Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 1.0 Delayed Again

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the point-nine-beats-six-oh-anyhow dept.

Mozilla 259

Capt. Mubbers writes: "Both Mozillaquest and RootPrompt have pointers to the new Mozilla 'Tree Management' diagram which is now showing a delay until Q4 2001. Hey, I don't mind, later should mean that they are taking the time to get it right! Cough, cough Netscape 6.0." Sometimes I wish large projects would just use a series of intriguing codewords (or name+code release date), so this point-oh anxiety never had to surface.

cancel ×

259 comments

Does anyone else feel like...... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#192412)

Mozilla is going to have a hardtime finding a userbase.

1. On Windows platforms IE rules and always will, no getting away from that. The OS integration means that people are not inclined to use additional resources starting up a browser when they esentially have IE loaded from start-up

2. Mozilla on Linux IMO sucks royally and I prefer Konqueror, and I know a few developers working on browsers based on KHTML, simply because they find Gecko to be too messy and too demanding on resources.

3. Mozilla on STB's does not seem likely either. Mozilla requires too much memory and cpu power to run resonably, and is far too prone to crashing. Proof of this is the distinct lack of news about all these wonderful new peoducts that would be using mozilla. Methinks maybe the delays are in part due to the designers having to consider getting a web browser written from scratch, after them being unable to get mozilla to work within the constraints of the hardware.

Mozilla may be getting better, but it still feels as robust as a ming vase.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#192413)

Of course it hasn't. If we just settled with what there was, we would all be using horribly out-dated software that all came from the same company.
As opposed to a clone of a 30 year old operating system, running on x86 hardware? :)

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Alan (347) | more than 13 years ago | (#192416)

Yes, there are alternatives, but some of them (galeon [sourceforge.net] for example) still depend on mozilla.

As well, while mozilla may be "useless" in a way, it's still proof that open source can work. Well, that's what I'm hoping anyway. I don't think that it'll surpass the monopoly that MS has on the Windows side, but IMHO a commercial strength browser such as mozilla will help linux.

On the mac, if it's faster than the 18 bounces that IE took to start up on my friends iMac under OS/X, it'll do great things for all the macheads out there :)

Re:...! (1)

Alan (347) | more than 13 years ago | (#192417)

Besides, it's not like the salespeople couldn't use attractive codenames to sell products. Think of the number of slashdotters who'd by your widgetapplication with a codename like "NataliePortman" ;)


A project with a codename of "NataliePortman"? Where do I get me one of those?!?!?!?

:)

Codewords and one point oh. (2)

Alan (347) | more than 13 years ago | (#192419)

I completely agree. Our company uses build numbers, so customers get build 1300 or build 1422 and not "version 1.0". This is great for us developers, but the salespeople hate it! They want the ability to say [fanfar]new! version 2.0 is out![/fanfare]

With commercial products this is a sad fact of life. I think we're moving to doing it the way that VM Ware [vmware.com] does it, with a version+build ie: "1.1 (build 1321)" Guess we'll see how that works :)

Re:Check out the latest nightlies before flamming (2)

David Greene (463) | more than 13 years ago | (#192422)

Y'know, I love Mozilla. I really do. But I'm very tired of these sorts of responses. They're supposed to be working toward a 1.0 release and they're still rewriting major portions of the software? That is completely unacceptable.

'Course some of my jadedness has to do with the lack of good Mozilla support in Debian. Yeah, yeah, I know all the reasons and it's a volunteer project, etc., etc., etc. It's time to stop the excuses.

Debian rocks. I know this. Someday Mozilla will as well. But probably not before kmail shows up in Debian with IMAP support at which point I'm long gone.

--

Mozilla cache still not optimal? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 13 years ago | (#192423)

IMO opinion what makes Mozilla slow is not only the themes but the way it caches pages. Compare to Opera and you'll see what I mean. Mozilla seems to re-render the page each time you flip back and then forward (yes, I've set the preferences to never compare the page). Opera seems to cache the entire rendered page, so it's lightning fast.
Anyone know for a fact?

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (2)

sheldon (2322) | more than 13 years ago | (#192430)

Umm... You must not be aware that Mozilla started from the Netscape code base. Netscape released their source back in '97, what was then probably a later 4.x release.

Mozilla appears to have spent the last 3 years cleaning up the mess, trying to get it to handle standards compliant HTML, etc.

My suspicion is that the Netscape code was a complete utter mess, and the Microsoft code is much more clean and object-oriented thus making it easier to maintaing and extend.

This may be more of a battle between hackers and mature software engineers than it is open and closed source.

Right on time. :/ (1)

Thorgal (3103) | more than 13 years ago | (#192433)

This is hardly news, as the new roadmap has been displayed on mozilla.org for at least a few weeks now.

Instead of complaining about not being able to get v1.0 faster, better take a look on tremendous improvements that have been done starting with release 0.7. I'm now using Mozilla as my primary browser, have no compaints about stability (I'm talking about the browser, mind you) and as soon as Mail module gets faster, I'll finally remove Navigator from my HD.
--

Galileo^WGaleon (4)

Booker (6173) | more than 13 years ago | (#192438)

Don't you mean Galeon [sourceforge.net] ?

Re:Does it matter? (2)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 13 years ago | (#192439)

Here's the thing: Konqueror and Opera both stink. The reason they have been developed quickly is that neither of them correctly implement HTTP, HTML, DOM, or CSS. Mozilla implements these things more correctly than Opera and Konqueror and consequently takes a development speed and runtime performance hit.

If anyone is really interested, I'll post a list of sites that Opera and Konqueror foul up that Mozilla get right. There are a lot of such sites. Browsers like Konqueror and Opera, that pay lip service to standards but don't implement them, are holding back the development of new techniques and technologies on the web.

You mean... (2)

cluening (6626) | more than 13 years ago | (#192443)

(or name+code release date)

Oh, you mean like Windows 95/98/2000 and most any other Micros~1 product? I had always (or at least since 1995) thought that was rather annoying...

Re:Does it matter? (2)

cluening (6626) | more than 13 years ago | (#192444)

Well, it's an up-to-date clone of a 30 year old OS. And since the basic idea behind computers hasn't changed all that much in the last 30 years (excluding clustering and stuff like that), I think that is fine...

Re:Does it matter? (3)

cluening (6626) | more than 13 years ago | (#192445)

Does Linux really matter? On the x86 side we have Windows, Solaris, and *BSD, and on the Mac side there are a couple versions of MacOS that act fairly differently. Hasn't the ship passed already?

Of course it hasn't. If we just settled with what there was, we would all be using horribly out-dated software that all came from the same company. And anyway, Opera isn't open source, and Konq is fairly tightly tied in with KDE. What about Gnome users or people like me who tend to just use fvwm and no extra desktop stuff? Mozilla is great in my mind...

Um... (3)

MikeV (7307) | more than 13 years ago | (#192448)

Does Linux matter anymore? We have Windows. Does Netscape matter anymore? We have IE. Does BSD matter anymore? We have Linux. Does C matter anymore? We have C++. Does C++ matter anymore? We have C#. Does Gnome matter anymore? We have KDE. Dude, listen to yourself. If you like Opera - knock yourself out. Mozilla lives because people are honestly interested in it. I'm interested in it. Not because it's better than so-n-so. There are features in Mozilla that extend it beyond just being a browser - in fact it seems to be heading towards the next generation of web-based application services via XUL. If you don't want all that jaz, grab Opera and be happy. But don't say the ship has passed - you don't say that about an Open Source project. Ships only pass commercial ventures. Hell, Windows has the basket of eggs when it comes to market-share. So does that mean the ship has passed for Linux? I couldn't care less if every commercial venture using Linux fails - as long as there is Open Source, I'm happy. For me, the ship is in and will remain so as long as I'm happy with the choice I've made. If you prefer Microsoft, or KDE or balloons in your ears - it's fine by me. That's the beauty about true freedom.

Please be aware that most of the software you use every day on your Linux box is pre-1.0. Even then, it's often better and more stable than any MS product. Most of the rest is some beta version of this or that - pretty much, to use Linux is to live with the bleeding edge. Just because Mozilla hasn't released a 1.0 product doesn't mean 0.9 sucks. Hell, check out the versioning of Windowmaker and Enlightenment. Or Bluefish. Better yet - the time it took for kernel 2.4 to be released. Does that mean that 2.2 sucks or that the ship has passed for Linux? Hell no - I still use 2.2 on my box. It suites me fine. One of these days I'll mosey around to getting it upgraded to 2.4 - but at my convenience. I'm in no hurry. I use Mozilla 0.9 as my primary browser, mail client and test platform for web applications development. It tickles my fancy. I'll continue using Mozilla because I like it. Its got bugs, but I can live with it. It may not be as fast as Opera, but my system kicks butt, so it's not such a big deal for me. But I'm the last person to critisize someone for using Opera or Konquerer. I use Opera on my win-boxes to test CSS layout. And IE 5 and 5.5. And even Netscape 4.77. (all but Mozilla strictly for testing purposes). If you think Mozilla has some problems, rather than complaining about the "ship passing", contribute to the project and make it better. Code, or debug, or whatnot. That's how Open Source works. There's no room for complaints without offers to help.

Reminder on Performance... (3)

MikeV (7307) | more than 13 years ago | (#192449)

The cycle of software development (at least for OSS that I know of) seems to follow this pattern:

Features
Debugging
Optimization

Mozilla, as of v0.9 is now entering the serious Optimization faze. That's why it was a serious mistake for AOL to produce Netscape 6 based on Mozilla v0.6. Lotsa features, but lotsa bugs and virtually zero optimization. Bad Form, AOL. I'd be happy if AOL killed Netscape altogether - Mozilla certainly isn't dependent on Netscape - of course a few of the developers may have to find other jobs so I'll bite my tongue :). Sure, there's still a lot of debugging going on - that'll happen right up to and after the 1.0 release just like it happens with every other OSS project, Linux included, but the concentration now is making things more efficient and faster. While we probably won't see as quick a Mozilla as, say, Opera, it'll certainly be as quick as or faster than the Netscape 4 series, which for decent computers (or even slow ones) was fast enough. Work is also progressing on making startup faster. IE only seems to start up faster because the core of it starts up when MS Windows starts up. Mozilla and other apps don't have that luxury, but there are other tricks to get things cooking a little faster.

Mozilla is also more than just a classic browser. It has to be to survive in the upcoming state of computing. Ideally, there will come a time when the only app you'll need is Mozilla. You'll have your Office apps, messenging, graphics and general applications rolled up into one shell. These apps will be able to either be located on your system, or remotely on servers. This may not set will with everyone, but then that's what freedom of choice is for.

If you're not satisfied with the speed of things but still like Mozilla, then jump in and help out. There can't be too much help. OSS projects are what you make of them - and as long as there are interested developers and users, the project will live on.

Re:Now I trust them again!! (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 13 years ago | (#192450)

I'm feeling the same way. I recently downloaded a Mozilla nightly to the Win2k partition because I was sick and tired of IE crashing. Much to my surprise, it tends to render complicated pages faster than IE 5.5. I have used Mozilla on Linux for a long time since I do not run Konqueror or Opera for religious reasons, but I had sort of given up on Mozilla on Windows. Not anymore.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

BrerBear (8338) | more than 13 years ago | (#192453)

Agreed, under OS X I think Mozilla is a much better choice.

I'm running Mac Mozilla nightlies on an OS X G4 400 MHz and I find that Mozilla (in Classic) is faster than IE 5.1 (Carbon). Scrolling in IE is jerky and live resizing and refreshing are painful. It doesn't look like the MacIE team has made any improvements since 5.0 came out long ago. The only place IE bests Mozilla is (very slightly) in startup time.

If Mozilla would get mouse wheel scrolling working under OS X I wouldn't need IE any more at all.

What I want to know is... (2)

benmhall (9092) | more than 13 years ago | (#192455)

What all of the different daily builds for Linux do.

What's the difference between the following:
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz
mozilla-gcc295-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz

Not to mention the various embed-* versions?

I alternate between the sea and not sea versions and notice no difference. I'm assuming they use gcc295 to compile the -gcc295 version, but what do they use to compile the other versions, and why is a gcc295 version needed? Also, what do and don't the embedded versions give you?

My thanks go out to the person that clarifies all of this.

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 13 years ago | (#192460)

Whoever is the one to allow the disabling of popups, will be the most popular browser on the internet. This is fact.

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 13 years ago | (#192461)

My understanding is that even Gnome has a browser, not as far along as Konquerer, but it's there. Don't use Gnome much, so I don't know the name, but it's there

Does it matter? (3)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 13 years ago | (#192462)

I'm wondering if Mozilla matters anymore. On the Linux side we already have alternatives in Konquerer and Opera. On Windows and MAC, IE does a good job. And these alternatives don't try to be anything but browsers.

Hasn't the ship passed already?

Re:Does it matter? (1)

thegrommit (13025) | more than 13 years ago | (#192463)

What's your context? In terms of a browser that's widely deployed on desktop PC's - no it doesn't matter as much as it would have a year ago.

In terms of the development of the web and the adoption of open standards? Yes, it does matter.

As non-traditional computing devices become popular, efforts like Moz will be crucial in ensuring genuine interoperability between devices. You may have noticed for example that the nightly builds include a separate build for those who are using Moz embedded within other programs.

Needless to say, I'd suggest taking a broader view of the importance of Mozilla than just the desktop PC.

so everyone but #1 should give up? (1)

raistlinne (13725) | more than 13 years ago | (#192466)

Haven't you ever heard of the rule of 3 for microsoft? Every version of microsoft software before version 3 (and sometimes including it) is a useless piece of shit that noone uses.

But that never stops microsoft. They just keep putting money and time into it until they've got a workable enough product, and enough of their other products depend on it, then they win.

But of course, persistance is a losing strategy. If you're not #1 you should just give up. What a brilliant strategy.

Doesn't anyone study history any more?

is this really a suprise?? (3)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 13 years ago | (#192467)

If you look at open source projects, do they ever really meet a deadline? Mostly they just move along until they think that it is good for release. Usually this waiting pays off in the end too. Look at kde 2.0 it was worth the wait, and they quickly cleaned it up and put out 2.1, which has Konqueror, and is actually pretty sweet.

The Linux kernel is another example. They wanted a 1 year deadline and it turned into about two.

Now there is really nothing wrong with this in my opinion as it is better to release software that is good and works right than to just release software.

I know that there are many software companies that believe in 6 month release of their software and rolling it out not fully tested. The clients test it and then report the bugs and then we fix them. It sort of works and prevents scope creep.

I think that mozilla has suffered from scope creap. Rather than taking Netscape 4 and improving lets say the rendering system and the networking they redid it from scratch. They could have started on one or two systems and then release a 5.0 browser. Then made bug fixes, then started on other systems. I thought the initial goal was to make a small light browser. At 12 Megs or so of a download it is relly not much smaller (if any) than netscape 4.x.

WIth AOL not shipping AOL 6.0 with mozilla / netscape, who is their target audience at this point? I run linux and use konq or netscape 4.x. Untill I get my 850Mhz or better with loads of RAM (512Mor more) I think I'll steer clear of mozilla.

Yes I know this will probably be flamed, but am I wrong?

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#192469)

MS is gonna start pushing proprietory technology which will do this more easily. Oh, but your users have to be using Microsoft technology.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The web controls that you can program to using the upcoming ASP.net produce HTML 3.2-compliant code, with XHTML being a possible option for the final release.


Cheers,

Re:Um... (3)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#192471)

Funny how the wind changes so quickly around here. Of course, when Microsoft came out with C#, there were numerous people around here asking why another language was needed. (As opposed to the false situation that you put forth. Where are all these people saying, "Does C++ matter anymore? We have C#."). Microsoft came out with SOAP, and again many people around here tell us that it's not needed because there's other ways of doing it. And so on.

Please be aware that most of the software you use every day on your Linux box is pre-1.0. Even then, it's often better and more stable than any MS product.

Complete bullshit.

to use Linux is to live with the bleeding edge

No it isn't. Bleeding edge means that there's a certain amount of pain involved with being on the forefront. You have the certain amount of pain, all right, but there's nothing about Linux which is out in front of the pack. Unless you really consider a Unix rehash, MS Office ripoffs, COM imitations, or ways to make your desktop look and act more like Windows/MacOS to be on the forefront of software design. I'm sure someone will mod me down for pointing this out, although I'd rather someone try to prove my points wrong, instead.


Cheers,

...! (3)

SimplyCosmic (15296) | more than 13 years ago | (#192475)

As a user, the traditional X.x numbering system really hasn't helped in the least, as I've seen many a 0.xx applications that work better than 6.xx versions, and so forth. I'd much prefer the codename + build number system

Besides, it's not like the salespeople couldn't use attractive codenames to sell products. Think of the number of slashdotters who'd by your widgetapplication with a codename like "NataliePortman" ;)

Re:It NEEDS integration with the GNU/Linux kernal (1)

g.a.g (16798) | more than 13 years ago | (#192478)

Surely, this is satire, isn't it?

If not, let me throw in a couple of thoughts. Linux nowadays starts up much faster than Windows. If you use the graphical subsystem (X), it still is slightly faster in a typical environment (ie, my set-up ;). Actually, starting up Konqueror from the KDE environment takes roughly as long as starting up IE5.5 from Windows98. This just means that a lot of the libraries is already preloaded - you pay for that with a longer start-up time until your system is useful at all. And have you ever waited for Outlook to load the MSHTML.dll? That also takes ages.

Point two: the software complexity. A group as loosely connected as the Linux kernel (sic!) hackers have to work on problems that are fairly well separated. Problems in one area shouldn't affect other areas, and GNU/Linux is doing a pretty good job at keeping different things different. There is nothing preventing people from using Linux without a nice point-and-click interface, if you don't need it. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing you from building a distro that preloads all necessary libraries and gives users the feeling of a fast browser start-up.

Complexity due to too large interdependencies between functionally unrelated areas might be (IANAWP (Windows Programmer)) one of the reasons why Windows has the instability it has. Ever thought of that?

Now, to finish this on a lighter note, having the xhtml.dll (or .so) in the widget subsystem used by every other application might actually be a good idea. Just hope that all programs are extremely stable, or the shared library will take everything down with one maladjusted application.

Check out the latest nightlies before flamming (4)

ShieldWolf (20476) | more than 13 years ago | (#192481)

Mozilla has progressed very far over the past few weeks or so with many rewrites landing in the tree (image loading, cache re-write, new skin, new history etc.). The new skin, Modern 3, is much nicer than any proceeding it, reminding me of MSN Explorer in pleasing asthetics. The guys working on this have put in a hell of a lot of effort and time, I think we can all wait a little longer. I would hate to see them rush right at the end and prove all the naysayers right.

-ShieldWolf

Re:Does it matter? (2)

jilles (20976) | more than 13 years ago | (#192482)

Opera is great on machines with little memory. I just installed it on my fathers five year old pentium 120/16Mb over the weekend. It runs great & fast too, unlike nutscrape!

Insightful? (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 13 years ago | (#192483)

There must be plenty of moderators with a sense of humour floating around today

Forgetting how much of a bad idea it may be, the Linux kernel is GPL'd and Mozilla isn't so you simply cannot combine them legally.

That said, Mozilla now has a -turbo startup parameter which will make the browser start up and show no windows, so Mozilla can be made to load at boot time for faster later use on Windows. I think this "turbo" mode is also planned for other OSes in time.

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (2)

abelsson (21706) | more than 13 years ago | (#192484)

hem, one word:
Konqueror.

It's as good or possibly better tha Mozilla and IE and was developed in a true OSS fashion with no commercial backing in less than two years (i think - anyone know when konq. dev started?).

-henrik

Re:You mean... (1)

asland (26316) | more than 13 years ago | (#192486)

No, he means like foopackage-05-12-2001a.tgz

Re:You mean... (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 13 years ago | (#192487)

I thought he meant "Mozilla XP", or "Netscape TNG".

Re:Does it matter? (1)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 13 years ago | (#192488)

If you know of any websites which Konqueror doesn't correctly display, then submit a bugreport to them (http://bugs.kde.org). It already in 2.1.1 copes with a much wider range of poorly coded websites than 2.0 did. That would take about the same time as posting a list to here, and would be much more useful to the developers. Believe it or not, the developers don't sit back all day, cackling at the fact that their programs doesn't let you view pages correctly -- they can't fix problems until they have test cases, and it sounds like you have found some.

Post them here if you like, and I'll verify that they don't work on the most recent CVS development snapshot. I'll even submit the bug report for you if you want.

Re:Check out the latest nightlies before flamming (1)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 13 years ago | (#192489)

Exactly. Some of the Mozilla subsystems are in their third rewrite, and we've not had a version 1 yet! I don't see why they can't just say "right. no more API changes, no more rewrites. let's spend the next 3 months making everything stable, and release 1.0". Then they can release a 1.1 6 months later with whatever enhancements they want. They shouldn't be shooting for perfection with their first stable release.

Look at KDE (or XFree86 or the Linux Kernel). Eventually, they got to a point in the development of their 2.0 (resp. 4.0 resp. 2.4) release where they realised that they could fritter their lives away trying for perfection. With KDE, they made a 2.0 release that wasn't fully satisfactory, but it gave them a base to get feedback and build on that they just wouldn't have had if they hadn't released it -- and 2.1.1/2 is the stable result. The same goes for the other two projects mentioned -- eventually you just have to stop adding features.

The incredible thing about Mozilla is how incredibly badly the project has been managed. KDE have written an entire desktop environment since Mozilla was announced... governments have fallen... continents have crumbled... It's a perfect example of how *not* to manage a large complicated project.

Re:No software engineers here!! (1)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 13 years ago | (#192490)

Sorry, but there is no way you can hold up the Mozilla development process as a standard of excellence.

There are two seperate issues here, which are getting confused by some people. The first is the one you mentioned: that .0 releases should be fuctionally complete and bug free. This is a laudable aim, but not always achievable, particularly in the context of an enthusiast led, non full-time development workforce. Sometimes, as with the Linux 2.4.0 release, you *need* to release something as .0 in order to get your workforce to rally round and start debugging :). There's an apt quote about 'herding cats' about this on the tip of my tongue...

Of course, in a commercial environment forcing people to debug in such a drastic fashion isn't necessary (in some utopial ideal world :) ). Given that, until recently, almost all the coding on Mozilla was being done by paid Netscape engineers, you would expect a degree of planning and management to be evident. So, the second issue is the Mozilla development process itself. Mozilla seems to have turned in to a 'developers playground', initially overdesigned and poorly implemented, and subsequently rewritten ad infinitum.

It's very possible that we could have had a decent, workable Mozilla 1.0 a year ago, had the developers focused on reasonable aims. Instead they wanted to write the browser-to-end-all-browsers at their very first try, and this interminable delay is the result.
The annoying thing is that this failure of a commercial company, developing in a commercial bloated over designed fashion, has been held up as an example of the failures of Open Source development.

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (2)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 13 years ago | (#192495)

...which is why they abandoned the 4.7 codebase and started from scratch, so it doesn't actually share any code. Mozilla has actually been written from the ground up.

Which was their choice. They still started with a mature codebase; scrapping the old stuff mid-go is no excuse if you're a commercial software engineer - you still have to hit your targets.

Simon

Re:It NEEDS integration with the GNU/Linux kernal (1)

korr (32867) | more than 13 years ago | (#192498)

Internet Explorer does not have integration with the kernel. IE is a user-level app, (part of explorer.exe, which is the windows desktop environment). IMHO, Internet Explorer's integration with windows is equivalent to the integration Konqueror has with KDE. Putting a web-browser into the kernel would be an a very stupid thing to do, since html/javascript engines are very unpredictable and unstable beasts.

Re:Does it matter? (2)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#192499)

What exactly do you mean by "commercial strength"?

What's lacking in Konqueror or Opera that you don't consider them "commercial strength"?

Personally I still use Netscape 4.73 on Linux, and have never seen reason to switch. I've tried Opera and Konqueror just out of curiosity, and have tried Netscape 6.0 on Windows, not to mention Mozilla ? very briefly on Mandrake 8.0, but at then end of the day Netscape 4.73 is working fine for me, and I see no reason to switch.

On the odd occasion I use Windows I use Netscape 4.73 there too (plus I use it on Solaris at work, for which IE is also available), even though enough people say IE is better that I'm willing to believe them. Netscape does everything I want, so I'm sticking with it!

Re:What I want to know is... (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 13 years ago | (#192508)

sea are usually the seamonkey builds from stable source. the rest are developer only daily checkouts. embed* versions are for embedding the moz engine into GTK and sometimes you get talkback enabled versions which allow the talkback code to run and report crashes automatically. there are also psm releases with the personal security manager enabled but those have become the default and they dropped *psm and *talkback.
if you want stable use seamonkey *sea
if you want unstable use the daily checkouts.
gcc 2.9.5 is unstable gcc and gcc 2.7* or 2.8* i think was stable gcc which most stable versions are compiled with.
hope this helps..

Re:Does it matter? (3)

HerrNewton (39310) | more than 13 years ago | (#192510)

IE for MacOS X is in a horrid state of affairs right now, to the point where running IE5 in Classic is a better option.

A better comparisson would be Mozilla .9 and IE 5.0 running under MacOS 9.1 (not in Classic -- machine booted into MacOS 9.1) In that environment, IE wins hands down as the speed demon. Mozilla seems very slooooooow on window operations under MacOS 9.1

----

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (2)

roca (43122) | more than 13 years ago | (#192513)

That would be Mozilla then.

user_pref("capability.policy.default.windowinter na l.open","noAccess");

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/compone nt s/configPolicy.html

Re:Does it matter? (2)

divec (48748) | more than 13 years ago | (#192516)

I'm wondering if Mozilla matters anymore. On the Linux side we already have alternatives in Konquerer and Opera. On Windows and MAC, IE does a good job.

ATM, it is an utter pain trying to design an interactive, HTML-based web site (even something comparatively simple like an online shop). It's incredibly labour-intensive. MS is gonna start pushing proprietory technology which will do this more easily. Oh, but your users have to be using Microsoft technology. Then you can start to kiss goodbye to things like Apache's market share.

There are a few things out there that may yet stop this happening. Java is one of them; XUL could potentially be another. Opera and Konqueror are "just trying to be browsers". That's fine for today, but if you're anxious about tomorrow then hope Mozilla takes off.

Just my 2p.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 13 years ago | (#192519)

That it still has the same basic design after 30 years is a testament to how *right* it is, not how outmoded and outdated it is.

I still don't understand all the fuss... (5)

SmileyBen (56580) | more than 13 years ago | (#192520)

I just don't get why people think that Mozilla is taking so long. Everyone says 'Look at IE5.5, it's really good now'. But Microsoft have been developing IE for what, 4 / 5 years? Which basically means if by Q4 Mozilla is as good (and I honestly believe it will be better - and certainly technically more impressive, which will translate to future improvability) then mozilla.org has done what Microsoft did in a year less.

Mozilla appears chronologically after MSIE. So what? I know all the arguments about the browser war being lost, but I'm not so convinced, especially will the emergence of all the new platforms. Fact is, come 1.0, anyone will have the tools available to zap their new improved browser / internet suite / revolutionary cutting edge killer app into being in a very short time. Perhaps people won't adopt Mozilla, but the opportunity to do so and not reinvent the wheel is /surely/ what free software is about?

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (5)

SmileyBen (56580) | more than 13 years ago | (#192521)

Erm. You're half right. The Netscape code was a complete and utter mess...

...which is why they abandoned the 4.7 codebase and started from scratch, so it doesn't actually share any code. Mozilla has actually been written from the ground up.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

dinky (58716) | more than 13 years ago | (#192522)

If anyone is really interested, I'll post a list of sites that Opera and Konqueror foul up that Mozilla get right.

Go ahead and post them, I'm interested :)

Re:I still don't understand all the fuss... (1)

dinky (58716) | more than 13 years ago | (#192523)

I beleive it was in October 1999.

This is what kernel modules are for (4)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 13 years ago | (#192524)

But I wonder how much performance you could really hope to gain from this approach though..

Mozilla, being a heavily graphical app, probably won't benefit much from kernel integration, since fetching the pages from the web via the network stack, storing them in memory/disk, and reading the data back out - typically kernel operations, probably take no time at all compared to the thrashing, blocking and redundant redraws that contribute to mozilla's perceived slowness.

XML support in the kernel - hmm.. i'm not sure if you'd see much performance boost here either - building node trees and traversing them might benefit from kernel integration, but if youre worried about parsing performance, then why use XML?

If youre going to put an XML parser in the kernel, then why not embed Perl in there as well? And once you have Perl in the kernel, it makes sense to add Python too. Pretty soon, the idea of having a 'kernel' disappears.

Word processing in the kernel?? Now i *know* the crack where you live is really good.

Remember there are good reasons for separating kernel and user-space activities. This stuff just plain doesn't belong in the kernel at all.

Keep the core kernel as lean as possible, and focus on doing the few things you need to do extremely well i.e. hardware interfaces, memory management and synchronisation functions.

Codewords: no proper ordering (2)

Baki (72515) | more than 13 years ago | (#192530)

I don't like codewords. For the uninitiated, it is completely unclear what release a codeword stands for (i.e. is it in the future or not. what is the order etc).

An example is the Sun JDK. They use codewords internally. In the bugtracking system you see messages like: "fixed in merlin". Wtf does that mean? Is that the next release, or a release that is already in the past?

If I have 1.4 now, and it says "fixed in 1.5" than I know it'll be fixed soon or even be in a release that I can already download. If it says "fixed in 1.3" than I know that I already have the fix. With codenames, there is no proper ordering.

Re:Check out the latest nightlies before flamming (1)

Brandon Hume (73471) | more than 13 years ago | (#192533)

I don't see why they can't just say "right. no more API changes, no more rewrites. let's spend the next 3 months making everything stable, and release 1.0".

Because sometimes the fixes REQUIRE a rewrite. And for the obnoxious and ignorant individuals who get righteous and say "they should have done it right the first time": then what the hell do we need version numbers FOR?

They shouldn't be shooting for perfection with their first stable release.

They're getting slagged now because they're shooting for perfection. If they put out a browser now, they'd be slagged for NOT producing perfection.

In short, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.

Personally, I'll pick the "damned" that produces superior software. Other people can feel free to grab one of the milestones, and do a search and replace for the version number to make it "1.0". Hell, commercial organizations do it!


--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/

But... But... (3)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 13 years ago | (#192534)



I thought the proper procedure for releasing a program is to release whatever you have on the original release date you set. I mean, if Apple says so, it must be true.....

For the ignorant with too many mod points, that was humor. Just so you know.....

Threaded pr0n?!? (1)

D4MO (78537) | more than 13 years ago | (#192535)

What's that on the road map image at the bottom of More crash landings?

version numbers (1)

jrennie (79374) | more than 13 years ago | (#192536)

I've always liked yyyymmdd version numbers. Then, not only are all version numbers equally boring, but you can always tell how many days (months (years)) it's been since the last Mozilla release :)

Jason

No software engineers here!! (5)

Rexifer (81021) | more than 13 years ago | (#192537)

Many of the comments here summarize all that I hate about the software development field. First, never, ever, ever, *ever* beat anyone over the head for being honest about delays. Always let developers be upfront. Second, the "point-oh" thing used to mean that "this software meets the functionality specified in the RCS for this version." The "build number" let's-give-them-a-compile-drop mentality that Microsoft has pushed on us has put software engineering standards a few generations, and I find it funny that Slashdot is officially sanctioning it.

Aargh!!!!

Yes it DOES matter :) (2)

zensonic (82242) | more than 13 years ago | (#192538)

Does it matter?

Yes SIZE does matter, and when you take a look at how big mozilla is then ofcouse it matters. :)

On a serios note, yes it really does matter. Mozilla is aiming at being the most standards compliant browser out there. There's a reason for mozilla being large: It needs to implement a lot of standards.

One part of me wishes the best for the mozilla project bacause it will show us the web as originally envisioned: Same look of pages across any OS. Another part of me is filled with sceptism about the price (in terms of performance and/or memory usage) being paid for the standard compliance being too large.

In any case it'll be interesting to see what comes of it when the project is over. In any case it is worth the effort. Either we'll go: "it could be done but what a slow browser, lets go make something else", or we'll really appriciate what the mozilla team did.

smaller faster (1)

wfrp01 (82831) | more than 13 years ago | (#192539)

To relieve point-oh anxiety, I wish developers would simply release small, then add features later. Instead, we have these gargantuan product definitions that take years on end to reach the point where anyone with work to do would consider taking a peek. And we know what happens then - all the moldering bugs come out. So it's really point oh-one or oh-two we /really/ want.

Concentrate on getting it right (4)

AirLace (86148) | more than 13 years ago | (#192542)

Quite frankly, Mozilla is usable for day-to-day home use now. I would much rather the Mozilla team take as much time as they deem necessary to reach a "1.0" release, rather than end up with another Netscape 6 debacle. If you find Moz too slow, or just don't want to try anything prior to 1.0, Konqueror is quite good. Opera is OK if you can get past the clutter and stand that it's proprietary, and one of the Gecko-embedded projects like Gaelon [sourceforge.net] or K-Meleon [k-meleon.org] might be more up your alley.


If all else fails, there's always w3m, lynx and links - pure content, no frills :)


There are already several good browsers for Linux. And Mozilla will be around long after nobody can remeber just quite what Internet Explorer actually used to be.

MozillaQuest is complete garbage (5)

twjordan (88132) | more than 13 years ago | (#192544)

This isn't a troll, just a warning. Take anything you read on MozillaQuest with a planet-sized grain of salt. The guy who writes the articles is, unfortunately, clueless.

Tony

Instead of flaming each other, consider this... (5)

slashbrent (102855) | more than 13 years ago | (#192554)

1) Whats the rush for AOL to release the new browser now that AOL is going with IE [slashdot.org] ? None.

2) The release schedule in actuality has not changed. Go to mozillaquest [mozillaquest.com] and compare the two graphics for yourself - they only moved the 'X' further along and pushed the 1.0 grey branch down - the point releases have not been moved, hence, the production schedule remains the same.

3) I use mozilla day-in-and-day-out - i'm using it right now. It beats the sh*t out of IE. Why? Because if we have no other choice, and we all had to use IE, as soon as M$ sees no more competition, they will stop producing the crappy thing for other platforms. Oh, sorry Steve Jobs, we decided that Mac's are too difficult to support, bye. Then what would us Linux, BeOS, Sun, Amiga, HP, and others do? Stop using the web. Riiiiiiiiight. Time to swtich to Windows! What else has M$ showed over the years other than the ability to twist peoples arms and make them use Windows?

4) For the love of God, people - quit frickin' cutting our own throats. Mozilla is our ONLY major OpenSource platform for web applications. (Which, hopefully, some of you more intelligent slashdotters realise is the future of the web.) If you dont like it, download it [mozilla.org] and try it again - like now, today. If you still dont like it - SHUT UP! We could kick each other in the teeth day after day about how Redhat is more secure than LinuxPPC, or how Mandrake is better for newbies, ow what have you, but what does that accomplish? NOTHING. The best thing you could ever hopw of your competition is that they attack each other - united we stand folks, divided we fall.

Mozilla - you're soaking in it.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

imr (106517) | more than 13 years ago | (#192560)

I use konqueror in blackbox and have no trouble. So where is your point?
As much as I like the mozilla project, and although I don't care there is delay as long as the project is going on and improving, I can see the point in the "Hasn't the ship passed already?" interrogation .
And you haven't answered it yet. I'm sure you could have. The ship isn't about differences for the sake of the right to difference. The ship is about being at the right place at the right time (TM Ellington).

Re:It NEEDS integration with the GNU/Linux kernal (2)

aralin (107264) | more than 13 years ago | (#192562)

*sigh* You definitely are *NOT* tech saavy and it shows. Integrating Mozilla in the Linux kernel is the worst idea I've ever heard. Why?
  1. The kernel would be even more bloated/slower than its now and it would not help a single bit.
  2. The kernel would be less secure and stable because of the additional code.
  3. Microsoft did not integrate IE into their kernel, my god. They integrated it into their OS, which is VERY different. There is no special code for IE in any M$ kernel!
  4. M$ integrated IE into Windows at the level of shared libraries and highly reusable shared components.
  5. And this is exactly what is Mozilla doing now. Its a set of shared libraries and highly reusable components used to build several basic applications. (Browser, Mail, News, Chat, IM, Image Viewer, HTML/XML Editor, and others.)

So please stop talking nonsence and look better on what is actually done on both sides.

Re:libpr0n (2)

Maurice (114520) | more than 13 years ago | (#192565)

The image loading/rendering library for Mozilla is internally known as libpr0n. An appropriate name IMHO.

Mozilla 1.0 was not delayed (5)

hixie (116369) | more than 13 years ago | (#192567)

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2] [mozilla.org] , I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4] [mozilla.org] , it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] [mozilla.org] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] [mozilla.org] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

  1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif [mozilla.org]
  2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png [mozilla.org]
  3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png [mozilla.org]
  4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png [mozilla.org]
  5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png [mozilla.org]
  6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png [mozilla.org]

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document [mozilla.org] .

Re:Does it matter? (1)

ekidder (121911) | more than 13 years ago | (#192568)

Ooooohhh. Komodo is a very sore spot with me right now. I generally find Mozilla mockworthy on its own merit and Komodo, well, ... it's been crashing like mad, menus take at least a second to open, it isn't handling my perl modules at all. I went back to use Notetab Plus. Mozilla itslef works about the same for me. The menus come up lickity split and the rendering is decent, but I've found new and exciting ways to kill it ^_^

Re:Does it matter? (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#192571)

IE on the Mac is alright, but it has some incredibly annoying behaviour, such as the hardcoded limit on the number of bookmarks it will show in the drop down menu, or the download manager that forgets the location its told to put files, or the broken multi-column selection, or lack of keyboard shortcuts for selecting text fields.

Re:Mozilla is being delayed (3)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#192573)

I am writing this from a nightly build which I have had running all day without a crash. Considering that its running on a Mac where ever MS IE crashes every couple of hours I think that speaks volumes for its stability.

Certainly there are a few bugs, but this really is a becoming an extremely solid browser.

meanwhile (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 13 years ago | (#192575)

IE grabs more marketshare. Concentrate on making a small fast browser! Not mail/news/irc/aim/shopping.

its been 3 years (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 13 years ago | (#192576)

And I don't see a product thats capable of being shipped. It took MS less time to overtake Netscape in numbers of users. Until Mozilla runs better than IE 5.5 there is no way I plan to switch.

Mozilla is a total rewrite. (1)

Xiphoid Process (153566) | more than 13 years ago | (#192586)

And thank god, 4.7 was showing its age.

Mozilla (and the subtle currents it rides on). (4)

hackus (159037) | more than 13 years ago | (#192588)

Mozilla is not just a browser. (I don't mean at the app level, such as the mail client, etc.)

It is much more than that. What is interesting I find about the process of Mozilla in and of itself is the fact that considering what had to be done 3 years ago, and looking at the quality of the code in the Tinderbox Seamonkey CVS tree, I am impressed with the design quality of the code compared to commercial efforts in this area.

(A rewrite wouldn't have been required if commercial efforts didn't produce such a poorly designed product.)

Obviously, a lot more thought went into the engineering and design of the browser first, before development began. I suspect, like a Tsunami that travels thousands of miles as a 1 inch high wave, hardly noticeable, Mozilla will really start to tower over other browsers in the next 6-9 months as it approaches shores of a 1.0 release. I am not talking about feature sets either.

The largest impact Mozilla could have in the areas of browsers could very well be cell/Yopi like devices that require easy to build sharp looking interfaces for embedded systems like PDA's with wireless internet access.

That is perhaps just one area, but with these thoughts in mind, a browser of this capability, available on all platforms, could very well break Linux and other operating systems onto the desktop in the next 3-4 years, making native apps a non requirement for doing business on the desktop.

For example, Linux is more than a match with Kernel 2.4.x for poor Microsoft 2000, in the server room. Not yet on the desktop though, but only because of the apps situation.

But in any case, if the mozilla team decided to stay focused on the 3 things below:

1) Speed.
2) Bugs.
3) Feature Set Freeze for the API/Browser apps.

If these things can be done over a 6-9 month period of time, I am sure the release 1.0 will be a very shiny product.

AND IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO RUN EVERYWHERE.
(BeOS, Linux, Windows, Sun, PDA's, Cell Phones, etc.)

More than a match for poor little IE.

That is the first thing that needs to be done to get rid of IE's growing influence, which if left unchecked, could make every dialup/cable session a very painful experience for one's checkbook with .NET just around the corner.

Microsoft has some very very nasty things planned during the .NExT 4 years for all of us should they succeed.

I really would hate to see a "Microsoft Internet" and a everyone else internet.

(The subtle currents part running through this drama...could be a rant, or the truth. You decide.)

We already are starting to see this sort of philosophy with patents. Scientific research is slowing to a crawl in BIOTECH, because information cannot be used, or obtained, while millions around the world are delayed the cures they need for diseases and die as a result. Pay as you go absurd patents don't do science any good, unless you want to take another THOUSAND YEARS to develop a cure for the common cold!

Obviously, a single organization with perhaps a few thousand employees is not going to do the research faster for ANYTHING vs. the millions of people world wide in BioTECH could do if and only if, they cold get access to the information they need to do research.

Sound familair? Welcome to .NET philosophy my friends.

Now, instead of taking a few hundred years to make advances in science, we can take a few THOUSAND years to do the same thing because 10 times the amount of people and infrastructure can't look at information unless they pay as they go!

We don't need one company controlling the entire internet with a default install out of the box that asks you to pay everytime you click on the mouse!

Philosophically, a lot hinges on Open Source development and the nets future to establish precedence that sharing information is far more economically attractive. Hopefully, will in the end, not only win out, but demonstrate that these sorts of philosophies (.NET, absurd biotech patents, etc.) lead to a great deal of misery for those that lack power and wealth in the world.

-hack

Re:Does it matter? (5)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | more than 13 years ago | (#192589)

I think it matters. Its true that Mozilla won't make a dent in Windows browser usage, unless it turns out to be a significantly better browser than IE, which is unlikely.

However, since I started using komodo [activestate.com] , which was built on top of Mozilla I realized Mozilla has a really great potential for writing cross platform applications. Check it out. Also, if you primarily write server-side web apps, as I do, you can use browser components as the shell of your app, say to handle files and printing, while the bulk of your application runs on your web server.

I'd also have to give Mozilla the award for being the single best source of sample code out there in the open source world. Because everything is in there, there is a very good chance that you can learn about what you are trying to do by looking at the code. Hopefully, universities will pick up on this and use Mozilla to help teach CS. That would lead to more Mozilla users(and coders).

Additionally, having a complete, open-source browser suite forces MS to keep on their toes and release a high-quality, standards compliant browser, while at the same time preventing them from having a total monopoly on the browser market.

Yes, I'd have to say that Mozilla matters.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 13 years ago | (#192594)

"My understanding is that even Gnome has a browser, not as far along as Konquerer, but it's there. Don't use Gnome much, so I don't know the name, but it's there"

It's called galeon but Gecko is its HTML render and Geko is also Nautilus's TML render. HTML rendering in GNOME depends on Mozilla, so Mozilla does matter to GNOME users.

-Compenguin

Re:What I want to know is... (1)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 13 years ago | (#192595)

mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz - tgz'd build gcc292? mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz - tgz'd build with installer gcc292? mozilla-gcc295-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz - tgz'd build gcc295 Its just a prefrence thing some people think gcc295 is a better compiler but it produces a bigger build

-Compenguin

Re:its been 3 years (1)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 13 years ago | (#192596)

Significant time was spent on efforts to fix old code but all the old code was eventually scrapped. Even the renderer mozilla that the suite was named for.

-Compenguin

Re:libpr0n (1)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 13 years ago | (#192597)

libpr0n was the working name for the new static image renderer. It was later renamed to imlib2 or something like that. More info at libpr0n.com [libpr0n.com]

-Compenguin

sea!=stable was Re:What I want to know is... (1)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 13 years ago | (#192598)

you will notice there are sea builds in all the nightly folders that have non sea

-Compenguin

Re:Does it matter? (2)

boaworm (180781) | more than 13 years ago | (#192601)

Mozilla doesnt just provide the code for one browser, but it is also used as codebase for other browsers. One, called Galileo, is a very fast, slimmed plain brower based on the rendering code in Mozilla.

It should be available on freshmet.net (is down at the moment though, so i cant give the URL).

Better URL (3)

ChrisCampbell47 (181542) | more than 13 years ago | (#192603)

The "tree management diagram" is also known as the "roadmap" and is located at

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

and it was updated to the current state three weeks ago (i.e. this is not news). It's done when it's done. In the meantime, the milestone releases (0.9, 0.9.1 soon) are very very good. Nightly builds are bit more risky but addin/fix/improve features and performance.

Mozilla + Linux (3)

mizhi (186984) | more than 13 years ago | (#192606)

I had an amusing thought that perhaps Mozilla is patterning it's release schedule after the one between Kernel 2.2 and 2.4 =)

In all seriousness though, I've been using .90 for a while now, and while there are bugs, it always seems to improve with each release. Mozilla has been in development for what, 2+ years now? Arguments about code bloat aside, I'd rather they do a good job on the bloated code than rush it out to satisfy a release schedule. Mozilla is one of the only browsers out there that does CSS to standard (Opera I think does as well, but I don't believe it's free).

Not that I'm ecstatic about the delays, but I want a browser that's a joy to use at the end.

libpr0n (1)

aTMsA (188604) | more than 13 years ago | (#192608)

I don't use mozilla, and haven't paid much attention to it's development, however, i followed the link to Mozillaquest [mozillaquest.com] and found something that triggered my curiosity, on the tree management diagrams:

More Crash Landings:[...]

  • threaded pr0n
And on the second diagram:

Crash Landings:[...]

  • libpr0n
I won't make any (+1 Funny) eligible remark, i only want someone to explain this to me!

Seriously, what does that mean!?

The geeks choice.. (1)

perlyking (198166) | more than 13 years ago | (#192610)

Mozilla is great because you can run it on windows/linux/macos etc... As someone using multiple Operating Systems (like many of my fellow geeks out there) being able to start up the same browser in each is a real bonus.

Good so far? Well no - I find myself using Opera now, it runs on OSes from Linux to Epoc, is lightnening fast and has a LOT of useful options (yes I even use the gestures sometimes). I had great feelings about Mozilla, but you cant render web pages with great feelings you need a browser that is ready to use now, is fast and usable.

I try a nightly mozilla build every week or two (to test web pages i've designed) and I'm sorry but its not finished yet and by the time it is it will allready be lagging behind its competition. The only downside - it costs money, but it costs about the same as a computer game and I spend a lot of time on the web.

--

Re:Does it matter? (1)

ageitgey (216346) | more than 13 years ago | (#192619)

It's Galeon, not Galileo.

Re:Codewords and one point oh. (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 13 years ago | (#192621)

It's much easier to have an internal versioning system that allows marketing to have their own version numbers on top of developments, ex: W.X.Y.Z where W.X is marketing, and Y.Z is set by the developers. Marketing can jump the numbers to a .oh (ex: 5.0) whenever they deem so, but behind the scenes, development still has control of the versioning. The only trick is that you have to make sure the marketing people can add using positive increments.

Can we trust that projection? (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 13 years ago | (#192622)

That source tree [mozilla.org] (scroll down a bit) says that in a worst-case scenario, we might only be at 0.9.6 or 0.9.7 by the end of Q4 2001.

Just curious, but considering how delayed the thing is already, why should we believe their optimistic best-case projections? Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but I'm genuinely curious.

Now I trust them again!! (1)

luislimon (230970) | more than 13 years ago | (#192623)

After trying Mozilla every new release. Now with 0.9 I trust them magain. Now is more faster, and less buggier, I think is going a be a realy good browser. I'm now using it as my default browser. And I only use Netscape in very special cases. I don't main waiting for 1.0 since I'm already using it :).

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Creepy13 (239104) | more than 13 years ago | (#192626)

I don't use opera (never used it.. maybe I should try :-), Konquerer (I dont use KDE but Gnome).. so yes, to me it matters...netscape 4 or 6 just doesn't cut it.

Mozilla (1)

Beowulf_Boy (239340) | more than 13 years ago | (#192627)

I resently reinstalled windows, and decided to use Mozilla .9, and so far it hasn't crashed.
I love it, it is nice, streamlined, and uses Netscape 6 plugins.

Future on internet isn't browsing. (2)

lmake (240649) | more than 13 years ago | (#192629)

It used to be that the internet was nothing more than email, newsgroups and webpages. That is no longer the case. We now have P2P applications like Napster and Hotbot. So all of these people who are saying that Mozilla is crap because it is bloated and they should be making just a browser and they should just give up, I say to them, you are living in the 90's. That sort of argument might of been true 3 years ago, but now if you want to connect to the internet you need a browser, mail client, newsgroups reader, and a 1,000,001 P2P application.

This is where mozilla will really shine through. Is IE P2P capable? Mozilla certainly is. Go to http://www.mozdev.org [mozdev.org] to have a look at all the applications currently under development for Mozilla

slashdot? (1)

IanA (260196) | more than 13 years ago | (#192636)

Is this slashdot or trash-mozilla.org ?

At least I didn't have to read about how great konquerer supposedly is.

Re:This is what kernel modules are for (1)

Flabdabb Hubbard (264583) | more than 13 years ago | (#192639)

In fact this is what I meant. You pre load all the .dlls or .sos or whatever and just have them sit around. Hell you could do it predictivley based on previous patterns of usage. Surely nobody on this forum seriously thinks I mean to embed the actual application in the kernal ? That would be ridiculous.

Anyway perl in the kernal would probably be a good thing, but only if apache was also in the kernal. If perfomance matters that much, its probably time to buy a faster machine. On the other hand I have heard that there are versions of web servers and other applications which dispense with an operating system alltogether.

It NEEDS integration with the GNU/Linux kernal (5)

Flabdabb Hubbard (264583) | more than 13 years ago | (#192641)

The OS integration means that people are not inclined to use additional resources starting up a browser when they esentially have IE loaded from start-up


This is what I have realised for a long time. Various things that Microsoft does could be learned from by the Linux kernal developers. Perhaps Alan Cox or Linus Torvalds should investigate whether or not it would be technically feasable to integrate Mozilla with the GNU/Linux kernal.


It makes sense to have the browser be part of the OS, since it is what most people use their PC's for all the time, might as well hide the overhead of starting it up by integrating it with the kernal.


Linux could easily start to make inroads on the desktop if it took the lead from Microsoft's very highly skilled geeks. (You can't patent putting the broswer in the OS, after all :-).


XML support could go in there too, and possibly word processing also. They could fork a separate distro for the propellorheads that did not want all the 'extras' in their kernal. (it could all be #ifdef'd in the kernel source.


I am not a tech savvy hacker so I don't know if there are any technical reasons why this cannot be done (put Mozilla in the GNU/Linux kernal) but surely the potential upside of this approach cannot be ignored.

Re:MozillaQuest is complete garbage (1)

netdemonboberb (314045) | more than 13 years ago | (#192646)

wassup twjordan. So is the guy who submitted this article to slashdot ;-).

Praise to Mozilla (1)

netdemonboberb (314045) | more than 13 years ago | (#192647)

I started working on the project around Sept. of last year (albiet I did a little work before then), and I am amazed at the explosion Mozilla has had recently. It has gone from an application that couldn't come close to competing with MSIE early last year, to something that is IMHO way better. Since now IE, Opera, and Mozilla follow the standard very well - it looks like a good day for Web Application Development. Even though IE follows the standard well, it doesn't come close to where Mozilla is. All you Konqueror zealots remember one thing - where is Konqueror for Windows? Mozilla is XP, and porting it to a new OS takes only a little while. I can't wait until the day that MailNews is way better than Outlook. Let's look at Microsoft... They released IE6.0 beta, and it looks as if they have made no effort to follow standards better. They have dug a hole by having to support their web developer clients who use MS proprietary code. Eventually, people will get sick of the fact they break the standard in many ways. Its a good day for Mozilla lovers. Just be patient, since Mozilla 1.0 will be eventually released and will hopefully blow you away.

I post this on the latest nightly build of Mozilla (2)

kypper (446750) | more than 13 years ago | (#192662)

Guess what... it rules.
Mozilla is a VERY GOOD browser, and they are really getting their acts together. They've done extremely well considering they can't integrate with the OS.
Konqueror, as I saw mentioned up there, is nothing compared to this.
Opera... nice, but I'd like to see the benchmarks first.

Mozilla is coming along. We can wait.

Consider why... (2)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 13 years ago | (#192663)

As someone involved in the Mozilla project, I feel that I must give some attention to the reson for the delay. http://komodo.mozilla.org/planning/branches.cgi is the mozilla.org branch 'anti-crash-landing' monitor. In the last few release cycles, the following major changes have occured: new security manager (ssl, tls...) LDAP autocomplete New Modern theme Enhanced frameset and iFrame printing XUL perf improvements (front end speed!) removal of old cache (disk space) api changes for more modular code accessibility code landed editor improvements css perf so that css styles are loaded into ram only when needed. Mailnews perf (much better now) style memory requirements reduced *new image rendering library! Improved string APIs new cache bidirectional text support for other languages improved autocomplete new pref APIs for embedding Each one of these things takes time to be put into ship shape. By holding off 1.0 a little longer, the bugs in the new things can be fixed! We wouldn't want to have another nscp 6.0, would we?

At least it isn't M$ (1)

ColGraff (454761) | more than 13 years ago | (#192667)

If Mozilla were being made by Microsoft, we would have to pay for the betas, and it wouldn't be any good until version 3.1

Re:Does it matter? (2)

kanten (455623) | more than 13 years ago | (#192669)

On Windows I think the battle is lost to Internet Explorer, which in its newest incarnations (5.5 and 6.0) is in my opinion (as a webdeveloper) a splendid, fast and very standard compliant browser.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...