Mozilla M12 Released 267
Cyrrin writes "M12 source is up on the Mozilla ftp site. Binary builds should be appearing RSN." I've been playing with the pre12 builds all week and let me just say wow. It's getting faster and more stable. It's really exciting to see it all come together and climb out of the vapor. The preferences dialog is really slow, but progressive page rendering is fast. Good job to everyone involved, and welcome to the home stretch.
Re:Sheesh... (Score:2)
Quid pro quo. I would for once like the MS-bashers see things from a home user's perspective. From an IT manager's perspective. From a non-tech perspective.
I'll settle for an objective perspective.
Crypto (plugin / patches) ? (Score:1)
Is Mozilla's plugin system sufficiently generic and capable to allow a full featured binary crypto plugin to be made? Has it been deliberately crippled to prevent this? Will it be necessary for someone in a sane country to set up a builds-with-crypto system and maintain a set of patches against the main source?
And what happened to the "cryptozilla" project?
Re:Designing web pages for specific broswers (Score:1)
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Mozilla isn't reusable or anything like that, but you do have to give Microsoft credit for COM, which is really a very nice solution to a difficult problem (OLE and cross language component building).
Re:One thing I hope... (Score:1)
OK, I'll post the URL for adzapper [halcyon.com] since I just looked it up.
http://www.halcyon.com/adamf/adzapper/ [halcyon.com]
Re:Browser extravaganza (Score:1)
Or in VirtualPC on a Mac.
scrolling in w3m (Score:2)
Re:I hate to see IE succeed (and politics) (Score:1)
You're view of only 'the product' is far more sad, if you ask me.
Would you buy a pair of "better" sneakers if you knew that NIKE was using cheap child labor in a third-world country to build them?
Would you buy "better" lumber if you knew it was old-growth wood from the rain forest?
If you were alive 200 years ago, would you buy Plantation cotton from the American south, which was harvested by slaves, or maybe buy slightly less-quality cotton grown by free workers?
The political agenda behind the product often matters, as you can see. If we aren't willing to stand up for what we believe in, we may as well not be human. Try taking a stand for once, and follow what you believe in. You may feel pretty good about it.
"In a world without walls, who needs Windows" - Someone from LinuxToday
Re:"source code footprint ???" (Score:1)
Clue: the size of the binary is what's important. ( though I suspect that Mozilla isn't that small )
Re:source diffs/crypto? (Score:1)
1. Because diffs are a pain in the ass for a product in continuous development. Perhaps if you volunteer to write a script they can stick in their automated build, they'll support it, otherwise use CVS to get updates.
2. Crypto is regulated by the stupid US export control laws. It's highly likely that someone familiar with SSLeay or another free crypto library will retrofit it to Mozilla when it's sufficiently stable to do so.
Netscape 5.0 (Score:1)
Oh well, it will be nice to see IE have some decent competition again.
Re:I'd bet $50... (Score:1)
Re:This is definieltly alpha material (Score:1)
But that book is entirely about making software to sell, as that definition shows. There's no way to directly apply it to open source, since the lines between users and developers are blurred.
BTW, that has got to be one of the worst textbooks I've ever been subjected to. I think I gave up on trying to stay awake reading it in about the second week of classes, so I'm focusing on the lecture notes.
agreed (Score:1)
______________________(
Opera 3.61 (Score:1)
Speaking of Opera, a version 3.61 for Windows was released yesterday. There isn't a list of bugs fixed from version 3.60, but one visible change is that there's no toolbar in full screen mode any longer. You can download [opera.com] the update from the Opera Software [opera.com] website.
Opera is a great browser for power users. (There are quick keyboard shortcuts for everything, and commands to do things like open pages in the background, or display a window of all the links on a page.) It also has far and away the best style sheet support short of Gecko. However, the Linux/X11 port is still in development.
Re:browsers... (Score:1)
Why Opera is better than the others (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh... (Score:1)
Gecko in a text-only browser??? (Score:1)
It would be interesting to see Gecko embedded in a text-only browser. Lynx is nice and all, but would it be possible to get "real" layout with text, color (on displays that support color), etc? That would rock. Often I just want to skip all the graphics, animations, and other junk and get to the content.
The Opera for Linux [opera.com] team might have something similar [opera.com] in the works. We'll have to see.
Wonderful (Score:2)
----
Opera 3.61 (Score:1)
Speaking of Opera, a version 3.61 for Windows was released yesterday. There isn't a list of bugs fixed from version 3.60, but one visible change is that there's no toolbar in full screen mode any longer. You can download [opera.com] the update from the Opera Software [opera.com] website.
Opera is a great browser for power users. It's the fastest browser around, lean enough to fit on a single floppy, has so many keyboard shortcuts you hardly need a mouse, and supports more CSS than anything short of Gecko. You can toggle off images per window, open pages in the background, or call up a window listing all the hyperlinks on a page.
There are many features of Opera I'd like to see Mozilla adopt. I'm looking forward to the X11 port, which is still in development.
Re:footprint (Score:2)
People need some clues here. Embedded systems have resource constraints and the highest demands are placed on memory use. The memory footprint (code+data) is going to become the bottleneck.
The original poster is wrong because it is the compiled binary that executes. The source footprint is meaningless and typically grossly overestimates the generated code size. The poster quoted above is also wrong because download size underestimates the actual memory footprint; the distribution is compressed to around 50% of the executable format.
Finally all of these are only static measures of the code size and they make no indication of how much memory will be used once the program executes: eg size of data structures and allocation patterns.
BluesPower
Re:No anonymous login ... (Score:1)
pass ftp
Anonymous didn't let me in either. don't know why.
Intel did the cache? (Score:2)
I didn't know this. Do you have a reference?
Browser extravaganza (Score:2)
Re:Whatever happened to "fitting on a floppy"? (Score:1)
This is definieltly alpha material (Score:2)
My definition of an alpha is when the product is close to feature complete. Mozilla is almost that, and once the major bug fixes are done it's beta time - possibly with M13? It certainly looks that way.
I'm looking forward to replacing Communicator with Mozilla once and for all. Then I'll be down to just two applications that rely on Motif - one of which I'm rewriting to use GTK+ (the moxfm file manager), and another that will prbably have to remain a Motif app (NEdit).
Chris Wareham
XUL: Build it yourself! (Score:1)
So you can totally overhaul the look of the browser and add buttons that do all kinds of funky things, including what you describe. And it won't require any "real" programming skills-- XUL is a combination of XML, Javascript and CSS.
Once you create the button, it'll work on all platforms too! Check out http://www3.sympatico.ca/ndeakin/mozilla/xultu/con tents.html for an XUL tutorial on building UIs.
W
-------------------
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
Just another attempt to increase the signal in Slashdot's daily signal-to-noise battle.
browsers... (Score:2)
footprint (Score:3)
Re:Browser extravaganza (Score:2)
I haven't checked out 3.61 yet though, haven't had the time to install it.
Re:browsers... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe we'll see FreeBSD binaries again now :-) (Score:1)
-lee
Isn't this a little premature? (Score:4)
Couldn't this sort of announcement wait until the mozilla.org announcement is made? I don't imagine they'll delay an announcement unnecessarily, and driving traffic to their FTP server prematurely might not be appreciated...
Re:slashdot and cutting edge is about sourcecode! (Score:2)
Here's what it sounds like you're saying: Slashdot users are oveloading the ftp servers so that the developers can't get any work done. Please don't announce things before they're ready for to be consumed by the general public.
Does this mean that slashdot community is no longer the developer community?
maybe slashdot is now where all the journalists of the world come to get an interesting topic for their next article or news story.
Re:Whatever happened to "fitting on a floppy"? (Score:2)
Wow, now THAT'S cutting edge! You've got a build that won't be out for 8 days! Is time-travel one of the new Mozilla features, or did you do that part on your own?
(sorry, I had to say it)
--
Some people fear change. (Score:1)
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
21MB of source! Um... Should my browser really be larger than my operating system kernel? Should my browser really be bigger than my windowing system?
Hate to break it to ya, but an unziped linux-2.2.13 source tarball is about 64MB.
XFree86 3.3.5 source tarballs added together (X335src-[1-3].tgz) ungziped and added together are, 160megs of source.
Mozilla is just a light wieght for what it does. :)
Re:Netscape 5.0 (Score:2)
> take mozilla and roll it into a big happy
> Netscape 5?
Not that much; Mozilla will still continue to exist/be developed in its own right (AOL couldn't stop it if they wanted to).
Re:Wonderful (Score:2)
I like it. It's coming along great. We're going to owe the Mozilla coders beer for pretty much the rest of their natural lives if they get this thing out the door.
FYI: Other browsers do that too (Score:2)
I agree that the user should always be able to override styles set by the content author, but it is worth noting that other browsers can do the same or similar.
In Netscape 4.x, it is under Edit -> Preferences, go to "Fonts" and "Colors", and set to "Use my settings/Override document".
In Mozilla, you will find similar options under the "View" menu.
Under MSIE, the settings are scattered through out the "Internet Options" dialog.
Nothing currently in production is as easy or as complete as Opera's settings are, though.
An old FidoNet tagline put to new use... (Score:3)
"MSIE is great! I used it to download Mozilla!"
Ah, I eagerly await the day.
You don't need to do all that (Score:2)
Download and install glibc 2.1 binaries in some out-of-the-way place (/usr/local/lib/glibc-2.1/ for example).
Then use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to add said directory to the path the dynamic loader will use, before running Mozilla.
MS didn't create IE, Spyglass did. (Score:2)
Spyglass is so put off by what MS did, they don't even list IE as one of their accomplishments.
Source: http://www.kmfms.com/
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
Don't need the RFCs (Score:2)
Re:IE's marketshare seems to be growing fast. (Score:2)
I would like to say -- "Get a clue" :)
Although the complete source code package has a size of 21 meg, this includes a lot of stuff. It includes all the OS specific trees, e-mail, editor, newsreader, front-ends. Embedded applications won't need nearly all that code. Probably only need gecko, and a few other modules, and gecko is under 2 meg.
So, what do you think *does* compete in the embedded market now? If you say IE, I'll scream...
-BrentMaybe we'll see FreeBSD binaries again now :-) (Score:4)
It seems that one great side effect Mozilla has had is pushing lots of open source OS's hard to fix various problems that they've had. A few months ago we saw a problem with threads and glibc on Linux that Mozilla exposed hardest and best.
Now, according to bug #14676 [mozilla.org], Mozilla has exposed some trouble in FreeBSD's dlopen() which has subsequently been fixed, making FreeBSD a better OS.
Mozilla is a Good Thing(R). :-)
And your not-so-HO is? (Score:2)
And on the console I'll stick to vim. Loads up fast on the overloaded servers I telnet to. Doesn't require ridiculous amounts of resources and disk space like emacs does.
When I want to learn another Lisp variant (I already know Scheme thank you very much), I may give emacs another chance. Until then
Chris Wareham
Re:This is definieltly alpha material (Score:3)
I'm looking forward to replacing Communicator too... Communicator is just too unstable and has too many bugs.
Well, I hope Mozilla delivers on its promises (looks like it's going to, it's looking pretty good so far). We really need a standards-compliant browser out there ASAP so that web designers will stop producing pages that are compatible only with IE. Netscape has (or used to have; I hope still has) a large enough customer base that if Mozilla becomes popular among them, they will not be an insignificant percentage which web designers can ignore.
Not that I care that much about sites that use IE-specific code -- most of them are just useless fluff anyway. But the average Joe user likes all that fluffy eye-candy, and we certainly don't want the Web to become proprietarized because of this.
Re:browsers... (Score:2)
--
Re:No, it's not premature (Score:2)
Don't count on it. This morning when I checked, ftp.mozilla.org had 9 different binary distributions online, and the mozilla.org [mozilla.org] website does indeed have an announcement [mozilla.org] about it. Now it is appropriate to consider announcing this on Slashdot.
Nevertheless, don't just assume all mirrors are up-to-date immediately; not all mirrors have any special access. When I checked this morning, the following mirrors appeared to be up-to-date:
So, I found 4 current mirrors. But the other 7 mirrors sites I reached were out of date. (And many listed mirror sites no longer appear to have mirrors -- the mirror list needs to be updated, it would seem.)
The moral of the story is that mirrors don't magically have the data, sometimes you have to give them some time -- and if you don't drive the load to the original source, the mirrors will work better for everyone...
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
His was also wrong
Off the top of my head, I can think of several components that make up IE, all of which can operate independently. There's the renderer and the HTML/XML parser, to name two, then there's the container. COM components themselves don't even *have* titlebars, that's still a MFC Application thing.
But in Slashdotland, it's not about being right, it's about having information. Any information, right or wrong, as long as it bashes MS. It's not one bit different from the mass media trough all you god damn phonies look down on.
News for nerds indeed. I'm going to have to look into calling myself something other than a nerd.
Mozilla speed (Score:2)
Netscape is also TOO unstable, it can be made to crash just by switching between different netscape windows while loading them fast enough. I still like netscape better than IE, but I can certainly see why lots of people prefer IE under Windows.
Hopefully, and this is my belief, all this will change with Mozilla (once ready). With a fast, stable, clean and small (well..) browser, the free OS'es will have gone a long way towards the desktops.
// Simon
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
I think you're right about some people in the Linux/geek/whatever community that it's all about bashing MS but that's not true for everybody. Some of us actually want to learn and while I might not like IE, I'm all for learning about how it works from people like yourself that do know. It might take a second longer to add something to the conversation rather than just flaming but it makes everybody better overall.
Re:NEdit (Score:2)
Slices, dices, chops, cores! (Score:5)
For the uninitiated, let's run down a few facts.
*************************
Mozilla is licensed under the Mozilla Public License, which is certified Open Source.
Mozilla has nothing to do with Netscape whatsoever, except for a majority of the authors, the backwards-plugin functionality, and the fact that Mozilla will be incorporated into Netscape 5.
Mozilla is quite modular.
Mozilla is completely cross platform. If the OS exists, Mozilla will probably have no problems running on it.
Mozilla is a very insanely complex program, which is probably why it doesn't have a lot of outside hackers. It's not a weekend project, and the codebase is enormously sophisticated.
Mozilla will do to-the-standard CSS1, HTML4.0, DOM Level 1, XML, a great majority of CSS2 (although this is not promised), and the latest bastard variant of Javascript.
Mozilla will not have crypo. That's for binary-only vendors, or your own project.
The entire UI (ENTIRE) will be themeable. So if you don't care for the UI, don't bitch, because theme support is coming soon, and you will be able to write your own.
Mozilla is going to be large because that is how it is. Don't bitch about bloat, because none of the weekend-project HTML widgets your favorite toolkit sports are able to do everything Mozilla does yet.
Mozilla is not going to force any particular Java Virtual Machine, HTML editor, or mailer on you. Although the comes-with editor and mailer are extremely nice this time around.
Mozilla will be a compile-it-yourself type thing if you so desire.
Report any and all bugs to bugzilla.mozilla.com. Please follow the bug submission guidelines. A shitty bug report is worse than none at all, and wastes developer time.
If you wish, you can do hourly downloads of binaries, weekly downloads of tarballs, or up-to-the-minute CVS of mozilla.
You will be delighted with mozilla. If not, use something else.
Differences between M11 and M12 (linux) (Score:2)
1. It is way, way, way more stable, and is reaching the point where I can go for around 1.5-2 hours without a crash.
2. The speed of the rendering is much faster, the incremental reflow is much better, and can be tuned with some pref editing, and the scrolling no longer has that ugly grey! :-).
I'm happy to say, that the day the stable Mozilla is released, it'll make us all proud. The amount of fixes and speed increases seem to be accelerating quite quickly.
Congrats to the mozilla team.
Please remember to post bug reports too =]. They say on the page, that finding and documenting the bug is half the work.
Lucas
Re:stylesheet support? (Score:2)
CSS is a big thing - it has the ability to define EXACTLY how things are layed out on a page, etc. This is where the problems lie, becasue current browsers don't support this precision.
That being said, CSS is still GREAT for defining fonts, body colors, etc. All it requires to make changes across an antire site (that might be 200+ html files) is changing it in a single place. CSS also has the ability to do relative font sizes based on the user defined prefered size - That is great becasue it still allows people to control their text so that people with bad eyesite can still read the web page.
So, you're right - I could make webpages that are totally unreadable by people who use browsers that don't support the STANDARD. But, they can be used in a controlled manner to make the maintanence of sites much easier and not impede people whose browsers don't support them.
Request (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla speed (Score:3)
Re:This is definieltly alpha material (Score:3)
I hope everyone out there is doing the Right Thing (tm) and reporting any bugs they find. There really is no use in saying "Hey this program is full of bugs" and not doing anything about it, whilst you can.
Found a communicator bug?:
Help make a better product!
Re:Mozilla speed (Score:2)
user_pref("browser.cache.enable", true);
It works well for me (Win32).
Source code size (Score:3)
I have a lot of respect for Mozilla, but I have to say: isn't it about time to fork the code-based into several smaller projects?
It would be nice, for example, if the mail handler were a separate program so that any mailer could (ab)use the same API in order to replace Mozilla's default. Or, is this already possible with the plug-in API?
Re:This is definieltly alpha material (Score:2)
But hasn't Netscape/AOL shown a complete lack of interest in fixing bugs in Communicator? Haven't a lot of the same bugs persisted from 4.5 to 4.6 to 4.7? I believe a lot of people have given up on them.
Re:Opera (Score:2)
Whatever happened to "fitting on a floppy"? (Score:2)
Binaries available elsewhere (Score:2)
I compiled it this morning. It rocks.
The announcement was a little quick off the mark - binaries are due to be posted within the next couple of hours - but Mozillazine (great site) has news of M12 binaries for Solaris and RPMs for Red Hat [mozillazine.org]
The speed at which Mozilla has come along recently is something else. If this isn't alpha, then it is damn close. Download, enjoy, and report those bugs!
Dave
--
What I'd like in a browser (Score:2)
second, a litte offtopic:
There is on feature I want in a browser and still haven't seen anywhere.
I want a button that goes to the main page of the website.
e.g. when I'm browsing http://www.foobar.org/foo/bar.html and I press this button the browser has to go to http://www.foobar.org/
does anyone know if there is feature like this in Mozilla ?
this would save me a lot of time re-typing the adress in the location bar or searching for the 'home' button on a website.
---
Konqueror has this (Score:2)
Re:Slices, dices, chops, cores! (Score:3)
Mozilla is licensed under the Mozilla Public License, which is certified Open Source.
True for a significant part of it, but some of it is Netscape Public License. Although it doesn't restrict the use of the source code, it includes som clause that gives Netscape special privilegies.
Mozilla has nothing to do with Netscape whatsoever, except for a majority of the authors, the backwards-plugin functionality, and the fact that Mozilla will be incorporated into Netscape 5.
Oh, come on! Mozilla has a LOT to do with Netscape. Everybody knows that.
Mozilla is quite modular.
True.
Mozilla is completely cross platform. If the OS exists, Mozilla will probably have no problems running on it.
You have to port it, and it's not trivial. Granted, 97% of mozilla is completely platform-independent.
Mozilla is a very insanely complex program, which is probably why it doesn't have a lot of outside hackers. It's not a weekend project, and the codebase is enormously sophisticated.
True.
Mozilla will do to-the-standard CSS1, HTML4.0, DOM Level 1, XML, a great majority of CSS2 (although this is not promised), and the latest bastard variant of Javascript.
IIRC, it will do ECMAScript, which is the standardized version.
Mozilla will not have crypo. That's for binary-only vendors, or your own project.
True.
The entire UI (ENTIRE) will be themeable. So if you don't care for the UI, don't bitch, because theme support is coming soon, and you will be able to write your own.
It has been themable for ages.
Mozilla is going to be large because that is how it is. Don't bitch about bloat, because none of the weekend-project HTML widgets your favorite toolkit sports are able to do everything Mozilla does yet.
It's not going to be large compared to IE or NS, but maybe if you compare to lynx...
Mozilla is not going to force any particular Java Virtual Machine, HTML editor, or mailer on you. Although the comes-with editor and mailer are extremely nice this time around.
Well, those components are in the binaries, so you have to download them. Not the JVM, but messenger and composer. However, they don't get loaded before you use them, and you can compile your own version without them if you want.
Mozilla will be a compile-it-yourself type thing if you so desire.
True.
Re:Source code size (Score:2)
Or, more precisely, the kernel should be as small as possible while maintaining the desired abstractions. Same for the windowing system (X11) - you want it to be small, tight, and fast.
And remember, there's lots of un-merged and non-mainstream kernel code out there (DevFS, ReiserFS, ext3, PCMCIA, international patches at kerneli.org, drivers drivers drivers...) so maybe Mozilla's LOC count isn't quite as far ahead of the kernel's as it may seem :-)
Re:JAVA support in M12 : Needs Java 1.3 (Score:3)
Re:stylesheet support? (Score:2)
For a really good CSS test, check out:
http://style.verso.com/boxacidtest/ [verso.com]
It renders horribly in Netscape 4.x series, but in Mozilla, it is EXACTLY the same as the reference picture. It got me pretty excited
Re:stylesheet support? (Score:2)
I've been developing an app that relies completely on styles for changing it's display properties. Sadly some things just didn't work out right when I followed the CSS1 spec to the letter in IE5 (e.g. the "white-space: nowrap" style didn't work in td tags - you have to revert to the HTML 3.2 nowrap tag instead... bah!). However I decided to check out the output in Mozilla. Works beautifully. All styles are rendered exactly as described in the CSS spec. This is an incredible boon for me.
However... of course this won't mean we can just develop web sites to the full CSS spec. Unfortunately those older browsers still exist, and often don't even degrade properly. IE4/5 now seems to have a 60% market share (or something like that).
Re:This is definieltly alpha material (Score:2)
That's not surprising. The Communicator base has no future. It's a dead product. Why fix bugs in something that you don't want anyone to use anyways. Communicator is only used for 20% of surfing anymore either, as people have started to use IE while mozilla is being developed. Put all efforts into mozilla so that when it is released everyone will be able to drop IE for a real browser.
That's all that IE is anyways. An up-to-date crutch to use while waiting for Mozilla. A big thanks to Microsoft for providing a browser while we take the time to do it right!
-Brentlooking very nice (Score:2)
But I couldn't get it to compile out of the box, even with the IDL libraries installed. However, I did track down a binary RPM and all went smoothly. Still, the memory footprint and CPU usage are excessive for day-to-day use. A couple of pages takes up a whopping 30 megs of RAM! Lots of debugging code, I'd imagine. There's still plenty of minor glitches, but nothing that should be too difficult to fix.
I wonder if Opera will make it out before xmas for a comparison...
Crypto back-port (Score:3)
I realize that this is a complex question...
not IE-only pages, but uncompliant browsers (Score:2)
Netscape is horrid with standards compliance, as earlier posters have stated. IE 5, and to a lesser extent 4, are quite good with supporting HTML 4.0 and the CSS1 (Cascading Style Sheets) specifications. Most of the sites I've seen with "IE only-looks bad in Netscape" only post that because their style sheets are CSS1-correct but Netscape has lots and lots of problems with some of the features in the style sheets. You may want to check out The Little Shop of CSS Horrors [haughey.com] for a great demonstration of cross-browser compatibility.
Re:IE's marketshare seems to be growing fast. (Score:2)
IE's marketshare is growing because it is the *only* browser out there. To claim that Communicator competes with IE is to claim that a '96 model Chevy competes with this years model Ford. Sorry, it'll never fly.
We all know now that it won't work to compete against Microsoft on features alone. If IE and Mozilla are identical, no one will use Mozilla. Mozilla needs to compete in areas that Microsoft can't. Outside of just plain old web browsing. Mozilla will need to use applications like Internet Appliances, wireless phones, web pads, administration front-ends, as a wrench to get in the market. From there, they'll be able to overtake MS. Nokia, AOL, Zope, and other companies will be using Mozilla in their applications. As a plain browser, Mozilla and IE can be used interchangably. So there is no loss if everyone uses IE for web browsing. When Mozilla is finished, people will use it. But embedded is harder to replace. Mozilla needed to focus, not on just browsing, to the work with the companies that will embed mozilla to make mozilla the best embeddable browser ever.
-BrentRe:Whatever happened to "fitting on a floppy"? (Score:2)
Asa
(posted with an M13 cycle nightly build from 12/29)
slashdot and cutting edge is about sourcecode! (Score:2)
Why wait for binaries to make an announcement?
What platforms do you think we should wait until binaries exist for before something is announced? If there's no unixware binary or no intel solaris binary or no sparc linux binary, should we wait?
Why wait for a webmaster to update a website when the files are on ftp?
here's how it works:
- developers write code and check in changes to source control
- interested parties check ftp sites or cvs and download snapshots. Read Changelog. Compile. Provide feedback. Repeat as often as time permits.
- developers/testers know well in advance of any official announcement when a new milestone is near *BECAUSE THE DOCS SAY WHAT WILL BE IN NEXT MILESTONE*
- developers announce on slashdot for the benefit of the testers who may not be able to build snapshots, but are interested.
- slashdotters download src code and compile to get optimized binaries that take full advantage of their system libraries and architecture.
I would never prefer a binary for something that I could easily build from source. The only times I get a binary are when it's for an OS that I don't have a nice development machine, or for something hard to build like X11.
Re:Mozilla speed (Score:2)
And it is off by default.
No, it's not premature (Score:2)
The Mozilla build team is experienced enough to figure out for themselves when to post the source - copies of the build probably went out to the mirrors before being posted on the mozilla site. By the time binaries are available the slashdot effect for the sources will have subsided. They know what they're doing.
The important thing right now is to get as many developers as possible building the source. If you're a developer and you're just downloading the binaries and maybe sending in the odd bug report, you're kind of wasting your talent don't you think?
For anyone who hasn't built it yet... the source download is 20-something meg, but it expands to 130 meg or so, then inflates itself to over 600 meg by the time it's finished building, so you'd better have a nice round gig free. The build takes about 45 minutes.
Gecko still does fit on a floppy (Score:3)
Mozilla as a browser will not fit on a floppy. Various Mozilla technology components, such as the Gecko rendering engine, most likely will.
You don't really think that Nokia, who IIRC expressed interest in using Mozilla on a wireless device, will be using the same Mozilla browser as it's assembled on Linux and Win32, do you?
No, they'll prolly be using a version of the HTML engine, with a new browser wrapped around it.
Finally renders noncompliant HTML! (Score:2)
At last, some hope that it will be an acceptable mainstream browser. And, oh, at least on Win32, the XUL widget stuff is suddenly many orders of magnitude faster. Still a bit awkward-looking, but it's pretty much as fast as native dialogs.
It's still months away from being a product, but it's clearly turned the corner. Now if they can work on usability, especially in terms of plugin/embed support, etc., they may yet have something interesting indeed.
Well... (Score:2)
Other than Lynx, there's no released browser out there that's free of major problems. I use Netscape because I need inline graphics and ECMAScript, and it sucks less than the alternatives. I plan to switch to Mozilla (or some other Gecko-based alternative) as my regular browser as soon as the bug fixes get it to the right point where I can use it and still get all my work done.
----
Re:Whatever happened to "fitting on a floppy"? (Score:2)
Re:I hate to see IE succeed (Score:2)
Not really. A web browser is a commodity product. Like bread. You buy one brand of bread one week, but another brand the next week. Nothing keep you using one brand of bread over another expect your own preference. It's the same with a web browser. There is no technical reason forcing you to use a certain web browser. Use IE this week, Mozilla the next. Even if IE had 100% marketshare, it wouldn't mean anything when Mozilla was released.
I agree with you about MS FUD though. They'll try to milk as much from IE as they can. DIE, baby, DIE!!
-BrentRe:Wonderful (Score:2)
I'm not bashing Mozilla, i hope that's not what it sounds like. I like Mozilla. It's just not in my eyes releasable (as of M11)... I'll go download M12 and (*hope*)that more progress has been made....
Re:Crypto back-port (Score:2)
Woohoo: 128bit encryption for all.
--
Re:Slices, dices, chops, cores! (Score:2)
Milestone releases are usually more stable than the nightly builds but suffer in that they are a bit dated.
The M12 milestone (coming out this morning) has seen only limited changes in the last week and a half. It should be pretty stable (I've been playing with the recent M12 cycle nightly builds a lot and they are more stable than netscape 4.x on my machine.)
And if you have not taken a look at the mail and news functionality because of performance problems in the past, now would be a good time. I've use mozilla news exclusively now and while it's a bit slower than 4.x it's quite usable.
If you're interested in the bleeding edge grab a nightly build labled as part of the new M13 development cycle. There have been quite a few really cool checkins in the last few days that will not be a part of the M12 release.
One final note: While many people report haveing to delete all old mozilla files before installing new ones, I've kept the same profile for the last two weeks while swapping in 8 new nightly builds without any problems (nice to keep all my bookmarks and news message read/unread status etc.)
Mozilla is kicking ass. Get a build (get a recent nightly) and give it a spin.
Asa
(posted with an M13 dev cycle build from 12/20)
anonymous logins (Score:2)
sorry for no html link, i suppose i could look at a little html for that, but like I said, I already got mine
Still smaller than Emacs ;-) (Score:3)
Of course, Emacs does do a lot more than Mozilla.
Re:Slices, dices, chops, cores! (Score:2)
Re:No, it's not premature (Score:2)
You don't get it. It's never too late to get the source: once you have it you can keep up to date with the development tree through CVS. How do you sell a puppy? By letting someone take the puppy home. How do you get developers to sign on for Mozilla's final development phase? By getting the source into their hands.
what purpose is served by slamming the FTP servers to grab the sources, especially when most people want the binaries?
Interest in Mozilla tends to peak around the time of each milestone release. That's the best time to sign up new developers. Nuff said?
Re:No, it's not premature (Score:2)
Re:I hate to see IE succeed (and politics) (Score:3)
HTH. HAND.
Mozilla marks the end of browser duopoly (Score:4)
Sooner than you think, the Mozilla 1.0 release will be in the hands of anyone that's interested, in complete source form. This WILL spawn zillions of of new, Mozilla-based browser version. They will have minuscule market shares at first, but that's when the big players will enter: Computer manufacturers will start making browsers to bundle with their machines, application developers will start integrating browser features into existing apps, big corporations will create custom browsers for internal use.
Each of these new browsing platforms will make little difference on its own, but grouped together, they will create a single, compatible, cross-platform application environment that is based on accepted industry standards. Mozilla will be the catalyst of life in this expanding pool of diverse browsers, and together the pool will quickly challenge Internet Explorer's position as the dominant browser.
There will be no reason to ponder if Compaq, Dell or Apple will include the Netscape Communicator or Microsoft Internet Explorer with their machines. They can and will roll their own, emphasizing their brand's unique selling proposition through innovative, custom features and look-n-feel.
How will that be possible? Luckily, it's a certainity that Microsoft will be barred from forcing their distribution channel (OEMs) to distribute Internet Explorer with other Microsoft products. This will level the playing field and launch wide-scale Mozilla-based browser development.
The emerging new browsers will share an API that is the W3C standards suite, and in this Microsoft-vs-the-world situation Microsoft will witness their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy becoming a public relations nightmare. Eventually Microsoft has to follow suit and develop a standards compliant browser. When this is realized at Redmond, it may very well be that the company will even switch to use the Mozilla layout engine as a goodwill stunt.
Consequences: Microsoft will lose some of the applications barrier to entry they've so feverishly protected all these years. Faced with this reality, they will even claim that the barried never existed. The Open Source camp will rejoice, but only to see Microsoft products grow their market share by sheer inertia.
Marko
Disclaimer: my crystal ball was being polished, so I had to pull this out of my ass. Sorry.
Netscape: they knew what they were doing (Score:3)
What they didn't count on was MS coming along and being better at this game. MS and monopolies -- you'd think they could've seen it coming.