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 Moves Into 2002? Maybe.

Hemos posted about 13 years ago | from the peering-into-the-crystal-ball dept.

Mozilla 376

alanjstr writes "MozillaQuest reports that Mozilla 1.0 has been pushed back into 2002 (from Oct 2001) in its latest schedule update. Since the end of 2000, the rate of new bugs being submitted has doubled (according to the pretty graph)." However, the Mozilla guys, whom our own HeUnique talked to have said that they are still on target, and that the 2002 story is not true. So - you be the judge on this one. Or not. Whatever.

cancel ×

376 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

lunchroombob (415936) | about 13 years ago | (#2220046)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220122)

Many men enjoy some form of testicular stimulation during sex. One of the most sought after techniques is referred to as teabagging, after the motion of dipping a bag of tea into and out of the water. Drop your head below his scrotum, with your lips pointed upward at the scrotum. Allow him to lower his scrotum into your mouth. Suck on one testicle, then the other, then both if you can stretch around. Use your tongue to lick the testicles and the base of the scrotum. Take care to be gentle around this area, as men are very sensitive. Start slow and gentle, then work your way up in intensity, watching his reactions closely. Try stroking his penis while you're teabagging for some extreme oral fun.

FUCK POST (-1, Troll)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | about 13 years ago | (#2220047)

and fuck you all, everyone!

Doubling bugs (5, Insightful)

ryants (310088) | about 13 years ago | (#2220052)

A possible explanation for the increased bug rate:

The rate increase in bug reporting is possibly due to wider use; as each build got better and better, more and more people tried it and found more and more things (little things) wrong.

In which case, that just means that Mozilla is getting more and more refined. I think this correlates with most people's experiences with Mozilla from build to build.

Just a thought.

Re:Doubling bugs (0, Flamebait)

core10k (196263) | about 13 years ago | (#2220069)

Occam's Razor says that you're wrong, and that Mozilla is getting buggier. Sorry for the cold glass of reality thrown in your face. Of course, now I get downvoted.

Re:Doubling bugs (0)

PMM (68176) | about 13 years ago | (#2220083)

how does not multiplying entities without nessecity prove anything?

Re:Doubling bugs (0, Troll)

core10k (196263) | about 13 years ago | (#2220093)

Well, when confronted with a fact like 'bug submissions to Mozilla have doubled,' one shouldn't immediately go on apologetic flights of fancy which result in such ineptitudes as 'there's more users so there's twice as many bug submissions! DUH!.' when there's no evidence backing it up.

Re:Doubling bugs (2)

ryants (310088) | about 13 years ago | (#2220091)

Occam's Razor says that you're wrong
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccessitate

Of course, you're trying to imply that "Mozilla is getting buggier" is a simpler, therefore correct, explanation.

While certain possible, it doesn't jive with the fact that most people find the latest builds of Mozilla much more stable than previous builds. While this is anectdotal evidence may be somewhat weak, it is evidence nonetheless that your theory doesn't take into account.

Don't forget the "sine neccessitate" part when you invoke poor old Willam's name.

Re:Doubling bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220114)

I just want to toss this comment out:
He argued no SPECIFIC points, yet you said that he's is wrong simply because it's more stable...IMHO Moz is plenty stable...just damn SLOW and it has a clunky 'feel' to it .... notice no stability problems were mentioned in my post, yet I have NEVER used it since my first few initial experiences (and they were fairly recent)

Re:Doubling bugs (2)

hexx (108181) | about 13 years ago | (#2220111)

Occam's Razor is not a law of physics, and as a philosophical principle, it does not even apply well to complex situations - as it can oversimplify.

In fact, I believe Einstein put it quite eloquently: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Re:Doubling bugs...razor needs sharpening???? (2, Insightful)

darkPHi3er (215047) | about 13 years ago | (#2220118)

"Occam's Razor says that you're wrong, and that Mozilla is getting buggier...."

even assuming the reports of the rate of rise of bug reports is increasing, and further assuming the rate of rise is as steep as indicated, ol' Billy of Ock wouldn't necessarily agree with you, try some other possible explanations....

1. the code portions showing the increase are relatively new and have not had the equivalent amount of debug time that the more mature sections of the code have been given

2. the coders producing the buggier code are new to the project and are still learning how to implement and design their particular sections, even highly experienced coders/designers have a rise their error rate when changing to an unfamilar design, this is usu short-term and correctable w/o a ton of effort

3. the bugs located could be on the "other" side of the code, say the JVM or the security sandbox or OS threading model or ??????

...and let's not forget that even M$ has acknowledged that W2K has shipped with nearly 70,000 ***KNOWN*** bugs....

the Mozilla Quest article does not classify the bugs by type or location, how many "app killers" are there? how many "OS killers"? versus how many are UI related where a drop down box doesn't autoscroll or automatically alphabetize?????

the entire MozillaQuest article reeked of hostility towards the current Mozilla development structure...

...as someone who is NOT a daily Linux user, and who doesn't use any Mozilla on ANY platform i found the tone of the article very opinionated and hostile...it sounded more political than analytical and seemed to have an agenda greater than informing the Mozilla faithful....

maybe justified, maybe not, i don't know...but there's way insufficient info in that article to conclude "...Mozilla is getting buggier"...

Re:Doubling bugs...razor needs sharpening???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220225)

Hmm... I really don't think you should compare Windows 2000 to Mozilla. Aside from the open/closed source difference, Windows is an OS not a web browser. There are just a FEW more lines of code in w2k than in Mozilla ;)

Re:Doubling bugs (3, Insightful)

Malcontent (40834) | about 13 years ago | (#2220144)

" Occam's Razor says that you're wrong"

Well then I'd like to meet this Occam's razor. Did he/she/it do statistical analysis to see if bug counts are increasing, did it actually read through any bugs, did it ask the mozilla team if lots of duplicate bugs were being submitted.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in this Occam's razor maybe you can explain to us why this is some sort of a irrefutable authority and a flawless analyzer of complex code.

Re:Doubling bugs (0, Troll)

core10k (196263) | about 13 years ago | (#2220175)

Christ this is isn't getting through, is it? When confronted with a FACT that doesn't jive with your reality wish-list, YOU DONT START MAKING SHIT UP to explan it away.

Re:Doubling bugs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220163)

Occam's Razor says that you're gay.

Re:Doubling bugs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220224)

Every question/problem has at least one answer or solution that is simple, straightforward, easy to understand, and is completely wrong.

The "critical" analysis on MozillaQuest seems fairly naive at best , and seems to be more a means of expressing frustration at the rate of progress of Mozilla, than a solid argument.

Re:Doubling bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220245)

Huh? "frustration at the rate of progress of Mozilla" is the argument.

Re:Doubling bugs (2)

Alien54 (180860) | about 13 years ago | (#2220078)

The rate increase in bug reporting is possibly due to wider use; as each build got better and better, more and more people tried it and found more and more things (little things) wrong.

Well, it is also natural to not right up to cosmetic bugs when you are more concerned with truly broken features.

This probably means that the "Look and Polish" bugs are starting to get attention, as well as performance bugs (ie, it works, but it is slow)

- - -
Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

Re:Doubling bugs (5, Informative)

asa (33102) | about 13 years ago | (#2220121)

The rate of incoming bugs has been pretty steady for some time. With 15,000+ active Bugzilla accounts it is not at all strange to see 300 bugs reported in a single day. Anyone who takes a minute to look closer will see a couple of important trends in these numbers. First the percentage of Duplicate, Invalid, and Worksforme bugs continues to rise and is at about 50% so nearly half of all bugs reported turn out to be something other than new bugs in the code. Second, the overall average severity of incoming bug reports has been going down for some time so that while the volume of incoming bugs hasn't changed a lot, the kinds of issues being reported are more polish issues that development or testing blocker issues.
I have been involved in organizing the Mozilla community quality assurance and testing effort for more than two years and I can say with confidence that the project is at a much higher quality level than it was 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago (grab M9, M16 or 0.8 and compare for yourself). Bug counts have never been an accurate measure of the quality of the product.

--Asa

Re:Doubling bugs (1)

ryants (310088) | about 13 years ago | (#2220206)

Bug counts have never been an accurate measure of the quality of the product.
Amen to that :)

Re:Doubling bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220227)

Hey! Just downloaded M3, and it's incredibly fast, having some rare theme and didn't crash yet!

-- proudly written from Mozilla-M3.

Re:Doubling bugs (1)

mnordstr (472213) | about 13 years ago | (#2220165)

I strongly disbelieve that the number of bugs is increasing per build. The fact remains, that as they get closer to 1.0 the development focus is on the core of the Mozilla engine, and the stability of the product. They don't "care" about the GUI right now, as they got more important issues. The fact also remains that these bugs that get fixed in the code don't affect everyone. Someone might download a new release and won't notice anything new (because the bugs didn't affect him/her and there were no new GUI enchancements/fixes).

When I changed from 0.9.2 to 0.9.3, I noticed a new GUI bug, the titlebar had somekind of buffer problem, and there always where strange characters after the Mozilla {Build ID: ....} text. But the stability had improved alot, and it hasn't crashed even once (honestly :).

So, the # of bugs is in fact decreasing all the time, believe it or not. The only thing that bothers me right now is that I have to stop my MP3 player when I start Mozilla because the Flash plugin wants to use the soundcard when it gets initialized. Solution: Start Mozilla when you login (before you start listening to music) and never close it :)

Re:Doubling bugs (5, Interesting)

asa (33102) | about 13 years ago | (#2220179)

The incoming bug rate is NOT DOUBLING. I don't know if that is some figure you got from MozillaQuest (reason enough to discount it) or if you actually went to the source (bugzilla.mozilla.org) but someone got their queries/reports confused. The bug charts [mozilla.org] show that the rate has been pretty much steady for a long time. The only interesting thing about this graph (that the person reporting the doubling nonsense obviously was confused about) is the rise in New and the drop in Assigned. Bugs start out as New and get marked Assigned when a developer decides the bug is his. In late 2000 we stopped sending out a 'nag' email that urged developers to accept their New bugs. When we stopped sending that mail the Accepting dropped off. The incoming bug rate has not changed significantly and neither has the fix rate.

--Asa

Re:Doubling bugs (1)

ryants (310088) | about 13 years ago | (#2220210)

The incoming bug rate is NOT DOUBLING. I don't know if that is some figure you got from MozillaQuest (reason enough to discount it)
Well, MozillaQuest was refusing connection when I tried to read it (slashdotted, I guess), so I had to pull the figure from the article summary.

The most reliable source? Nope. :)

Thanks for setting it straight.

I think it'll be ready before 2002. (1)

JeremyYoung (226040) | about 13 years ago | (#2220055)

It's nearly ready now. I haven't logged into bugtraq very often lately, but I haven't had a bug to report in over a month. 0.9.2 has been very stable and usable. It's a little slow on the load, and the e-mail proggie it comes with could be a lot easier to use, but those are truly the only complaints I'd have with it.

Re:I think it'll be ready before 2002. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220131)

what planet are you on? I have found so many bugs since .9.2 I can't stand it. from pages not loading correctly... to mozilla using 70% of the cpu all the time... loss of newsgroups... thats just the tip of the ice burg... in many instances mozilla is improving however daily bugs exist.

Re:I think it'll be ready before 2002. (2, Interesting)

JeremyYoung (226040) | about 13 years ago | (#2220151)

I've never had the problem of it using 70% of the CPU. I get the normal spikes I'd get with any other program, but no steady use over 5% from Mozilla, even with 7-8 windows open. The only web-page that hasn't worked correctly for me is the MSNBC front page, but all the news article pages on it work fine. I haven't had any problems with any other webpages with 0.9.2. Flash works fine, I can even get the embedded video working good, and Java of course works good. This is a fine browser as is as far as I can tell. I'd love to see more innovation in the interface, but since Microsoft isn't really innovating in that area (*cough*no competition*cough*cough*), why complain?

I don't use newsgroups, but I have been using the Mozilla e-mail program as my primary e-mail proggie at home, and it's been doing a decent job. The interface stinks, and it's rather inflexible in folder creation, but I haven't lost any e-mail, and it doesn't crash on me.

Re:I think it'll be ready before 2002. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220242)

you're on crack

Mozilla into 2002! (0, Troll)

erc (38443) | about 13 years ago | (#2220056)

Gee, maybe they outht to throw away all that old, buggy code they've been building on and start from scratch - this time, using accepted coding practices? The quality of code in a project can be measured by the number of bug reports...

Re:Mozilla into 2002! (2, Insightful)

Kwikymart (90332) | about 13 years ago | (#2220153)

The quality of code in a project can be measured by the number of bug reports...

Well, thats complete bullshit unless the project you are comparing it to are exactly the same. You cant compare mozilla to any other web browser with bug reports like that unless they have all the same features. Even then, it is still not a good idea to use this as a benchmark.

mozilla (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220059)

my opinion of mozilla:

___....---"""".
." ". \
/ \ M i
i i i
i__ _ i o i
" "\\ i i
|| i z i
__.// i _ . - "i
\ i- " i
i ii i i
\ / i i
"._.--"i l i
i i
i l i
i _i
i a _.-"
i _.-"
i-"

The Better Quest Site (3, Informative)

newbiescum (190145) | about 13 years ago | (#2220061)

MozillaQuestQuest [mozillaquestquest.com]

Props to Mozillazine [mozillazine.org] for the link. If you want real Mozilla news, check out the latter link. Much more informative, and the discussions are at least somewhat insightful.

Re:The Better Quest Site (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220087)

what the hell kind of gay fag website is that? it only shows the anal buttfucking gay html code! or do you have to use your anal-raping web faggot browser to view it. idiot.

Re:The Better Quest Site (1)

briansmith (316996) | about 13 years ago | (#2220094)

It is XHTML. You must have an XHTML-capable browser to see it. Apparently IE 5.5 is not XHTML-capable.

MozillaQuest is beyond parody. (3, Interesting)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 13 years ago | (#2220103)

I thought MozillaQuestQuest [mozillaquestquest.com] was funny when it first came out. Then I read this "article" [mozillaquest.com] at MozillaQuest and it became clear that the parody just can't be as funny as the real thing. The title is just so ludicrous to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the Mozilla project it simply defies taking the piss out of it. And the right sidebar! I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Someone sign this guy up to write for Slashdot!

Why 1.0? (5, Insightful)

Scrag (137843) | about 13 years ago | (#2220063)

What is the obsession with reaching version 1.0? It's not a finished product until then? Then tell me why I have been using it for everything that several finished products can do. It won't have bugs by the time it reaches 1.0? I cant understand that either. It's not everyone will stop working on it when it reaches 1.0, so that means version 1.0 is just another version in the middle of hundreds of others.

What is really important is that the browser keeps getting better, and it is. With each release they fix tons of bugs. That isn't going to change when it reaches 1.0. I don't care if it never reaches 1.0 as long as it keeps getting better. They could call the next release 1.0 and everyone would be excited, but it wouldn't really mean anything. Just like the actual 1.0 release won't.

Re:Why 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220080)

1.0 is considered by convention to be first public release.

In the public's eyes, 1.0 isn't even a good version to start with, cause "X.0" versions have more glitches that will come out after the public release. They'll wait for 1.1+

So yes, from what your average browser user knows, if it aint 1.0 or it has "beta" after it, it isn't done yet!!!

errr there is a reason (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | about 13 years ago | (#2220082)

in theory the 1.0 version is the version you release to the general public with grand ability to say, HEY THIS SOFTWARE WORKS AS ADVERTISED (as if that were ever true). the 1.0 version supposedly marks the point at which all the key features work and work well enough and without too many bugs. There is a method to this whole crazy version scheme

Re:Why 1.0? (1)

VenTatsu (24306) | about 13 years ago | (#2220105)

1.0 is important because it is the point where the programers can sit back and look at what they have done, in it's 'compleated' form. It's the point where they have to ask them selves wether it is good or not.
As a user I always want a new version, with fixes and new stuff to play with.
As a developer I often want to reach a point where I can call it done and feel good about it.

Re:Why 1.0? (2, Insightful)

goldid (310307) | about 13 years ago | (#2220106)

It's pretty simple. Remember that the whole world isn't computer literate. We may be please to use version 0.9.3, or even version 0.4. The average user? The users whose massive support makes certain projects fundable and viable? They want version 1.0. 1.0 says, "Hey, this is stable, it won't kill, maim or cause your machine to implode." That's what the rest of the world is looking for. Keep them in mind. 1.0 is a major milestone. While 0.9.3 may be just fine, it takes 1.0 to make it not scary.

Re:Why 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220201)

Talking about average users, they don't see much difference between 0.1.0 and 1.0.0. Chop off the "redundent" leading zeros and both the numbers look like 1.0.

Re:Why 1.0? (2, Insightful)

rgmoore (133276) | about 13 years ago | (#2220140)

AFAIK the key is that Mozilla is in a feature freeze for the 1.0 release. All work until then is supposed to be bug fixing, although there also appears to be some cosmetic work like changing the available themes. Once they reach 1.0, they can start adding new features again (though many posters here would claim that Mozilla is already so bloated that new features would be redundant.) As other people have pointed out, 1.0 is also a big psychological milestone.

IMO, Mozilla is already well ahead of the quality of most released commercial software, and the willingness of Netscape to base NS6 on the existing Mozilla tree is pretty good evidence that Netscape agrees. The Mozilla team could declare the next version to be 1.0 and I doubt that any more people would complain about the quality than with other packages. The decision to squish every last bug before declaring 1.0 is a really good sign of the quality of code that the team wants to put out.

Re:Why 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220186)

IMO, Mozilla is already well ahead of the quality of most released commercial software, and the willingness of Netscape to base NS6 on the existing Mozilla tree is pretty good evidence that Netscape agrees.


Yeah, and after Netscape 4.0 we all know what sticklers those Netscape people are about releasing a quality product! ;)

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Re:Why 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220211)

You use Mozilla? Personally, I won't use Mozilla until:
  • the location bar becomes full length below the navigation buttons
  • rectangular navigation buttons are used to save vertical space (a la IE)
  • that annoying "Search Netscape Search for" pulldown that appears as I type a URL is removed
  • there's no pop up alert when a site is unreachable (no one has "127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net" in their /etc/hosts anymore? hello?)

My hope is that these silly design issues will be resolved in 1.0. Anyone with me? (Yeah, I would know if anyone's with me if I could understand the bug search [mozilla.org] . Holy cow.)

Fixing your objections (1)

yerricde (125198) | about 13 years ago | (#2220222)

the location bar becomes full length below the navigation buttons, and rectangular navigation buttons are used to save vertical space

If you care enough about it, write a chrome with this configuration.

that annoying "Search Netscape Search for" pulldown that appears as I type a URL is removed

IE 5.x has a similar feature, the difference being that you can change which search engine Mozilla uses; poke around a bit in the prefs.

there's no pop up alert when a site is unreachable (no one has "127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net" in their /etc/hosts anymore? hello?)

Run WinApache [apache.org] and get 404s (broken images or "Not Found" in an iframe) instead of "conn refused" popups.

I'm not worried. (2)

Soko (17987) | about 13 years ago | (#2220064)

Mozilla 0.93 is great as it is - why about worry when 1.0 is coming out?

I have absolutely no problems with .93 what so ever on Redhat 7.1. Nevermind, guys - keep on moving forward, at the pace you need. I'm certainly impressed, as well as extremely grateful, so far.

Soko

Re:I'm not worried. (2, Interesting)

PingXao (153057) | about 13 years ago | (#2220244)

I'm going to agree with this. I've been a Mozilla basher for almost 2 years now, happily using Konqueror and, before that, an older Netscape.

But even though I gave the Lizard below-average marks up until now - and deservedly so, I think - since I downloaded 0.93 I couldn't be happier. On my RH 7.1+ boxes it runs much faster than Konqueror. The ability to kill off unwanted banner advertisements and the fine-grained control over cookies is a godsend.

So, after 2 years I now recant everything bad I said about Mozilla. More importantly I can now recommend it to everyone I do business with! It's about time!

A Rose by any other name (?) (4, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | about 13 years ago | (#2220065)

What is the problem? Mozilla is essentially stable and featureful from my perspective as an everyday user. Given that the product is useable today, isn't 1.0 more or less an arbitrary release point? Its not like 1.0 will close off all existing bugs and not open any new ones - every release is an incremental march towards stability with new features adding their own instabilities.

Lets be frank - its not like rushing to a 1.0 release now is going to reclaim substantial market share from IE - the browser wars, at least on Windows, is basically over. We've waited years for Mozilla to get done - they ar emaking great progress in 2001, so lets just call 1.0 when the time is right.

MozillaQuest is one big troll (5, Informative)

FattMattP (86246) | about 13 years ago | (#2220070)

I think that anyone who's kept up with Mozilla Quest and its articles has realized that it's one huge troll. The guy who writes the articles hardly ever has anything good to say. He also has a way of misconstruing and twisting things that would make a Microsoft PR executive beam with pride. Someone created a great parody of it called Mozilla Quest Quest [mozillaquestquest.com] . Apparently it requires Mozilla, or something that can handle XML, to view it.

Bottom line: Take anything the Mozilla Quest site says with a HUGE grain of salt.

Re:MozillaQuest is one big troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220126)

Apparently it requires Mozilla, or something that can handle XML, to view it.

IE 5.1 for Mac OS X handles it fine -- FYI. OmniWeb 4.0.3 does not. Fucking Cocoa apps suck.

IE for Mac (1)

Galvatron (115029) | about 13 years ago | (#2220142)

IIRC, Microsoft actually dissolved the IE for Mac team because they did such a good job that IE 5.x for Mac was better than IE 5.x for Windows. Hence, no 5.5 for Mac, and most likely, 6.x on Mac will be a shoddy porting effort rather than a slick native app.

Re:MozillaQuest is one big troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220208)

LOL. mqq is fucking hilarious.

Who the fuck is Mike Angelo? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220071)

Okay, I give in.... who is this guy? MozillaQuest sounds very important and it certainly had me going for a couple of minutes, but then look at the front page.... over 20 articles, and all written by Mr. Angelo.

Trying to be self important but having nobody to listen to you. The site looks quite sad, to be honest.

not really concerned when 1.0 comes out... (1)

bbh (210459) | about 13 years ago | (#2220073)

I don't see the real importance of whether it is 1.0 or 0.9.xxx etc.. I have tried the different Mozilla milestones in the past and thought this is way too buggy to be usable, but around 0.9.2 it really stabilized to the point where it has become quite usable and worth the effort of using and filing talkbacks when there is a problem. The speed has increased dramatically and the crashes are pretty rare. I believe that is progress, so I don't really care about what number is placed on it, as long as they are moving forward, I don't see how you can complain. You make the following comment in the article:

To the Mozilla Organization's and Mozilla Project's credit they almost have a darn nice browser suite. But they will not have a nice browser suite until they get it right (to-wit, get rid of the bugs and release Mozilla 1.0).

To get it right, its gonna take time. I believe the reason there are so many more bug reports are because people like myself and many others have noticed the improvements made to Mozilla and have actually started using it again. With more users comes more bug reports, which will create more debug data which will help the Mozilla crew squash bugs a lot faster. Be patient, there is progress being made.

I've now actually switched to using IMAP with Mozilla 0.9.3 and it finally works really nice since the 0.9.x series. I noticed one bug that caused a crash in 0.9.2, filed several talkbacks, and the problem was gone in 0.9.3. Visible progress, just the way I like it.

bbh

Please stop posting MozQuest crap. (1)

bluephone (200451) | about 13 years ago | (#2220076)

Mozilla Quest is the single biggest source of lies on the net today. This is the same man who claimed Netscape 6.1 wasn't based on Mozilla code. The more attention this guy gets, the more lies he spreads. Would a "LinuxQuest" that posts crap about how Linus is an MS employee who's being paied to drive Linux into the ground get as much attention around here?

Re:Please stop posting MozQuest crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220097)

The real question is why is anybody taking Slashdot seriously ? The guys running this place are whacked out and will accept any submission without any question whatsoever..

I'd be happy if slashdot were shut down today.

Hopefully VA will go bankrupt sooner than expected!

Re:Please stop posting MozQuest crap. (2)

Malcontent (40834) | about 13 years ago | (#2220156)

Then why are you here in the first place?

Re:Please stop posting MozQuest crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220195)

It's kind of like looking at a car wreck ... somehow you can't turn your head away.

bugs are not bugs (2, Insightful)

bagel (78837) | about 13 years ago | (#2220077)

Some of the bugs present on bugzilla are actually enchancement suggestions. So don't be fooled by the raw number on the list. How many of them are critical bugs? How many are just "this feature should be included" or "the menu item should belong to another place"?

Re:bugs are not bugs (0)

core10k (196263) | about 13 years ago | (#2220084)

Occam's Razor says that you're wrong, and that Mozilla is getting buggier. Sorry for the cold glass of reality thrown in your face. Of course, now I get downvoted. (as Redundant, hopefully.)

Re:bugs are not bugs (1)

bagel (78837) | about 13 years ago | (#2220098)

I've actually filed a so called "bug report" on bugzilla two days ago for a enchancement suggestion. It's related to the mail program and you get to select 5 levels of importance, one of them being "enhancement".

Re:bugs are not bugs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220112)

you get 7 levels of importance, you penis chomper.

1.0 milestone not so important (1)

salimma (115327) | about 13 years ago | (#2220081)

Remember people, this is not propietary software! Mozilla is getting more stable and faster as each day and milestone goes by. It's not like you cannot use it now - get any recent Linux distribution (except Debian until Woody is released) and a recent Mozilla is included.

Releasing a version 1.0 matters more in the commercial world, but since in that aspect Netscape 6.0 and 6.1 has been released, that aspect shouldn't be overrated as well.

After all, the ext2 file system is still at revision 0.17, Enlightenment 0.17 is still in CVS and Sawfish is still at 0.38 - and millions of people use them.

Regards,

Michel

Re:1.0 milestone not so important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220099)

Well they shouldn't be using ext2. If you don't unmount properly (like if there's a power outage) then your filesystem gets messed up and you have to wait about a week for fsck to finish running. (if fsck itself hasn't been corrupted...) It sucks!

Re:1.0 milestone not so important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220113)

I have a 6 GB hard drive and it takes maybe 30 seconds to fsck the whole thing.

The only people who complain about the time taken by fsck are those who have 80 GB hard drives to hold all their pornography and pirated MP3's.

Re:1.0 milestone not so important (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220182)

nerd

Good old debian :) (1)

bagel (78837) | about 13 years ago | (#2220109)

get any recent Linux distribution (except Debian until Woody is released)

Woody still has M18. Guess debian users will have to wait till sid is released.

Re:1.0 milestone not so important (1)

rgmoore (133276) | about 13 years ago | (#2220155)

After all, the ext2 file system is still at revision 0.17, Enlightenment 0.17 is still in CVS and Sawfish is still at 0.38 - and millions of people use them.

Actually, Sawfish [sourceforge.net] has finally made it to 1.0. It's just that packagers don't seem to have gotten the 1.0 packages out yet. Not that this invalidates the point that many very useful programs are still officially pre-1.0.

Way to go Hemos! (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | about 13 years ago | (#2220102)

I love it when you pretend to be so fucking indifferent. Like you couldn't really give a shit about anything. But in actual fact, you're worried about CmdrTaco aren't you? Is he cheating on you Hemos? I think he might be...

mozillaquest in no way affiliated with mozilla.org (5, Informative)

asa (33102) | about 13 years ago | (#2220104)

I just want to make sure it is very clear to slashdot readers that MozillaQuest is in no way connected with or affiliated with mozilla.org. Do not be confused by the name or the 'borrowed' mozilla graphics (mostly gone now I believe). MozillaQuest is a series of articles written by Mike Angelo who has no connection to mozilla.org or any 'inside information' about the goings on of the Mozilla project. mozilla.org has in the past made attempts to correct the misinformation that is published at this site but the requests went pretty much unanswered and so we've turned to simply ignoring the site. It is a shame that slashdot, a place that many in the open source community turn for information, continues to point its readers at this kind of sensationalism.

--Asa
(my opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or mozilla.org)

Re:mozillaquest in no way affiliated with mozilla. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220145)

mozilla.org has in the past made attempts to correct the misinformation that is published at this site

You said Mozilla 1.0 would be ready in April 2001 and you're accusing others of spreading misinformation? Pot ... Kettle ...

we've turned to simply ignoring the site.

That's rather ironic, given that most web surfers have turned to simply ignoring Mozilla.

www.MozillaQuestQuest.com (2, Insightful)

ChrisCampbell47 (181542) | about 13 years ago | (#2220161)

To put a finer point on what Asa said, the author of MQ is, by all evidence available, a fool.


See www.MozillaQuestQuest.com [mozillaquestquest.com] for a parody. I assume he works for Microsoft, the poor guy.


The Mozilla crowd has learned to ignore him; Slashdot should too.

Re:www.MozillaQuestQuest.com (1)

ogren (32428) | about 13 years ago | (#2220241)

Bottom line:

The www.MozillaQuest.com guy is an idiot. He's poked his head up before, and if you take more than a casual look at his site it's pretty clear that he has no idea what he's talking about. Factual errors, spelling errors, bad design, bad writing style, it's all there.

The MozillaQuestQuest [mozillaquestquest.com] website linked by the previous poster is hysterical after you have explored the MozillaQuestQuest site for a bit.

The 0.9.3 Mozilla build is great. I've started to switch back from Konqueror. I'll miss the favicon's in the title bar and bookmarks, and the ability to enable cookies and JavaScript on a per-site basis. But Mozilla's JavaScript engine is better, its rendering engine is better, and its fonts seem better behaved.

So the whole debate about "1.0" does not interest me. I still want to see progress for Mozilla, but what number they slap on the release is largely irrelevant.

Re:mozillaquest in no way affiliated with mozilla. (2, Funny)

Matthew Luckie (173043) | about 13 years ago | (#2220171)

MozillaQuest is a series of articles written by Mike Angelo who has no connection to mozilla.org or any 'inside information' about the goings on of the Mozilla project. mozilla.org has in the past made attempts to correct the misinformation that is published at this site but the requests went pretty much unanswered and so we've turned to simply ignoring the site.
Michael Angelo has a serious credibility issue, being a teenage mutant ninga turtle and all

cowabunga dude

keep up the good work

Re:mozillaquest in no way affiliated with mozilla. (2, Funny)

Matthew Luckie (173043) | about 13 years ago | (#2220177)


Michael Angelo has a serious credibility issue, being a teenage mutant ninga turtle and all

i spelt ninja wrong, it is me with the credibility issue

Glad you're here to point reality out Asa. :) (1)

Down8 (223459) | about 13 years ago | (#2220215)

I can't believe this lameness got posted on Slashdot. I think I had been using Moz for about a week before I saw MQ and realized what a sham it was.

Ah well, life goes on I suppose.

-bZj

problem : ( (1)

labradore (26729) | about 13 years ago | (#2220119)

while I was writing an email to the author of that article the mozilla email composer program crashed :( *sigh* I guess there are still _some_ serious and probably elusive bugs to fix but on the whole I like Mozilla better than the "competition." Yes, I've tried them all.

Re:problem : ( (2, Funny)

PurpleBob (63566) | about 13 years ago | (#2220164)

That's a feature. If you had managed to send an e-mail to Mike Angelo and gotten a reply, your inbox might have had a stupidity overload and caused all the other messages you would ever recieve to spontaneously turn into badly-formatted sources of misinformation with ugly and irrelevant blue buttons on the side.

Now aren't you glad Mozilla sacrificed its own process to protect you from this horrible fate?

What Hemos does in his spare time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220128)

Many men enjoy some form of testicular stimulation during sex. One of the most sought after techniques is referred to as teabagging, after the motion of dipping a bag of tea into and out of the water. Drop your head below his scrotum, with your lips pointed upward at the scrotum. Allow him to lower his scrotum into your mouth. Suck on one testicle, then the other, then both if you can stretch around. Use your tongue to lick the testicles and the base of the scrotum. Take care to be gentle around this area, as men are very sensitive. Start slow and gentle, then work your way up in intensity, watching his reactions closely. Try stroking his penis while you're teabagging for some extreme oral fun

One reason 1.0 is important... (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | about 13 years ago | (#2220132)

For all those who keep saying "Who cares when 1.0 is coming out when 0.93 is out now", and you are somewhat right, don't forget that RedHat has said (and I believe other distros will follow suit) that when mozilla reaches 1.0, it will stop carrying the horrid Netscape 4.7x altogether, in the distro, and focus on Mozilla as the default browser. This support alone will help Mozilla greatly.

Re:One reason 1.0 is important... (1)

bkhl (189311) | about 13 years ago | (#2220230)

I remember they said they would replace Netscape when Mozilla is a viable alternative.

Bug Triage & 1.0 matters (1)

zenyu (248067) | about 13 years ago | (#2220135)

I've started using Mozilla whenever I can as of 0.9.2, but it's not something I want to encourage others to use yet. They are making a great deal of progress though, with 0.9.2 I always kept a copy of Netscape 4.7* running and now I only run it when something actually goes wrong with Mozilla (Or I need POP3 which now crashes my Windows copy of Mozilla.) Point here is that 1.0 has meaning to me, should it be fairly robust I will encourage my friends to use it and install it on a bunch of machines that I don't update with every release.

Now to the subject line, being a programmer I find the interpretation of these Bug Graphs silly. All the "New Bugs" don't mean anything, when someone looks at them or tries to fix them they'll probably realize there are 20 bug reports that all refer to a single bug. The fact that assigned bugs grew matters, but this certainly hasn't jumped as much as usage has so again the interpretation that things are getting worse is flawed.
And that mention of fixing the "Memory Problem" before v1.0 is silly, just make it not crash and work like it's supposed to. Fixing the memory problem or speeding up the parser are features which can wait for v2.0. Of course, they are not going to fix 1500 bugs by v1.0, when they cull all but the 5-6 stop-ship bugs then we'll know triage has been done and Mozilla is a few months away.

Re:Bug Triage & 1.0 matters (5, Interesting)

asa (33102) | about 13 years ago | (#2220204)

Point here is that 1.0 has meaning to me, should it be fairly robust I will encourage my friends to use it and install it on a bunch of machines that I don't update with every release.

What if Mozilla 0.9.8 is "fairly robust"? Will you not encourage others to use it because it is not called 1.0? What if the plans for 0.9.9 and 1.0 do not include any improvements in the "robust"ness of the app? Is is useful to hold off recommending it until the magic number 1.0 happens? What if we had never moved from the Mx Milestone naming scheme? We'd be at about Milestone M26 now. Would you wait until it hit M30 or M50 or maybe M100 before encouraging others to use it?

Of course, they are not going to fix 1500 bugs by v1.0

Actually, we average about 1500 bugs fixed every Milestone (about every 5 to 6 weeks). So I sure hope we can fix at least that many in the Milestones we have between now and 1.0.

BTW, I appreciate the sentiment of your comments. Don't take my nits as anything but nits and my questions as genuine curiosity.

--Asa

Bugs Approach a Constant Number (5, Insightful)

goingware (85213) | about 13 years ago | (#2220136)

I believe it was IBM that first figured out that bugs in a large project asymptotically approach a constant number.

You may fix the worst bugs, but as time goes on more and more bugs are found, and eventually bugs pretty much crop up as you fix them.

The thing is, although bugs are constantly appearing, the frequency of the average bug decreases. You start getting bugs that happen only once every thousand user-years. Try as you might, you can't squash them all.

There is some hope, in that you can use some fundamentally better method of software engineering and things get suddenly better. The bugs still approach a constant level, but it is a smaller level. Back when IBM studied this, it was still common to write operating systems in assembly code. Using a high-level language is so much easier to debug that you can achieve better bug rates.

But at the same time, we have much greater ambitions for our software. Mozilla 1.0 will have far more features than Microsoft Word 1.0 did.

Re:Bugs Approach a Constant Number (2)

Hobart (32767) | about 13 years ago | (#2220217)

> I believe it was IBM that first figured out that bugs in a large project asymptotically approach a constant number.

Mr Crawford --
Does it
have to be a requirement that there will always be bugs?
I would like to believe that given strong specifications, proper coding practice, accounting for situations, and no unreasonable time constraints, it's possible to produce a bug-free piece of software that performs its task correctly on a given system... I've read Worse is Better [jwz.org]

Please Slashdot never again post MozQuest info (5, Insightful)

caspy7 (117545) | about 13 years ago | (#2220138)

Please, someone tell those that are responsible for posting these to never ever again post any information found on MozillaQuest. Please don't even bother visiting the site so that he gets hits. This guy sensationalises information and just plain makes stuff up. MozillaQuestQuest.com is a good place to point out his contradictions and such.
My question is how can we delegitimize this guy so the real media doesn't take his lies and run?

Re:Please Slashdot never again post MozQuest info (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220191)

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all"?

Bash MozillaQuest and Mike Angelo all you want, he's still a faithful Mozilla user. Why are you attacking a Mozilla user who takes the time out of his busy schedule to publish an independent newsletter on Mozilla? What do you expect him to do, spend 100 % of the time praising Mozilla like some old issue of Pravda did for the Soviet government?

My question is how can we delegitimize this guy so the real media doesn't take his lies and run?

You are living in a bloody fantasy world. The real media aren't going to "take his lies and run"; the real media have simply abandoned Mozilla and turned to IE. In the words of David Coursey [zdnet.com] ,

Netscape should just give up. Internet Explorer, regardless of how Microsoft did it, has won the browser wars, and Netscape is no longer really contributing technology or even creating competition for IE. There may be a need for multiple Windows browsers in the world, but I haven't found one. The Netscape Mozilla "free software" effort has been every bit the bomb I predicted it would be. I am not sure how much Netscape--or parent AOL Time Warner--depends on the browser directing people to the Netcenter portal, and what the loss of the browser would mean to that business, or the role the browser plays in the Mac world ,or on other platforms. But on Windows, it's toast.

Hey HEMOS, listen up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220141)

sdfsffsdffdj uio poi sdfsdfsdfs wer ryy
fsdsdfsdffds uie zxx sdfswerczv sdf iyi
fff twg mnb dgg xew oiu
sdf dgs 6dh gdf cxz tyu
sfsdfius mno tyq pip det uyt
sdfwqrxv lde fer pip ytuhjk
fsd wet mbb ydf zzh jkj
sfs suk sry dgd sdf hhj
sfz erwsdfsdfs cvbytryrty tuf hky
iou yousdfsfsd rttytrytry hkh tyu

fgh qer
fhf tyu
fhg tyu
uyt tut
twt oss
rwr mnb
pii hjk
yihuiouiou
oiuouiouio

we'll be fine, even if it never appears (3, Interesting)

jchristopher (198929) | about 13 years ago | (#2220143)

There are so many really, really good alternatives to Mozilla now that it really doesn't matter whether it ever appears or not.

The other alternative browsers (Konqueror, Opera, etc.) are really making progress. Opera is VERY usable on both Win32 and Linux.

Re:we'll be fine, even if it never appears (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220174)

Nice Troll!

but you left out everything that describes on how mozilla is 5x a better browser.

Nice try but no cigar.

Re:we'll be fine, even if it never appears (2)

jchristopher (198929) | about 13 years ago | (#2220196)

It (the browser, the newsreader) runs slower than dung on my Celeron 333 / RedHat 7.1 machine with 350 megs of RAM. Is that what you consider "better"?

Re:we'll be fine, even if it never appears (1)

binford2k (142561) | about 13 years ago | (#2220220)

I would have to say you've got some issues.

I have a Debian server w/ a K6II-350 and 192MB RAM running anywhere from 1-4 instances of Mozilla for roaming clients over a 10mb network. (on a hub, too, not a switch)

It is quite snappy. I think you might need to take a look at your system.

Re:we'll be fine, even if it never appears (1)

ink (4325) | about 13 years ago | (#2220185)

The other alternative browsers (Konqueror, Opera, etc.) are really making progress.

While I agree with you that those browsers are improving, Mozilla is still heads and shoulders above any of them on a modern machine. I use Opera as my primary Linux browser, but I cannot use it to develop web software because of the many major display bugs it has. Mozilla, on the other hand, is a dream to develop with because of the great cache (I use CGI). The only reason I use Opera is for its tabs, which I am addicted to. I'd use Opera or Konq on a low-end machine, but Mozilla on a good on a newer box. Mozilla is both my wife's primary browser (and email) and is the primary browser on my laptop. People who haven't used Mozilla in a few months should really check out .9.3 -- it is better than any browser out there.

Re:we'll be fine, even if it never appears (1)

jchristopher (198929) | about 13 years ago | (#2220199)

Just curious what kind of display bugs you are running into... I haven't been using it that long, but things have been smooth sailing for me so far.

Hope great milestones until there! (1)

taboca (517919) | about 13 years ago | (#2220154)

I don't care if the *perfect* 1.0 is going to take more or less. It's important to note that mozilla.org community is deploying !*great*! releases each milestone. That's important!. 0.9.2 is one great example. Mike! - don't worry - if you need to create a Mozilla based product! go for it!!! and be happy! :-)

HEY Hemos! I got two words for you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220162)

sdfsffsdffdj uio poi sdfsdfsdfs wer ryy
fsdsdfsdffds uie zxx sdfswerczv sdf iyi
fff twg mnb dgg xew oiu
sdf dgs 6dh gdf cxz tyu
sfsdfius mno tyq pip detuyt
sdfwqrxv lde fer pip ytuhjk
fsd wet mbb ydf zzh jkj
sfs sukdsfssry dgdsdfsdff sdf hhj
sfz erwsdfsdfs cvbytryrty tuf hks

fgh qer
fhf tyu
fhg tyu
uyt tut
twt oss
rwr mnb
pii hjk
yihuiouiou
oiuouiouio

So.... (3, Funny)

EvlPenguin (168738) | about 13 years ago | (#2220178)

...who else here thinks the only reason there is a Mozilla project is that Netscape said to themselves: "well, this code is just too fucked up, lets give it away"?

MozillaQuest is run by an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220189)

The guy running MozillaQuest is an idiot. He had an article there claiming "netscape is denying that Navigator code is based on Mozilla". What a moron. (I'm not even going to link to it here)

It's probably hosted by M$ astroturfers.

14,000 bugs - how 'bout that (1)

sunset (182117) | about 13 years ago | (#2220203)

I've not seen quite that many yet. :-)

Moz .93 has managed to become my primary browser. It seems to be more usable and reliable than Netscape or Konqueror. And Opera is just not my style.

-- Rod
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/

This post best experienced with (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2220231)

..
.o888o.
... dF' `8
.o8888888o .8
o88888888888. .8
o8888888888888. P
o888888888888888.
.8888888"""8888888
8888888' `888888:
.88'8888 8888888
:8"o8888888888888888
:".88888888888888888
.888888888888888888
8888888"""""""""""'
.8888888. .oooooo
88888888o 888888"
888888888b__d888888
88^888888888888888'
:8" 88888888888888'
:8 888888888888'(R)
:8 `88888888'
-8 _dF""""
`8ouo8"
"^"

Important stuff:

  • Try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>