Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla 0.7 Released

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the 10,000-guinea-pigs dept.

Mozilla 209

mpt writes: "Mozilla 0.7 has been released. This is the first release with PSM (the Personal Security Manager) included on Win32, Mac OS, and Linux, so secure sites should work without extra fiddling. Other noticable changes since 0.6 include better mousewheel behavior, Microsoft Proxy Server support, treating maximized windows properly on Win32, and numerous performance improvements (especially for NNTP). So try it out, and report dem bugs." Since Mozilla.org and Mozillazine are now reporting this, we figure the mirrors have had time to update. :)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Before reporting bugs... (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 13 years ago | (#518157)

please make sure the bugs also occur in a recent nightly build [mozilla.org] . Mozilla 0.7 branched about two weeks ago so your bug might have been fixed since then.

By the way, today's nightlies are pretty good [mozillazine.org] - several recent regressions were fixed. Two new bugs in today's builds that weren't in 0.7: links on some pages are ignored [mozilla.org] and home page isn't displayed on startup under Win32 when using -console option [mozilla.org] .

Re:Alternate Architectures (2)

powerlord (28156) | more than 13 years ago | (#518163)

HP/UX is not a fringe operating system, Mozilla supporter.


It is from a Desktop user perspective.

I'd venture to say that Linux has a bigger space in the desktop/workstation market then HP-UX (although I'd bet most of those are develpment machines in people's homes vs. in the workplace).

Oh.. and I started using the nightly build from 7/5 as my main browser recently. A little wonkieness certainly, (sometimes downloading files bombs out with an odd message followed by the browser crashing soon after), but it seems to do much better than NS4.08 (which is now my secondary browser), and almost on par with IE5.0 (my tertiary browser... or was that part of my OS? ::grin::)

YMMV but I think they should be ready for a release candidate real soon. The installer even let me pick to just install the browser which made me a very happy camper indeed :)

Re:Completed January 9, 2000 (1)

slothdog (3329) | more than 13 years ago | (#518165)

Even better....they fixed that date, but now 0.6 says it was released in December of 2001. Wow!

Re:What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 13 years ago | (#518167)

On win32 it installed java and for the little I used it it seemed preaty stable, but I turned it off as soon as I remembered I had to dither with the settings :)

(don't like java unless I ask for it)

(posting from the 5/1/01 nightly build)

Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 13 years ago | (#518171)

Hohoho... You are a funny man. Mozilla is going to be very important in the next couple years. If IE becomes the only viable browser (and to me it was for the last year or two) then Microsoft will have more control than is good for them over the implementation of outside specs.

Even if people don't use it Mozilla is important simply for that reason. And people will use it...

Re:What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (3)

Zimm (94553) | more than 13 years ago | (#518172)

Java support being about the only thing keeping me using NS4.x. . .

Works better then NS4.x and yes i'm talking about the x86 Linux version. It uses the jkd1.3 jvm from sun. Just get the browser and go to a java site like java.sun.com, a popup will ask you if you wish to install the jdk plugin say yes, and your done. I use the nighly builds, and i'll never go back to Netscape 4x

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (2)

SmokeSerpent (106200) | more than 13 years ago | (#518173)

In my experience, any URL will do, given enough chances.

More stuff needed for Red Hat 7 boxen... (1)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518174)

From the Compatibility Information [mozilla.org] :

For Red Hat Linux 7, you must install the Standard C++ libraries for Red Hat 6.x compatibility. Get the package from the Red Hat 7 installation CD or download it from Red Hat [redhat.com] . (Bug 59012 [mozilla.org] )

--

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (2)

JeffL (5070) | more than 13 years ago | (#518176)

Apart from Konquorer - who the gnome zealots won't use

I really like Konqueror [konqueror.org] . I think it is much faster than Mozilla, and when it works it works really well. Unfortunately Konqueror is not yet as stable as Mozilla---Konqueror seems to blow up about 3 times more frequently than Mozilla, and it doesn't work with Datek.

BTW, I use Gnome as my desktop and Konqueror as my browser.

Write Access Needed?! (2)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518177)

From the Installation Notes [mozilla.org] :

Before installing on Linux, you must have write permission for the target installation directory. (Bug 46588 [mozilla.org] )

So it's saying that I need +w in the install directory when I install Mozilla? No way!

--

Rah rah (1)

MyopicProwls (122482) | more than 13 years ago | (#518178)

Seriously, I don't understand the criticisms of Mozilla. I hate Netscape 6, but Mozilla .6 was fine, fine software. Sure there were bugs, but it's a huge product and it's still in the pre-1.0 releases, so you expect it to be somewhat unfinished. I'll tell you what - M.6 was much faster and must less annoyingly hypercommercial than was N6.

I'm also a web developer interested in the cusps of DOM and CSS and the consistent cross-platform highly-compliant nature of Mozilla means I can develop with these new technologies and refer visitors to Mozilla if the pages don't render.

So I really look forward to using M.7. I've been using nightly builds a lot in the past couple weeks anticipating the .7 release and every build is a bit better than the previous. I applaud the Mozilla effort.

MyopicProwls

Waaah, Roaming Access (1)

microbob (29155) | more than 13 years ago | (#518179)

Waah, roaming access yet (yeah I know, d/l the source and hack it in..)?

S/MIME support? (2)

larse (97184) | more than 13 years ago | (#518186)

Quick question for the mozilla insiders: Does this release support S/MIME? If not, will that be available anytime soon? (Missing S/MIME support is what forces me to use 4.76...)

Looks like a good release... (1)

slashmonster (151876) | more than 13 years ago | (#518187)

Too bad Netscape wouldn't wait a a couple months to have incorparted this.

Re:If this were IE (1)

Li0n (110271) | more than 13 years ago | (#518189)

nah. IE3 sucked hard too. Even 4.0 wasn't that good. But with 5.0 the gap got a little out of hand.

~
~

All i want from mozilla (1)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 13 years ago | (#518191)

I haven't tried this release yet, but am about to. All I want from mozilla is to be able to click the icon, and boom - its open very quickly. I have this from netscape, IE does it, but mozilla never has. Galeon does, but hasn't been as stable for me, i'll check on that later too. When opening new windows, it has to pop up fast. Not TOO much i'm asking for :)

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

If this were IE (2)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 13 years ago | (#518192)

That version would be 1.0, dammit!

Dancin Santa

Re:All i want from mozilla (1)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 13 years ago | (#518193)

Hey, this mozilla does look nice, and the wheel is smooth -- but it still loads too slow. They should make it just open a window so i can start typing my web page in, while it loads everything else :)

I have an athlon 550, it should not be bad.

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

odd behaviors (1)

ender's_shadow (302302) | more than 13 years ago | (#518195)

this release has some weird UI bugs -- like transparencies in strange places (seeing the desktop wallpaper instead of the back button). very weird, and i'm at a loss. this is new bug (for me) -- isn't this project progressing (in usability and memory footprint, for example, not underlying features)?

WOW.... (1)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 13 years ago | (#518196)

I'm seeing huge performance increases over NS6. ON both Win and Linux platforms ... some problems but generally an awesome release... Good job Mozilla.org!

Re:All i want from mozilla (1)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 13 years ago | (#518198)

Although this is funny, is it really necessary? Running mozilla from a terminal, I click on edit, preferences, and then appearance -> fonts. After clickin on fonts, the terminal has this:
moo!moo!moo!moo!moo!moo!
hahaha!

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

WickedDyno (107606) | more than 13 years ago | (#518201)

will be the first to render HTML 4.0 bug-free.
Perhaps you mean the first Mainstream Windows browser to do so... Otherwise, I've got news: iCab [www.icab.de] and Mac IE 5.0 both render HTML 4.0 with 100% compliance.

Should Mozilla Cost Money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#518202)

his argument looks remarkably equivalent to the can't-be-denied argument that suckers people into EST,
The Forum, and other such so-called personal empowerment building organizations. Organizations where
you give a lot of value (usually in money) and help to keep an organization going that often has very little in the
way of visibly paid employees. Why? Because the organization probably couldn't afford to pay the people it
requires to keep itself going--better if a few make the money and the rest happily work for free.

I went to a meeting of The Forum once on an open house night. The conversation with one of their
advocates went something like this:

him: Do you see how you could get value from this?
me: yes
him: So you'll sign up?
me: no
him: But why would you not join something that could bring you value? me: Because i have to weight the
choice against other uses of my time. I get value from all the things I do.
him: You're just trying to be argumentative, aren't you?
me: no, i simply see a choice to be made and i have made my choice.

[they hate that, because they use "choice" as a catch phrase. they want you to believe they offer you choice,
and that only by choosing the choice they offer will you be free. but it seems to me that they intend you to
have no choice but to let them deliver you choice.]

The bottom line is the understanding of "opportunity cost". It sure looks to me like a lot of impressionable
college students are tricked into thinking it's noble to not make money. I know I spent my first few years after
college trying hard not to make money because I
thought money was evil and would somehow corrupt me. But in my old age I've found money to not be so
corrupting as personally empowering. I hate seeing people tricked into thinking that being without money is
personally empowering. I bet if they're honest a lot of contributors of free software have at some later point in
their life looked back and wished they could have even just a decent day's pay, if not a percentage, from the
riches they see others getting off their
contributions. Why should they NOT be compensated?

We in the Lisp community suffer more than anything else with the lack of personal dollars to act on our many
ideas. We sometimes pester companies to do what we wish we could. I don't see how giving away code,
and hence economic empowerment, will make it any easier for us to act on those dreams. I just see us
dying of old age after years of chasing a paycheck.

In the long run, a few Linux companies with a handful of investors will have a lot of money, and a lot of Linux
weenies will be the downtrodden underclass of a new generation because they will have nothing more to
contribute. I see no reason to suppose the world would be worse off if the people making the financial
choices for next generation systems were the people who actually wrote some code rather than others who
merely arrived and took advantage of a ton of free software and offered only packaging.

I don't assert that I have unique insight into how the universe works so I don't spend time trying to talk people
out of doing the open source and free software thing if that's what they feel is their personal calling. I might
be wrong, and I'm inclined to think that on that basis, it might be best for some people who believe differently
to go ahead and chase their dream, but I don't want to be told that my personal opposition to the notion is, for
myself, a wrong choice any more than they want to be told their choices are wrong. Choices should be made
with one's eyes open, though, and no one should assume I'm going to respect them more for having given
away value. I'm not. I'm going to respect them more if they build something important for the world, by
whatever means. But whether they got paid for it or not is not going to affect that respect. So they shouldn't
feel guilty about getting paid, and they shouldn't give me grief if I want to get paid.

...or i've been told

probably no roaming profiles for 1.0 (2)

mattdm (1931) | more than 13 years ago | (#518203)

See bug # 17048 [mozilla.org] . Contribute if you can.

--

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (2)

bssea (79248) | more than 13 years ago | (#518204)

Every program has bugs and crashes. I run the daily builds of Mozilla and the CVS version of Konqueror. You know what? Konqueror crashes just as much as Mozilla, and don't even try to pretend it doesn't. Not to mention Konqueror has nowhere near the capabilities of Mozilla.

Just a few things Mozilla has that Konqueror doesn't:

1. Embedded Java *in* the page( apparently this is a limitation of KDE itself or so I'm told by Konqueror developers ). Not to mention that Konqueror crawls when you use it.

2. VERY limited DOM support( face it, Konqueror DOM support really sucks.. for now )

3. Slows to a crawl when lots of animated gifs are on the page and/or when a plugin is heavily in use.

4. Limited to 5 threads( there needs to be an option to change that )

5. Must have that *Stupid* DCOP server! While not a complete memory hog, it's annoying for those who *don't* use KDE. As a result Mozilla actually starts up *faster* than Konqueror on a fresh start.

.. and if you want me to keep going I can prolly find more.

But you know what? Mozilla is *still* a second to Konqueror when I'm browsing the web. This is because of memory usage, and speed once the app is started( and the pages I go to, Konqueror usually does okay ).

But I have Mozilla waiting in the wings when Konqueror dies( and it does.. *alot* ). And Mozilla works when I use it on URLs that Konqueror dies misably on( and I've had Konqueror take X with it ).

So before you start saying stuff is horse shit you should probably look at the product your defending. While Konqueror is great, in my book there is a lot of trouble when trying to compare it to Mozilla.

Posted from Konqueror 1.9.8( CVS 20010106 )

Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (5)

evil_one (142582) | more than 13 years ago | (#518205)

Apart from Konquorer - who the gnome zealots won't use - Mozilla is the only mainstream browser out there for Gnu/Linux users. How many times have you gone to a page only to be turned away because your browser "isn't supported by this website"? Mozilla - being a semi-offical netscape project, will actually have people and companies making scripted sites that will work properly with mozilla. One way that redmond has been trying to keep people away from linux is by not releasing IE for linux - it ensures that some web sites simply won't display on linux.
The point is this: Mozilla stands to be a real mainstream browser. Don't knock it before it gets a decent chance.
---

SVG and MathML support??? (1)

Meatlog (243808) | more than 13 years ago | (#518206)

Where has the SVG and MathML support that were available in some earlier builds gone? From what I understand, they won't be in the 1.0 release, so maybe they were removed. But it sucks having to use an old build to play with this functionality.

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 13 years ago | (#518207)

still slower than ns 4.x. Yes, netscape sucks, but it still appears quicker for me (1s) than mozilla (~2s) when clicked from the gnome panel. That's with an already running program btw, not from scratch.

Agreed. I'm on Windows and new window performance [mozilla.org] is the main thing preventing me from using Mozilla as my main browser (even though it's much more stable than IE).

Re:Alternate Architectures (4)

asa (33102) | more than 13 years ago | (#518208)

mozilla is looking for contributions of bulds on platforms other than linux, mac and win32. See http://mozilla.org/build/distribution.html
for info on how to contribute builds to mozilla.org.

--Asa

Re:Alternate Architectures (2)

Alatar (227876) | more than 13 years ago | (#518209)

HP/UX is not a fringe operating system, Mozilla supporter.

thumbs up.. (1)

khufure (214732) | more than 13 years ago | (#518210)

about 27 megs memory footprint while browsing normally. hmm, that's probably in line with what IE does, if you think about it...

I've been using it for a bit, looks like an actual alternative to IE5.. (netscrape hasn't done it for me since 3.x)...

Re:Mirror links (1)

Big Jason (1556) | more than 13 years ago | (#518222)

If you check it out, you will find that the www site and the ftp site are different boxes.

Different IP Addresses don't necessarily mean different boxen.

Re:Sounds usable now... (2)

Eil (82413) | more than 13 years ago | (#518231)


0.6 was on it's way to becoming my primary browser until some bugs in the history code reared their ugly head. First, clicking on a link sometimes did *weird* things. (It would try to load the right page on the wrong server. :P) Second, Mozilla would nuke the history and stop adding pages to it, making it look like I had the history completely turned off.

It's things like this that I'm sure are a major pain in the ass for the Mozilla developers, but once their ironed out, it should turn out to be a really nice browser.

Re:Write Access Needed?! (1)

gimpimp (218741) | more than 13 years ago | (#518232)

what idiot modded this up? eh?
lets say you want to install to /usr/mozilla - you *obviously* need permission to write there!
thats where the binaries will go, ffs!
obviously you don't need write access to use it from there....geeze.

Re:Sounds usable now... (2)

mitchkeller (208117) | more than 13 years ago | (#518233)

Sounds usable? I've been using Mozilla nightlies since September (I think that they were pre-M18 builds). Not just using Mozilla off and on, but as my full-time browser. I have absolutely no reason to use another browser. PSM works, Java works (I got Netscape 6's xpi's and install the jre.xpi file into every nightly that I download, and, viola, I have Java 2 support.) Some plugins even work (I use the Flash plugin regularly, don't know about others.) Some days you shouldn't download the nightly, but the mozillazine build comments warn you about all of the major bugs, and even recommends when things are worth getting if you haven't updated for a while.

In short...get the nightlies and use the heck out of them...that's the only way that we're going to get all the bugs found and fixed.

I also have to say congrats to mozilla on picking up the release schedule. I remember people whining about how long it took for new milestones to come out, but now things really are progressing nicely. Good job!

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

phidipides (59938) | more than 13 years ago | (#518234)

I've been playing around with nightly builds for the last few months and have been pretty impressed -- anyone still using Netscape 4.x should definitely upgrade.

For anyone interested in the nightly builds, Mozillazine publishes a page with nightly build comments so you can find out if there are any showstoppers -- http://www.mozillazine.org/build_comments/ [mozillazine.org] . This is also a good way to help out in the testing process, obviously...

Re:Write Access Needed?! (1)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518235)

Um...You need this with any install. su to root first.

I know that! They were listing it as a bug, and pointing it out as an install requirement. That's what I was laughing at. :)

--

Why was this moderated up? (2)

chabotc (22496) | more than 13 years ago | (#518236)

Its kinda obvious you need write permission to, umm, write stuff also install documentation (/notes) often try to cover all the bases, just in case you forgot something.. Lets not post a slashdot comment everytime a manual reads that the plug needs to be plugged in for an appliance. Specialy since microwave manuals in the US still state its not a good thing to try to dry pets in the appliance

-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"

Daily RPM builds (5)

daemonc (145175) | more than 13 years ago | (#518258)

right here [redhat.com] .

Chris Blizzard rocks. He builds (almost) daily Mozilla rpms for Redhat 6 and 7. At the above link you will find:

  • bare-bones mozilla rpms: no commercial netscape crap, no debugging crap, no mail/news, only 6.3 MB
  • mozilla-mail rpms, if you want it
  • mozilla-psm rpms, so you can go to secure sites.
  • mozilla-devel rpms, if you need it

Re:Write Access Needed?! (2)

Eil (82413) | more than 13 years ago | (#518259)


This isn't quite what it sounds like. What they mean is that whoever runs Mozilla for the very first time on a given machine needs to have write access to wherever you installed it. For most of us, this will be the user 'root'. This is due to the fact that Mozilla automatically generates a few files in it's own directory the first time it's loaded. After that, anyone can run it harmlessly.

This is probably derived from Win32 way of developing things, but I'm confident that most of the developers are just as concerned with the Linux platform as well and it will be fixed or worked around somehow before 1.0.

Re:Write Access Needed?! (1)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518260)

what idiot modded this up? eh?

Nobody modded it up (as of when I wrote this); I posted it at +2.

lets say you want to install to /usr/mozilla - you *obviously* need permission to write there!
thats where the binaries will go, ffs!
obviously you don't need write access to use it from there....geeze.


I *know* that you need write access. Anyone with even the smallest amount of *NIX experience knows you need +w on a directory you want to write to! They were listing it as a bug, and pointing it out as an install requirement. That's what I was laughing at. :)

--

Re:Write Access Needed?! (1)

JourneymanMereel (191114) | more than 13 years ago | (#518261)

So it's saying that I need +w in the install directory when I install Mozilla? No way!

It's saying that you have to have write access when you copy the binaries (obvious, I know) and the first time you run it... Read Only is fine for the second time (even if it's a different user).

just some of what's new (3)

asa (33102) | more than 13 years ago | (#518262)

Actually, that's just some of what's new. That list highlights some of the features that users are likely to notice right off. For a more comprehensive list you might try a bugzilla query something like the 1500 or so bugs fixed since around Mozilla 0.6 [mozilla.org] It's not a perfect query since a few of those were in M18 and not in 0.6 and vise versa but you get the picture. --Asa

Re:Write Access Needed?! (2)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518263)

ARGH! This WASN'T modded up! I posted it at +2!

I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about the fact that having +w on the target install dir was a requirement to install it, AND it was listed as a bug. That's what I was referring to...

*sigh*...

--

hehehehe... (1)

fogof (168191) | more than 13 years ago | (#518264)

It's all there....
big they didn't upgrade the file size...
Or @ least for the win32 downloads.

Re:Write Access Needed?! (2)

Eil (82413) | more than 13 years ago | (#518265)


Actually, I am wrong... That isn't the bug in question. In fact, I think I agree... that's a pretty stupid bug. :P

Interestingly enough, bug 46588 seems to have something to do with pasting rather than installing... weird.

Re:SVG and MathML support??? (1)

EverCode (60025) | more than 13 years ago | (#518266)

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xslt/ has an installer, but they indicate that the 'binaries' are out of date.

Try rolling your own Mozilla build... the instructions are there, and if you have a fast connection. It is a good learning experience too.

Incredible! (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 13 years ago | (#518267)

This is the first Mozilla beta version that can successfully check my hotmail without crashing!
Contratulations!

First Impressions... (4)

Chester K (145560) | more than 13 years ago | (#518268)

Well, I'm using 0.7 right now to post this, and after tooling around with it for a bit, I can finally say that it's finally an acceptable browser. Speed seems greatly improved since the last milestone, it "feels" a lot more stable, and a lot of the annoying bugs that hampered previous use of it are finally ironed out. Congratulations to the Mozilla team.

WARNING: This opinion is subject to quick and radical change the first time it crashes. ;)

Re:odd behaviors (1)

Dr Strangelove (13729) | more than 13 years ago | (#518269)

Sorry if this is becoming less relevant. I couldn't resist.

With a bug-ridden grimace and a terrible sound
It pulls the window manager down.

Helpless users in 95
Scream bug-eyed as it crashes on them.

It locks up the bus and the system goes down
And it pillages data and your drive spins 'round.

Refrain:
Uuhh Oohh Seems like it just won't go!
Oh No Mozilla!
Uuhh Oohh! Can't download from Tokyo!
Oh No! Mozilla!

History shows us what we get
We've not a stable browser yet!
(repeat)

MOZILLA...

[with apologies to Blue Öyster Cult]

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (1)

SmokeSerpent (106200) | more than 13 years ago | (#518270)

Konqueror seems to blow up about 3 times more frequently than Mozilla

Either you visit a different segment of the web (You mean there are servers other than those linked by Slashdot?) than I do, or you're full of horseshit. I have downloaded every milestone of Mozilla and deleted each one after two days of constant crashes (often pulling X down as well). It took me at least 3 days to get a reproducible crash in Konqueror, and it hasn't taken X with it once. The only problems I have with it to this day are:

  1. Poorly scripted sites that think I can't view their content since I refuse to change my user agent string
  2. Netscape plugins that lock up, requiring only a killall nspluginviewer

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

thegrommit (13025) | more than 13 years ago | (#518271)

I second this - with one caveat. There is an outstanding bug with flash plugins ( a href=http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6 3243>63243 ) that appears to have been fixed in 0.7, but not in this weeks nightlies.

Re:SVG and MathML support??? (3)

asa (33102) | more than 13 years ago | (#518288)

both are still in the source. Previous mathml and svg enabled builds were contributed to mozilla.org by interested folks in the community. If they don't show up sometime in the next couple of weeks ping me and I'll ask around. The win32 mathml & svg enabled build was contributed by a regular build contributor so I imagine that will show up soon.

--Asa

Re:Mirror links (3)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#518289)

You know you are linking to the same site (mozilla.org) so chances are that if I can't get to the actual page, I can't access the mirror list either.

If you check it out, you will find that the www site and the ftp site are different boxes. So linking to the www mirror page will not effect the ftp server

Official name: komodo.mozilla.org
(Aliases: ftp.mozilla.org)
Addresses: 207.200.81.212

Official name: gila.mozilla.org
(Aliases: www.mozilla.org)
Addresses: 207.200.81.215

You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (3)

juliao (219156) | more than 13 years ago | (#518290)

Quoting from the article: Microsoft Proxy Server support.

Now what on earth is a Microsoft Proxy Server? I've heard of HTTP proxies, SOCKS proxies, but Microsoft? What is this new protocol I never heard about??
-----

RoadMap (1)

OneFix (18661) | more than 13 years ago | (#518291)

There is also a newly updated RoadMap [mozilla.org] that includes possible dates for V1.0 before this Summer.

Re:Write Access Needed?! (1)

gimpimp (218741) | more than 13 years ago | (#518292)

"They were listing it as a bug, and pointing it out as an install requirement. That's what I was laughing at. :)"

it was my first assumtion that it was a tongue in cheek post - but the bug id has nothing to do with what you were refering to :) hence my (ott) post ;)
hey, it's late here, y'know.

I'm amazed. (2)

David Price (1200) | more than 13 years ago | (#518293)

This release has simply blown me away. It's fast - almost as fast as Netscape 4, and completely tolerable on this pII/233 (I can't wait to try it out on my new dual 733...)

And I noticed one sort of odd thing: it hasn't crashed yet on me. When I started trying Mozilla the thing blew up all the time; now I feel completely comfortable with the idea of Mozilla as my primary browser, particularly with the integrated (and free!) crypto.

The only edge Konqueror has over Mozilla now, in my opinion, is being based on QT - which is the only toolkit so far that's been patched to use the excellent Xft [xfree86.org] library for antialiased fonts under XFree86 4.0.2 and later. I can't wait for Mozilla to pick up support for this thing.

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

thegrommit (13025) | more than 13 years ago | (#518294)

and obviously editing text in forms is as liable to human error as always

Sigh - the corrected url is:this one [mozilla.org]

Why the Netscape Logo? (1)

cuijian (110696) | more than 13 years ago | (#518295)

The mighty mozilla logo in the upper right has been replaced with the Netscape N. Why?

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

Tim Macinta (1052) | more than 13 years ago | (#518296)

Personally, I'd wait until .71/.8 came out, or at least some bugfixes - I can almost guarantee some will be needed.

Unlike Netscape 4 and IE 5, which are both bug free. ;p

However, it's got enough functionality now to make it a secondary browser.

I've been using the Dec 6th nightly (on Linux) as my primary browser since it came out and it sure beats Netscape 4. Pretty soon the Mozilla team is going to need to add an "uptime" menu to the browser so we can all brag about how long it's been since we "rebooted" our browsers. That's the main thing which is going to delay my upgrading to 0.7 (I have state in several open Mozilla windows that I don't want to lose).

Seriously - if you're still using Netscape 4, you might want to give Mozilla 0.7 a shot. Each milestone has been an enormous leap in quality over the previous and I can't wait to give 0.7 a try. Unless it's worse than the Dec 6th build (unlikely), it's a keeper.

Mozilla and LinuxTelephony (1)

HoaryCripple (187169) | more than 13 years ago | (#518297)

I know that this has been posted before, but here it is again...I love mozilla html rendering. I can't believe how fast it loads Linuxtelephony.org [linuxtelephony.org]

--

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (2)

Skeezix (14602) | more than 13 years ago | (#518298)

I guess I visit a different segment of the web than you, too. Can you give me a URL that crashes Mozilla 0.7? Or M18? I like to report bugs.
----

bash# ./mozilla (2)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 13 years ago | (#518299)

Whats wrong with that?

Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (2)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 13 years ago | (#518300)

Excellent! Modded down before I was modded up! I'm so proud!

Anyways...

IE won. Won, as in, controls well over 90% of the desktop market. If ALL of the non-Windows operating systems out there ever amount to more than 10% of the _desktop_ environment, then MS will release IE for (whatever). Mark my words--IE6 or IE7 will be released for Linux if it keeps growing on the desktop like it has for the past few months.

As far as embedded devices running Mozilla, I still disagree. No company will embed it, if it's big, slow, buggy, and unreliable.

Mozilla has lost its momentum, and its focus. It can't be compared to Linux, because Linux is a centralised, focused effort, and is not allowed to drift off course.

I still say that Mozilla never was and never will be a contender as a browser for anyone other than the hardcore diletantes, and a very few very specialised applications. Hell, look at OS/2--at least it was a good product, and it still didn't get any farther than that.

on building mozilla (1)

nmarshall (33189) | more than 13 years ago | (#518301)

i have a question, has anyone buildt mozilla from source and got pam working?
nmarshall

The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..

I use Mozilla all day, every day. And it ROCKS! (1)

manplusdog (145050) | more than 13 years ago | (#518303)

Count me out of the "bash mozilla" crowd, cross platform, standards compliant, stable, fast, accurate and has been for a long time. I like it, in fact I like it a lot.

I have used ie and without doubt mozilla kicks butt. On a standard compusa consumer ms machine (64meg ram) using ie feels like your drowning in mud and while I understand that it may run better with a gig of ram it really doesn't matter to me as it doesn't run on my preferred platform.

Cheers to the Mozilla team.

Completed January 9, 2000 (2)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 13 years ago | (#518304)

Man, it's hard to believe that they have had this locked up for a year.. They must have done a lot of testing!

Its a good thing they don't guarantee dates! (1)

oolon (43347) | more than 13 years ago | (#518308)

Check it out this has been out for a year! and we never knew!

James

---> Snip Snip ---

Sounds usable now... (3)

autocracy (192714) | more than 13 years ago | (#518313)

Personally, I'd wait until .71/.8 came out, or at least some bugfixes - I can almost guarantee some will be needed. However, it's got enough functionality now to make it a secondary browser. You'll likely still want to keep another one around until all the "neccesary" things are in (java, etc.) properly, but for the sake of a decent browser that does what you need, and will evolve to do all of it, this fits the role.

If you're into beta testing software at all - get it. If not, wait a month, then get the current release.

Regardless of what anyone says, I'm going to make a prediction that Mozilla will come to solve many of the picky little things in HTML and will be the first to render HTML 4.0 bug-free. The fact that Netscape has a hand in it will also be good - it will be supported by major sites because the Netscape coding for all those weird website quirks will also be in there.

CAP THAT KARMA!
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!

From the Mozilla Releases page... (2)

Chester K (145560) | more than 13 years ago | (#518314)

We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.

Drat. I guess I should stop working on my mod_timetravel module for Apache, since it's not going to work with Mozilla.

Re:If this were netscape (2)

lytles (24756) | more than 13 years ago | (#518319)

it would be 6.1

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (1)

bssea (79248) | more than 13 years ago | (#518320)

Umm.. I can't stand KDE, but even I know when a good program raps on my head. Konqueror is the only program I use out of the KDE camp( sorry KDE people, but I just don't like the feel of KDE, but Konqueror is well worth it :-).

I do keep Mozilla around though.. Just in case Konqueror blows up on me( like when a page has DOM programming on it ).

Re:You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (1)

JourneymanMereel (191114) | more than 13 years ago | (#518321)

Think about that one for 1/2 a second... Microsoft writes a proxy server... what will the call it? I know!! Microsoft Proxy Server (did anyone else get it?)...

Seriously though, in NS 6 and Moz 0.6 there was a bug (45747 [mozilla.org] ) where Mozilla wouldn't work with MS Proxy 2.0 if NTLM was enabled (if you're interested in why, all the info is in the linked bug). This has since been fixed (it's been fixed in the nightlies for quite a while).

Re:If this were IE (1)

SparkyMartin (206236) | more than 13 years ago | (#518322)

Actually I don't recall ever seing a version 1.0 of IE I do! Came out before 2, if I remember my math correctly.;)
Now iE1 was a piece of crap. So was 2.0. IE didn't get usable until 3.0, and that was the beginning of the end of NS.

Re:Four letters, two numbers and a decimal point. (1)

HoaryCripple (187169) | more than 13 years ago | (#518323)

Christ, Bill. Get a grip. What about Galeon? Konqueror? Lynx? Netscape 4.X? Mozilla? Opera? Maybe there are no other browsers out there for *you* but there are plenty of choices. Plenty of good choices. And the great thing about linux is that you *can* run MSIE on top of wine. At least last time I checked the database...

--

Re:Sounds usable now... (2)

asa (33102) | more than 13 years ago | (#518324)

this will probably be fixed in the next day or two on the trunk either with that patch or by backing out that revision. We took the easy route on 0.7 and just bakced out the revision that was causing the problem.

-Asa

Re:who cares? (3)

Aunt Mable (301965) | more than 13 years ago | (#518325)

The reason IE loads so fast is that it's libraries are loaded at boottime. Mozilla will have an option (does have an option?) to do the same. If you quit Mozilla the start it again (assuming it starts) it's quite fast and.. dare I say it... faster than IE5.5 on machine.

(Celeron 566, 128MB RAM, everything else vanilla)

-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!

Window cloning (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 13 years ago | (#518326)

One of the features that I really like in IE is window cloning. If I hit Ctrl+N for a new window, the window comes up identical to the current, same history and all.

Re:If this were IE (2)

Kyobu (12511) | more than 13 years ago | (#518327)

No, Microsoft bought Spyglass Mosaic and turned it into IE, incorporating version numbers. Sort of similar to how Word jumped from, I think, version 2 to version 5, because that's what WordPerfect was on.

Re:NFN-si! STM-non! (2)

Azog (20907) | more than 13 years ago | (#518328)

I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls...

The only way Internet Explorer can "win", whatever that means, is if they release a Linux version.

And that isn't going to happen. I agree that IE has won on Windows. So what? What about the embedded market? What about Linux users? You think that Linux users are going to be happy using Netscape 3 forever?

And you are wrong that Mozilla will not be used. Even if the browser never becomes popular, the Gecko rendering engine will be. A lightweight, fast browser that uses that engine would be much faster and easier to write than a new browser from scratch.

Many embedded devices like the TiVo run Linux. Many of them will eventually have web browsers on them. Many of those will be based on Mozilla, for some of the same reasons they are based on Linux.

Failed utterly? Get real.

Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

What's the x86 Linux Java support like? (2)

Goonie (8651) | more than 13 years ago | (#518329)

Java support being about the only thing keeping me using NS4.x. . .

Re:Sounds usable now... (1)

ftobin (48814) | more than 13 years ago | (#518330)

Personally, I'd wait until .71/.8 came out,

Surprise, surprise. Someone, with any releasee x whatsoever always wants to wait until x+1. Give me a break. You probably wanted to wait until M17 when M16 came out. Or M18 when M17 came out. When .8 comes out, I'm sure you'll say "wait till .9"

Re:Why the Netscape Logo? (2)

NotAnotherReboot (262125) | more than 13 years ago | (#518331)

It's still the Mozialla M. Perhaps you installled NBetscape 6...I've noticed the two can interefere with eachother. I don't know if it's in the registry or what. For instance, after I installed Netscape 6 on one computer, Mozilla crashed non-stop. Anywho, I'm typing this message from Mozilla 0.7 and it's working fine, and with the "M" in the upper right.

Re:Window cloning (1)

gimpimp (218741) | more than 13 years ago | (#518332)

to be honest - i don't see the point in cloing the window (the history, yes - mozilla does this), because if you open a new window when you're viewing a page, chances are, you're going to view an entirly different site. if not, then right-click the link and view in a new window (if ie does that).

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (3)

dimator (71399) | more than 13 years ago | (#518333)

- still slower than ns 4.x.

One thing to realize is that this will doubtfully ever change. That's because 4.x's main goal when rendering a page was to throw the page onto the screen as fast as possible. This means there was hardly any DOM support, as mozilla has, and it also meant that resizing your browser window required a reload, at least from cache, of the web page. If you've noticed, mozilla dynamically moves the elements around now, when you resize your browser window.

It's give and take, people. Performance was sacrificed, at least somewhat, for DOM support.

(I don't know how much of the "new window" lag is due to the building of the DOM, and how much is the damn scripted UI. I'm not sure that I agree with the use of XUL/JS for the UI, I have a feeling it causes 80% of the lag times, although that number is completely out of my ass.)


--

Mirror links (4)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#518334)

I hope the site is not /.'ed already...

but just in case, for those who do not go there often, dozens of mirrors are listed here:

http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html [mozilla.org]

I am really looking forward to this, because NS and moz0.6 have been just a little bit problematic for me. Little things, like go to page x then open a new window go to page y, and it thinks it is still on page x. Infuriating, but what can I say.

I have great hopes for this.

Re:Don't bother bashing Mozilla. (4)

Alan (347) | more than 13 years ago | (#518336)

Things that still suck in mozilla:

- plugins... I still have yet to find a plugin system that works as well as it does on IE. In ie, when you get one of those "plugin needed" messages, you can click install, wait for a few seconds, and the page now works, no reloading, no nothing. When mozilla has this then I'll be very happy.. just a $HOME/.mozilla/plugins dir, so it's user configuable and everything.
- still slower than ns 4.x. Yes, netscape sucks, but it still appears quicker for me (1s) than mozilla (~2s) when clicked from the gnome panel. That's with an already running program btw, not from scratch.
- x509 certs.... we use encrypted mail at work and I really hate to have to run netscape for mail. When mozilla gets the ability to veryify, encode and decode verisign certs, I will be a very happy camper.

Aside from those bitches, I'm pretty happy. I don't see a huge increase over the nightly builds I've been using, but I'm sure that over .6 (wasn't it milestone 7 last time?) it's a huge improvement.

Re:If this were IE (1)

bartok (111886) | more than 13 years ago | (#518337)

Actually I don't recall ever seing a version 1.0 of IE.

Release notes (3)

abischof (255) | more than 13 years ago | (#518339)

Release notes are here [mozilla.org] . FWIW, though, I still prefer the daily builds [mozilla.org] :).

Alex Bischoff
---

Re:Its a good thing they don't guarantee dates! (1)

oolon (43347) | more than 13 years ago | (#518343)

This is what I ment to include in the last post, but I think it did some lameness filtering, so my post looked more lame :-(

James

We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.

Mozilla 0.7 - Completed January 9, 2000

Release Notes - The release notes contain installation instructions, system requirements, what's new, and a list of known issues.
Source Code Tarball for all platforms. (26.8 MB)
Localized builds and language packs - Use Mozilla in another language. (Mozilla Localization Project)

What's New (5)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518344)

The main story only touched on some of the changes such as the Personal Security Manager, which are only part of what's new for 0.7 (albeit a sorely-needed part, especially for Mac users!)

Here's the rest of what's new:
  • Personal Security Manager is now included in the win32, mac, and linux binaries. This marks the first Mac Mozilla Milestone with SSL support. The PSM 1.4 XPInstall from iPlanet will no longer work with the win32, linux or mac Mozilla 0.7 builds. This should on other platforms as well but isn't working everywhere yet.
  • Mousewheel support has greatly improved and is available for Mac for the first time with this release.
  • Mozilla now has upport for drag and drop attach files in mail.
  • Tooltips have been cleaned up significantly and now do the right thing most of the time.
  • The Mozilla news subscribe dialog has been cleaned up and and most people are now able to use news for some of the really large groups (the alt. hierarchy, for example) which used to cause all sorts of unpleasantness.
  • The problems with Microsoft Proxy Server have been resolved.
  • Context menus for the sidebar have been implemented.
  • Forced reload, not from cache (shift + reload) is new in this release.
  • Mozilla windows now remember their maximized state across sessions and child windows respect parent size.
  • Deleting of History items has been implemented.
  • commandline -version arguement was implemented.
  • Navigation back and forward in framed sites is much improved.
  • Frames can now be promoted in current window with a context menu item (show only this frame).


--

Alternate Architectures (4)

neutrino (11215) | more than 13 years ago | (#518345)

I am a huge supporter of Mozilla. It is my regular browser. I do have one wish for the more recent releases, though: Continue releasing binaries for alternate architectures. For the releases before 0.6 (all the Mxx releases), they pu up binaries for PPC, alpha and SPARC. They also released binaries for OS/2, HPUX and other more fringe oses. These weren't released at the same time as the Linux x86 and Windows binaries, but they were released. I know that I can compile it on my own machine (LinuxPPC), but their build host sits idle now instead of building other binaries. Just my thoughts, though.
--neutrino

This is the first for me (1)

Johnboy (15518) | more than 13 years ago | (#518350)

I've tried several Moz milestones, and this is the one that might allow me to torch Netscape from my hard drive (I'm posting this from 0.7 now). M12 was a good demo, but unusable. M16 showed promise, but was frustrating. M18 refused to install. I just downloaded 0.7 and love it. It's a little slow on my lowly P200/96MB, but I can live with it.

Go Mozilla!!!

Re:You said WHAT Proxy Server?? (1)

juliao (219156) | more than 13 years ago | (#518351)

sorry, should have turned on my <sarcasm> tag... :)

I actually have a couple of sites running MSPS2, so i did know about the product, and (a bit) about the problem. But thanks for the info anyway :)


-----

Re:First Impressions... (2)

ZanshinWedge (193324) | more than 13 years ago | (#518353)

Yeah, I like it too. It's really shaped up to be a "full featured browser". It supports SSL, Flash, javascript, and all the regular goodies. It's not completely spiffed up and polished yet, but that's to be expected. It's not as fast or nice as IE5, but it's actually not too much behind. Overall I'd say it's a good backup browser and I wouldn't hesitate to use it as a primary browser on linux.

Re:What's New (1)

biostatman (105993) | more than 13 years ago | (#518358)

Does anyone know if roaming profiles is going to be implemented for Mozilla? For me that is the best thing about Netscape - I don't have to worry about copying bookmarks or setting up my mail each time I install Netscape (and I can store all of that info on my own server). It also comes in handy since I dual boot on both my laptop and desktop and I can work off of the same set of bookmarks.

If Mozilla had that feature, I would no doubt be using it as my full time browser (aside from the mail client, which while nice, is rather sluggish).

Re:Mirror links (1)

Maurice (114520) | more than 13 years ago | (#518359)

You know you are linking to the same site (mozilla.org) so chances are that if I can't get to the actual page, I can't access the mirror list either.

Ouch... ATI users get burned... (2)

alexburke (119254) | more than 13 years ago | (#518365)

From the Compatibility Information [mozilla.org] :

If you are using an ATI Rage video card, images are correctly displayed initially, but may not be properly re-drawn when you minimize and maximize or resize the window.

--
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?