko branched from the trunk recently enough to have this bug fix, or is that still to come for both builds? (maybe I'll use the Suite for a while then...)
        • The /. bug is infuriating, because it has been fixed in the trunk build since soon after it was reported. Are you saying that Seamonkey's Gecko branched from the trunk recently enough to have this bug fix, or is that still to come for both builds? (maybe I'll use the Suite for a while then...)

          Both Aviary and 1.7 Gecko branch from trunk right after this bug landed and did have it, but it caused a regression of unknown severity and BOTH branches backed it out, so no, it shouldn't be in either, unless Seamon

      • Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Informative)

        by adam1101 ( 805240 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @05:46AM (#12253805)
        False: firefox 1.0.3 has gecko 1.7.7, same as the current Seamonkey suite. Only the unreleased 1.8beta suites have newer versions, but there won't be an official 1.8 suite release by the Mozilla foundation. Firefox 1.1 will be the official release of gecko 1.8. There is a group of old Seamonkey developers working on a release of the suite 1.8 (under a different name), but I doubt they'll have something ready before firefox 1.1.

        If you want to count beta's, the firefox trunk nightlies have gecko 1.8 as well.
      • What Slashdot renering problem? I have never had a problem with Slashdot rendering in any version of Firefox.
    • Um...

      Mozilla will always be slower than Fx, or there would be no point in Fx in the first place.
      Are you sure you haven't enable Mozilla preloading? Or do you have 100 Firefox extensions or something?

  • hold for a few more days? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by croddy ( 659025 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:33AM (#12253058)
    The release should hold for a few more days and we could also get bug 171349 (wrong icon displayed on Win9x) fixed

    oh? I wasn't aware Win9x was worth supporting anymore... you *must* be trolling. I'd much rather have a security fix now than to wait for some ridiculous cosmetic bug on a 3rd-tier platform.

    • I doubt that Win9x users (like me!) would say that - seeing as we've missed out on the IE pop-up blocker included with XP service pack 2, and Win95 won't run IE6 at all, only IE5.5. So franky Firefox is now the only decent browser for Win9x unless you want to pay money for Opera (or have an ad banner)

      I do admit that the wrong icon being displayed is a fairly trivial issue, however.

    • Re:hold for a few more days? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shish ( 588640 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @06:14AM (#12253897) Homepage
      I wasn't aware Win9x was worth supporting anymore

      Maybe not any more, but the bug was reported 2 years ago; I doubt the mozilla foundation would like a joke along the lines of "how do you fix a mozilla bug? Wait until the platform is obsolete, then ignore it!"...

      I've been following that bug personally, and I'm still confused as to how it could take 2 years to fix, and why they didn't use the hackaround in the meantime; for a 1.0 app to not have an icon is very embarrasing, and kept making me think the installer was corrupt :/

  • Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Greger47 ( 516305 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @01:33AM (#12253060)
    I'm sure they got a million submissions about this. Why do they insist on picking the worst one?

    It's Mozilla 1.7.7, there's nothing new we didn't already knew about. The update has the same security fixes (scroll down) [mozilla.org] as the new Firefox release, that's all...

    /greger

  • My only request (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mancat ( 831487 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @02:17AM (#12253187) Homepage
    Please fix memory leaks. Firefox seems to allocate more and more memory over time, even when not in use. It will start off with around a 10MB footprint, and will eventually grow to almost 50MB, even with the memory cache disabled. This behavior shows up in Windows, Linux, Solaris, and NetBSD.

    No, I have not submitted a bug report, though I probably will. I've always figured that this was some minor leak that would be fixed "just around the corner," but its looking to be more and more unlikely.

    Thanks.

  • Mozilla failed the "In your face" test... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @02:29AM (#12253220) Journal
    Wow, I just loaded Mozilla 1.7.7 and it popped up infront of my shells while I was working. Umm, who decided this was a good feature? Firefox loads in the background.

    Really, I hate popup dialogs or any other program that things it has to be your center of attention while you are working, and take focus. Mozilla hasnt did this in the past, and firefox doesnt, wtf happened?

    Shame.

    BTW, wonder if I get marked flaimbait, troll for a noticing this on the new release and commenting on it. Because you cant say anything negative these days without someone thinking you are being rude. Negative comments are just that, something that can be fixed. I have serveral mozilla bugs that are still not fixed, mostly because its due to older hardware. The downloading of files, where it can cripple a sub-1ghz laptop and 4200-5400 drive, freezing the whole laptop (On windows). :) I use Firefox and Thunderbird, being a long time Netscape (4.x) email client user. Things just keep getting better, (mostly).

  • Damn shame (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @02:33AM (#12253236) Journal
    I've been using Moz since 0.5x on Linux. I've gotten very used to it.

    I started using Firefox once 1.0 was released. I used it heavily, and for a while, it was my preferred browser. (Mainly because the bright orange icon was easier to find than the bluecurve icon on my FC3 laptop)

    But, finally, I had to go back. Moz is just simply better. Having separate address and search bars is a stupid waste of space. The find being down at the bottom of the screen was... funky.

    But the one that did it? Refresh on view source!

    I develop web apps, and the ability to see raw output in HTML, do a tweak on the file on the server, and then hit reload while viewing source, and see the source update, was the straw that broke the Camel's back. In FF, I have to close the "view source" window, hit refresh, then View Source again.

    Ugh.

    I haven't uninstalled FF, but the icon is no longer on my desktop, and I really don't use it anymore.

    Funny, how the STUPIDEST features can make the biggest differences, no?

    • Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)

      by ydnar ( 946 )
      Ctrl+W
      Ctrl+R
      Ctrl+U

      Or you could write an extension...

    • Customize toolbar and creating search keywords (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeti ( 105266 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @03:19AM (#12253378)
      1. Select View->Toolbars->Customize... from the main menu and drag the search field from the toolbar.

      2. Create bookmarks with keywords for your searches. Several are predefined. If you want to f.e. have a quick way to search goggle images, go to images.google.com and right-click the entry field. Select "Add a Keyword" from the context menu, and enter "gi" into the Keyword field of the dialog.

      Typing "gi whales" into the address bar now searches google for images of whales.

  • useability (Score:3, Insightful)

    by some_god ( 614082 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @02:43AM (#12253259) Homepage
    I wish someone would port the ability to open bookmarks in tabs to mozilla, like it is done in firefox, that and the firefox search bar is the only thing that keeps me on firefox.

    Yes i am aware of sevral plugins that will do this, but they are all crap and/or does so much id have to spend a lifetime going trough options just to get it back to a good state (im looking at you multizilla and Tabbrowser Extensions).

    Mozilla starts up in around 1 second on my computer (2.7 p4 running debian) and firefox starts up in around that time or slower.
    mozilla is more stable and i can keep it open for weeks at a time while firefox starts sucking up memory like a whore in a bank managers convention in only a day or two.

    I still use mozilla for mail, why? because it starts as fast as thunderbird or faster and feels smoother so why bother?

  • For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @03:30AM (#12253401)
    please please please dont let the URL disappear if the page times out.. its frustrating enough opening 10 pages to have 8 of them load. but for the 2 that didnt load to not even be reloadable due to a totally blank URL line is just unforgivable!!

    please fix this bug ASAP!! /end of rant

  • I still prefer the suite (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GregWebb ( 26123 ) on Saturday April 16, 2005 @03:36AM (#12253417)
    Firefox is OK, but... Quite simply, it just feels a bit emasculated and kiddified. I just prefer the look and feel of the full suite and I'm sure they've moved around and lost some options in the fox.

    If Firefox had a suite interface skin and a full (browser) set of suite config options available without having to root around in about:config, I'd give it a try. As it stands, it just doesn't feel right and I'd much rather they pushed ahead with suite 1.8.
  • on an intel box, just try installing them and see what i mean.

    0. on fedora core 2, firefox actually has an installer! great! things are looking up.

    1. firefox installs to my trash. why?

    2. i downloaded and unpacked thunderbird, which is just a bunch of executables that have to be placed somewhere in the file system to run. no installer to be seen.

    3. in gnome you have to make a launcher icon for both programs for the panel. this is no better than kde in solaris or unixware as far as usability goes. to add
    • when running thunderbird, it fails to pick up new messages in linux or in windows when using gmail's pop service. is this a real app or is it that NaDa app i keep hearing so much about?

      Works for me, you have set interval mail checking haven't you (i.e. told it to check mail every n minutes)?

      don't tell me to pitch in and make these apps better. i'm a writer, not a programmer. i want things to JUST WORK on linux.

      Then wait for the Fedora guys to package it instead. Then it will come in for free with up2d
    • I've put up some instructions [fedoraforum.org] for Fedora Core 2 users on how to get the Fedora Core 3 RPMs (currently 1.0.2/1.7.6 versions - I'll adjust the versions for 1.0.3/1.7.7 when the RPMs turn up) to work on FC2. This puts a "Firefox Web Browser" option in your Internet FC2 menu and you can then "Add to Panel..." to get the Firefox icon on your panel as well (this is NOT difficult - right click on panel background, select "Add to Panel...", double-click on the first "Application Launcher.." option, open up the Inte
  • It was about a four hour compile, and when it was done, guess which site I go to to see if it's working: slashdot.

    And guess what the fucking story is?

    Fucking Firebox releases fucking 1.0.3.

    Whatever. At least it wasn't a dupe.
  • This [mozilla.org] is a pretty crappy bug they haven't fixed yet. On Windows, try saving a web page and when the Save As... dialog asks where the file should go, try traversing a shortcut. You can't.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close