Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Mozilla 0.9.4 Released

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the fast-as-a-speeding-snail dept.

Mozilla 388

asa writes: "Lots of bug fixes (1,467 at last count) since 0.9.3 including the ability to disable the JavaScript window.open() method during page load and unload events. You can find more information on what's new at the release notes and mozillaZine."

cancel ×

388 comments

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

fppppp (-1, Troll)

rmezzari (245108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301090)

fppppp

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301091)

first post but arabic lang support ???????

Re:fp (1)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301101)

Read the release notes. Arabic language support should work.

Gerv

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301108)

yes now osama bin laden can use mozilla.. does it have encryption support?

but SHOULD it??! (-1, Troll)

MindPhlux (304416) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301111)

If it were up to the US government, perhaps this language support would be "nuked" from the code. after all, we *are* at war..... destroy! kill! maim!

Mirror (2, Informative)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301098)

I've got the new release mirrored at ftp://nerf-herder.net/pub/mozilla

-Peter

Re:Mirror (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301116)

You are a karma whore AND a tool. They really don't need your help, even in the event that you haven't tampered with the software at hand. Mozilla's dedicated 45mbps line will hold up just fine. You're almost as dumb as the people shouting that they have a kernel mirror up after a new release (they already got a 100mbps line, people).

Re:Mirror (0, Troll)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301175)

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

They really don't need your help, even in the event that you haven't tampered with the software at hand. Mozilla's dedicated 45mbps line will hold up just fine.

Really? Did you know that bugzilla was screwed up for HOURS when slashdot ran the story about the manager or whoever being laid off?

Oh, and I can only wish I was so cool that I could "tamper" with the software within, what, and hour of the release. I'm working on it, but I'm not there yet.

You are right in theory though. The mozilla folks really ought to put up MD5s with the release.

You're almost as dumb as the people shouting that they have a kernel mirror up after a new release (they already got a 100mbps line, people).

Well, a Linux kernel source tarball is about, what, 20M? And there are about, what, a bazillion ftp.us.kernel.org mirrors? And another bazillion world wide? I think that this is a bit different.

Oh, by the way, get a FUCKING LOGIN if you're going to talk shit. Oh, wait, you probably have one, but don't want to waste your precious karma.

Re:Mirror (4, Funny)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301189)

The mozilla folks really ought to put up MD5s with the release.

Why? If they can tamper with the releases, they can tamper with the MD5s.

Anyway, the standard disclaimer we put on all releases applies: "If it doesn't melt your hard drive and send your tax evasion plans to the IRS, consider yourself lucky."
Gerv

Re:Mirror (4, Informative)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301201)

Why? If they can tamper with the releases, they can tamper with the MD5s.

For mirrors. You get the MD5 (AFAIR, 128bits, conceiveably double that when including the filename ;-) from the "official" site and use it to verify that the bins on the mirror haven't been altered.

-Peter

Mod this up! (1)

iotaborg (167569) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301167)

Thanks for the mirror, mozilla seems swamped (can't connect at all).

first anti-jerry falwell post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301102)

Falwell is a fag.

Re:first anti-jerry falwell post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301247)

You, my friend, are a Blue Falcon.

Hmm... (1, Funny)

Scoria (264473) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301103)

Just six more releases until they'll be forced to call it 1.0! Wait... I wonder if they can do 0.9.8.1, 0.9.8.2, etc. and delay it a couple of more years.

Bad thought there. Eep.

Oh well, thanks anyway to the Mozilla team for their hard work, especially for the work they've done this week after the tragedies in our country. I know that most people's productivity levels are null, lately.

Re:Hmm... (2, Funny)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301136)

Actually, it goes 0.9.9, 0.9.10, 0.9.11,...

Gerv

Re:Hmm... (0, Redundant)

quannump (310933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301138)

they could go the linux kernel version route ie. 0.9.9, 0.9.10, 0.9.11

Re:Hmm... (2)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301237)

Of course...they are reaching 1.0 exponentially :-)

Actually... (3, Interesting)

bconway (63464) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301105)

Disabling window.open has been around for a couple of releases now, it's just not the most straightforward thing to enable. I was most pleased to find that hitting enter after filling in a form will actually submit a request everyplace I tried it, assuming that's the intent of the form (i.e. a search engine). This seemed to be a hit-or-miss thing in previous releases.

Re:Actually... (2, Informative)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301141)

This used to be a huge issue and something that prevented lots of people from using Mozilla before. Thank you to those who have fixed this!

What's new in 0.9.4 (4, Informative)

mbrubeck (73587) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301233)

The difference in 0.9.4 is that you can disable popups on page-load/page-close only. This gets rid of most popup ads, while preserving less-annoying uses of popup windows (unlike 0.9.3).

See this newsgroup post [google.com] for details.

Offtopic, but please read! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301106)

Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it. From the president to passersby on the streets, the message seems to be the same: this is an inexplicable assault on freedom and democracy, which must be answered with overwhelming force - just as soon as someone can construct a credible account of who was actually responsible.

Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.

But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences. US political leaders are doing their people no favours by reinforcing popular ignorance with self-referential rhetoric. And the echoing chorus of Tony Blair, whose determination to bind Britain ever closer to US foreign policy ratchets up the threat to our own cities, will only fuel anti-western sentiment. So will calls for the defence of "civilisation", with its overtones of Samuel Huntington's poisonous theories of post-cold war confrontation between the west and Islam, heightening perceptions of racism and hypocrisy.

As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.

If, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal insisted, the east coast carnage was the fruit of the Clinton administration's Munich-like appeasement of the Palestinians, the mind boggles as to what US Republicans imagine to be a Churchillian response.

It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power. If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming.

It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.

But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.

All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.

Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.

Re:Offtopic, but please read! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301198)

Good article - I like it!

Looking good (3, Interesting)

boaworm (180781) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301113)

Mozilla is turning out to be a really good browser nowdays. I missed a few features in 0.9.3 though, mostly that it tends to crash while at java-intense pages, as well as encryption.

Hopefully these things have gotten better, it is quite annoying when the browser crashes :-(

If Mozilla is going to be able to compete with the major browsers, it (IMHO) has to be a lot more stable. I can cope with a page being rendered badly, but not with a browser crash. IE is still a lot more stable. Or.. perhaps it is just bad Java Runtime integration ?


Thanks anyway Mozilla team, i'm off to the download zone :-)

Re:Looking good (4, Insightful)

maggard (5579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301159)

If Mozilla is going to be able to compete with the major browsers...
What other major browsers? Opera? Lynx? The legions of other 1%'ers?

As far as most webfolks are concerned there's IE for Wintel, IE for Mac (they've different code bases and behave very differently), Netscape et al v.4x, Netscape/Mozilla et al v.6x then generic text-browsers for ADA compatibility. That leaves Netscape/Mozilla as one of the two major names and the rest lost in the "other" catagory*.

*Yes lots of browser-partesians will howl at this but for most web sites the vast majority of browsers hitting them regularly are IE or NS. No comment on quality or anything else, just reading the logs.

Wonderful release! (1)

laC|n (147028) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301118)

Mozilla's back and better than ever!

It's now even more stable than before.. Seems like they finally are getting near the magical 1.0..

I just hope this version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301119)

does better than 0.9.2. I've been using that for a while now, but it renders quite slow on ilovearabs.com and famous-arab-aviators.com

Thank god (1)

pheph (234655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301120)

Seriously... For some reason 0.9.3 was considerably less stable than 0.9.2 on both my linux and windows systems... I'm glad to see so many bugs fixed. This is my primary browser and each improvement to it is an improvement to my LIFE.

Mozilla? (1)

gordzilla (97994) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301123)

I switched to 0.9.3 permenantly but does anyone know what to put in the "helper apps" to
get RealPlayer8 working automatically? I'm not having much luck! Anyhow looking forward to giving 0.9.4 a try.

speed (1)

moronic1 (162493) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301124)

I havnt used a mozilla release for sometime(been a little busy to grab them everyday..) and WOW! talk about a speed... seems much faster

Wow! (3, Informative)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301126)

Wow, what a great release! I think that 0.9.3 really is a key step in the right direction for 1.0. See http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html for more details on the roadmap and plans for 1.0.

Also, as a mozilla developer, I would like to thank all those who have joined the project recently and done something to help. Even if you cannot code, there is still lots that you can do. I urge you to download 0.9.4 or even better, a nightly build, and to look at http://www.mozilla.org/start, http://www.mozilla.org/qa/help, and http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html. There are many things that you can do to help which will help get 1.0 out the door sooner and better.

Re:Wow! (5, Funny)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301145)

Wow, what a great release! I think that 0.9.3 really is a key step in the right direction for 1.0.

Has someone been cutting and pasting out of their "Slashdot comments" file? ;-)

Gerv

Re:Wow! (1)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301170)

As you can see ladies and gentlemen, when someone triages as many bugs as I have, what number attached to a release has lost all meaning.

Oh and yes, I do think that 0.9.4 is also a key step in the right direction ;)

How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla (5, Informative)

davidu (18) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301130)

Ok folks, here is a really cool feature:
The Ability to manage, on a site by site basis, which sites can give you popups and which can't. A very effective way to manage pop up ads. Here's how:

No POPUPS whatsoever:
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");

But...if some sites need popups, make a zone for them like this:
user_pref("capability.policy.strict.sites", "http://www.evil.org http://www.annoying.com");
user_pref("capability.policy.strict.Window.alert", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.strict.Window.confirm ", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.strict.Window.prompt" , "noAccess");
... you get the idea....

It is very cool, and there is a lot of scripting and other trickery you can do with these prefrences.
Btw, this is all from:

-David

Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla (1)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301135)

There is a bug on this in bugzilla though I forgot the # offhand. I do know that it is in the works and will be done as soon as possible.

Zach

Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla (3, Informative)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301258)

UI for controlling popups is bug 75371 [mozilla.org] . Feel free to vote for the bug [mozilla.org] , if that issue is important to you.

Re:How to manage popup windows in the new Mozilla (1)

iturbide (39881) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301178)

Cool. Just what we needed.

But is it in the interface? I'll be damned if I'm going to talk my mother through this.

0.9.4 Linux does not work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301147)

I tried the 0.9.4 Linux milestone - it does not work. It just exists with a "BadMatch" X error.

Looks Mozilla still needs a lot of work.

Re:0.9.4 Linux does not work (0, Flamebait)

gloth (180149) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301280)

Not sure why that is. I started with Linux 0.99.14 back then, and X worked fine. But hey, I heard they're at Linux 2.4.9 these days, and that one kicks ass for me ;-)

Re:0.9.4 Linux does not work (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301334)

Works fine for me, linux 2.4.9, X 4.1.0.

Mozilla is junk. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301149)

It is still far too slow, uses far too much memory. crashes a lot.

Konqueror is a far better prospect as far as *.nix users go.

aww mozilla too slow? Use lynx! (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301256)

Lynx is lightning fast. its perfect for a nix user who wants weak yet fast software.

Yes, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301151)

This isn't really front page news. So some new release of some software package is out? Big deal. This sort of stuff is for Freshmeat, not Slashdot. Most of the Ask Slashdots that don't get put on the front page are more interesting than this ..!

Re:Yes, but ... (1)

quannump (310933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301190)

yeah and i can argue that most of the Ask Slashdot Qs belong on Google not slashdot. if Mozilla annoys you, log in and disable the Mozilla topic from showing up on the front page.

Re:Yes, but ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301227)

You are obviously a complete fucking moron retard, quannump. Get a fucking clue.

I love it! (3, Interesting)

Brazilian Geek (25299) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301155)

I've been using Mozilla's daily builds as my standard browser since M18 and as my email client since 0.8 and I've got to say that I love it - yes, it is a memory hog but I have more than enough memory to give a fsck.

I've been trying to evangelize the users from my work place into using Mozilla since 0.9.2 and so far I've managed to get 10 out of 90 to switch (from Netscape 4.75 of course, IE is a no-no acording to company security policy).

Way to go Mozilla Team - it gets better every single day, congratulations!

Re:I love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301168)

Mozilla should be a 'no no' from a productivity policy. It is a buggy piece of crap and will remain so.

Re:I love it! (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301217)

Not sure what company you work for, but IT is almost m$ bought and paid for. Exchange, IE, IIS, Office2k, etc..

But in Operations (aka we make the money), we use mostly Solaris, Apache, Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla. Some of our admin tools wont even work on IE5. (Havnt tested IE6 yet...)

Mozilla plugin support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301158)

I have tried everything trying to get the damn Mozilla plugin functionality to work. I have tried placing Real, Flash, and Java plugins in /usr/local/mozilla/plugins, ~/.mozilla/plugins, installing various versions of different system libraries, and still, the only plugin that shows up in about:plugins is that damn "null" plugin. Is there some manual registering that needs to take place in order to make Mozilla see these plugins?

aha! (1, Offtopic)

Requiem (12551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301160)

Excellent. I may now pr0n from work and not have to frantically close windows at the last minute.

Thank you, Mozilla team. My raging codpiece salutes you.

Mozilla progress (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301161)

Bugfixes here, bugfixes there.

Nevertheless, in the mean time Mozilla remains the sack of shit it allways was. A lot of arrogant developers who think they rule the world while implementing the personal features they - personally - always found interesting in a browser. All this while raping the Netscape in an absurd manner.

In other words, what's new? Did a sudden change happen in de Mozilla policy? Are they now suddenly trying to create a real browser, of which people have use?

No? I thought so. Thanks for playing, slashdot. I've been waiting 2,5 years and still they haven't succeeded in creating anything remotely useble.

Re:Mozilla progress (0, Offtopic)

azzy (86427) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301257)

Mark this one down as flamebait.
My responce to the cad above is:
Fuck off and die.

That blunt enough?

(ignore sig.. on a higher build now)

Re:Mozilla progress (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301329)

Yo Bill, does your mother know what you post here? TSK TSK.

Proxomitron (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301165)

...the ability to disable the JavaScript window.open() method...
You might not want all pop up windows disabled, only windows with ads.

Check out Proxomitron [spywaresucks.org]

It will has rewrite the http stream, so you can rewrite headers, html, cookies, etc. For both incoming and outgoing. Also make Mozilla reply as "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)". Its more powerfull than junkbusters, and has more features and filters(all editable)

Re:Proxomitron (2)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301176)

Also make Mozilla reply as "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)".

That's a bit silly, isn't it? You'll get served IE DOM content, and it won't render correctly.

Gerv

Re:Proxomitron (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301205)

It comes in handy on a few sites, and the option is easy to toggle. In fact most sites that do bitch about a non-ie browser work just fine after I fake the user-agent.

Re:Proxomitron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301188)

Ummm if everyone pretends to be using MSIE then no developers are gonna worry about supporting other browsers. Then everyone will be forced into pretending to using MSIE. If your using Mozilla let your hits show as Mozilla so the lame web designers get a clue.

Re:Proxomitron (2)

Phroggy (441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301206)

Also make Mozilla reply as "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)".

Please don't do this. It just makes life harder on web designers. How can we optimize our HTML code to render correctly in your browser, if you lie to us about what browser you're using?

Of course, there may be a few cases where it's necessary to do this temporarily, on a per-site basis, but please don't do this long-term.

Re:Proxomitron (1)

twoflower (24166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301231)

It just makes life harder on web designers.


No, you're just making life harder on yourself. See below.

How can we optimize our HTML code to render correctly in your browser, if you lie to us about what browser you're using?


Don't do this! Just write to the standard DTD and ignore everything else. Providing "optimized" content just makes the compatibility wars rage on, and if you optimize for IE, you're helping MS subvert the documented standards.

Twoflower

Re:Proxomitron (2)

noom (22944) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301320)

Don't do this! Just write to the standard DTD and ignore everything else. Providing "optimized" content just makes the compatibility wars rage on, and if you optimize for IE, you're helping MS subvert the documented standards.


Would you mind posting the DTD for JavaScript?

Oops! I nearly forgot, scripting languages don't have DTDs!

And sure, some backwards people would prefer no scripts in their HTML, but the rest of us actually prefer the design flexibility... and it's just a fact of life that browsers have different, mutually incompatable bugs in their implementations, as well as "additional features."

-n00m

Re: Mozilla user agent (2)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301317)

Changeable user agents is bug 46029 [mozilla.org] . Feel free to vote for the bug [mozilla.org] if that issue is important to you.

Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (1)

helixcode123 (514493) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301171)

Out of curiosity, I downloaded both Netscape 6.1 and Moz 9.3. I found Netscape to be practically glacial, and while Moz was better it still didn't approach the speed of Netscape 4.7X (which came with my RedHat 6.2 installation).

I guess I'm wondering why the new versions are so much slower than the older versions of Netscape. I know this is the M$ approach to application "upgrades", but is it something we really want to emulate?

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (2)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301194)

Lynx is probably faster still. But it doesn't mean you necessarily want to use it. This is not an excuse (Mozilla should be faster than it is), it's just an observation.

Gerv

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301238)

Links [freshmeat.net] is text based, renders frames, and has HTTP 1.1/keepalive support, color. It supports the mouse in terminals too, so you can just click links.

I perfer links over lynx.

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (2)

BZ (40346) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301212)

> I guess I'm wondering why the new versions are so
> much slower than the older versions of Netscape


Because it's still beta-quality code? There are many performance issues currently being worked on. Also, some things that NS4 does quickly (eg style resolution) take a lot more time to do _right_.

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (2)

JoeBuck (7947) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301245)


Konqueror does a much better job than Netscape
4.x of doing styles right, and it's a lot faster
than Mozilla. I wish the Mozilla people well,
but it's simply false to claim that the slowness
is required for a correct implementation.

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (2)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301259)

We'd be very interested to hear of pages Konqueror gets right, and Mozilla gets wrong. Please file bugs in Bugzilla here [mozilla.org] , and then quote the bug numbers. We'll get right on it.

Gerv

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (5, Insightful)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301214)

In my mind, I don't think of Mozilla or Netscape 6.x to be an upgrade to Netscape 4.x, I think of it as a completely different product. Any time that you rewrite 100% of the product, you can expect the new version to be slower, more infested with bugs, and just "feel" worse than the older version which has been tended for many years.

However, if Netscape decided not to do the 5.0 rewrite, disaster would be the only end. The old code was not mantainible and doesn't allow for the powerful new features and embedding that seamonkey allows for.

Speed is something that is being worked on and is significantly better than before. I won't mention full names here on /. without permission from the people involved, but someone at Netscape (d. hy.) did a lot of work on page loading and a new contributor did a lot of proformence work as well recently (jes.). Mail/news also uses the widget in the folder-paine, which has great speed increases as well.

So we are trying the best we can. As always, patches are welcome.

Zach

Re:Speed issues. Moz 9.3/9.4 (1)

dwlemon (11672) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301221)

Mozilla's gui responsiveness and load time is slower, but the rendering engine is fast: it's the only browser that renders big tables like Slashdot comments as they load instead of waiting for the entire page to load (on my 28.8). The only browser I havn't compared it to is Konqueror.

I think it's a fair trade-off. It's always in memory on my machine anyway.

Power (2, Funny)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301243)



Netscape 4.7 is older, WEAKER, of course its going to be faster.

Think about it.. the most powerful browser cannot be the fastest browser.

Re:Power (1, Offtopic)

noom (22944) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301332)

Netscape 4.7 is older, WEAKER, of course its going to be faster.

Think about it.. the most powerful browser cannot be the fastest browser.


I'm thinking about it.

Ok, I'm scratching my head now, I'm still thinking.

Ok, something is starting to happen, I think I've got it.......!

DOH! Tell your mom not to use her teeth, dammit!!!! I can't stand it when she does that...

-n00m

Exterminate All Muslims. Islam is a pig religion. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301173)

The moans of the dead cry out for justice:
  1. Kill all Arabs.
  2. Kill all Muslims.
  3. Kill all Mohammedans.
  4. Kill all Towel Heads.
  5. Kill all Camel Jockeys
  6. Kill all Islam.
  7. Nuke their countries to hell.
  8. Nuke them again.
  9. Death to Islam.

I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed.

Death to ALL Towelheads!!!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301182)

You fucks will be sorry when we turn your country into a bigger mess than it is now.

Mouse Button configuration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301192)

On > 2 button mouse how do you get Mozilla to recongize one of them as, say, the Internet back button? Any ideas?

Wow!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301195)

I tried this latest release on my system(p4 1.2ghz 512mb ram) and it is amazing. The new --turbo option really helps and the initial window opens in about 5 seconds.

Error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301199)

I dont know if anyone else got this but with 0.9.4 I got "Error Sending Command" when i was usig the redhat 7.1 rpms.

Mozilla 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301209)

The 1.0 release is getting closer now, the latest schedule predicts the 1.0 as early as late 2002. I can't wait.

mailer works a little better, too (3)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301210)

I've been using Moz daily for almost a year now for both web and mail. I downloaded a daily a couple days ago and it's getting better all the time. The most notable improvement: The mailer isn't a time-sink like it used to be. Even in 0.9.3 it would take me upwards of 1 or even 2 minutes to click "new msg", put in 3 recip addrs, type a subject line and then start writing the body. Luckily I only write about 3 emails a week...

Oh Great!! (2)

throx (42621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301213)

Now, in the inevitable war between the annoying ad companies and the poor downtrodden browser users we'll get no more popups, but click-thrus or something even more insidious instead.

I can't wait for "This site cannot be viewed without the EvilPopupsAndPersonalInfoCollector plugin installed".

Don't get me wrong, this is a good interim effort but web advertising is going to continue.

<obtroll>
I also find it interesting that the /. crowd decries the use of Smart Tags (because they change content) but is more than happy to change content they DON'T like (popups and banner ads). Do I smell a note of hypocrisy here?
</obtroll>

Re:Oh Great!! (1)

wadeb (147504) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301251)

I think people are more worried about Smart Tags *adding* content than the ad filters removing it.

Besides, most popup filters give you an option to view the popups, say by Ctrl-clicking or what have you.

-Wade

Re:Oh Great!! (2)

cmowire (254489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301266)

Actually, I don't think so, at least in this case.

Loving Junkbuster to get rid of ads and hating Smart Tags because they change content is being a hypocrate.

But disabling popups is, at least the way I look at it, different. You are not actually changing the content, just preventing a response to said content.

I like the 0.9.4 version very much simply because I can cut off 99% of the annoying popups while allowing the one or two useful, or at least, impossible to avoid, popups. Like when somebody has a web app that sometimes pops up a tip window in response to clicking on a link instead of a whole new page.

I don't have a problem with people tracking my online usage with cookies, because I figure they are entitled to some information about my browsing habits in return for putting up their sites. I don't even mind banner adverts, even though the only ones I'd have a remote chance of wanting to buy based on a banner advert is Thinkgeek. I just hate popups.

Re:Oh Great!! (2)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301309)

I also find it interesting that the /. crowd decries the use of Smart Tags (because they change content) but is more than happy to change content they DON'T like (popups and banner ads). Do I smell a note of hypocrisy here?

So I go to foo.com's webpage. I expect foo.com's software to give me the content they want to let me have, and I expect my software to display it based on my personal preferences. Nowhere does a third party need to enter into that transaction. This is not hypocritical, because I extend to Microsoft employees the same priviledge: to view what web sites they visit in the way they choose. If the Apache authors were to insert code that added a "Replace IE now!" button to the top of each webpage requested by Internet Explorer, I would find that just as offensive.

Re:Oh Great!! (1)

Bostik (92589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301315)

Smart Tags add additional (and unwanted) information. In effect, they change the content from the original and do this in a way that the user has little or no way of finding out. Adbusters have to be configured to remove information we wish not to see. They change the content in a predefined and user-configurable way.

Would you like to see your web pages mutilated with links that weren't there when you made them?

The fact that Smart Tags are made as opt-out, is close to immoral. Anyone who builds webpages has to specifically disable them on each page. Just how do you think casual users are going to know about this? Not everyone with web pages is a professional.

My last few wishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301234)

For Mozilla on the Mac are smaller memory requirements(I can take the base config, but add a few plugs and it becomes huge), the ability to set the location of your cache(maybe this in the prefs file and I am missing it?), and few mime types included by default(I know I can add them, but I'm lazy).

Nevertheless, it is my everyday browser and I hope that as it matures, more sites will support it!

How Are you gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301235)

All your World Trade Center are belong to us.

You have no chance to survive. Make your cruise missle.

Re:How Are you gentlemen (1)

tpackage (521841) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301246)

If management isn't already open to at least a discussion of telecommuting then it's likely your request will fall on deaf ears. This however isn't the case if you've been at a company for a long time and have quite a bit of power.

Re:How Are you gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301279)

Wrong thread, dude :-)

Re:How Are you gentlemen (1)

tpackage (521841) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301306)

Yeah I know... oops. This was my first post and I got a little anxious.

Stop complaining about speed! (2, Informative)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301248)



Everyone who complains about speed doesnt know anything about how computers work.

New software is bigger, more powerful, and NEEDS a more powerful computer, RAM IS CHEAP, dont tell me Mozilla uses too much ram when you can buy a gig of ram for under $200.

Get a faster harddrive, if mozilla is slow you are most likely using cheap IDE crap.

Now, if you have a modern computer THEN you may use modern browsers and modern software, if you have a computer which was made before Netscape 4.7 was released, then you should be using netscape 4.7, your computer will never be powerful enough to run mozilla.

Re:Stop complaining about speed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2301336)

> Get a faster harddrive, if mozilla is slow you are > most likely using cheap IDE crap.

Get with the times, hanging a drive off SCSI doesn't make it any faster. Firewire is the last nail in SCSI's coffin.

"Patches and/or help is welcome!" (2, Informative)

zachlipton (448206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301260)

Rather than sitting around and discussing how Mozilla should load pages 1.5ms faster than it does today, why can't we all get off the ground and help. mozilla.org has made it very easy to find the resources that you need to help out, espically with non-coding work. Yes, you did hear me say it: "You can help with Mozilla without coding!"

If you travel over to one of the following pages on mozilla.org, you can learn all that you can do to get involved. Confirming the unconfirmed (from page number 3 below) is a great way to get involved, doesn't take much time, and is of a big help when all the many bugs come in after a big release like this.
  1. http://www.mozilla.org/start
  2. http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html
  3. http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/

two things to make it my permanent browser (1)

nilstar (412094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301269)

If mozilla used less memory (I've got a laptop with 192MB and it is still slow!).... and.... (though not critical) if it could read IMAPish email from my @netscape.net account.... then I'd use it all the time....

The browser is great, but where is the spell check (2)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301277)

Come on already.... lets get a spell checker folded into the email client. I need ALL the help I can get. I tried hacking the 6.1 checker in to the last build, but no luck. Is there any word on when - world acording to me - one of the most basic things about an email client will be included?

Re:The browser is great, but where is the spell ch (2)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301288)

Netscape has a proprietary spell-checker which it ships. No-one has yet found time to write an open-source one. Obviously, no-one at Netscape would spend time doing it, and external contributors are busy on other things. The usual trick is to use a build close to a Netscape release and install their spellchecker.

It would make a good CS project for someone. Fuzzy logic matching isn't all that hard. The UI is open source, it's just the back end that's currently proprietary.

If you are interested, mail me and I'll point you in the right direction.

Gerv

Re:The browser is great, but where is the spell ch (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301303)

Isn't a/ispell open source ?

Re:The browser is great, but where is the spell ch (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301325)

I used netscapes 6 spellcheck.xpi with an early version of mozilla and it wored fine. It doesnt work with 0.9.4 (just tried) hopefully someone fixes this soon.

Re:The browser is great, but where is the spell ch (2)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301335)

The bug for getting a spell checker into Mozilla is bug 56301 [mozilla.org] . If you can help out with the effort, that would be fantastic, as the bug is somewhat stalled at the moment.

It used to be that you could install Netscape's spellchecker, but that is no longer supported [mozilla.org] .

PS Gerv: This message isn't directed at you, but primarily at the parent post to your post.

Snap mouse to default button in Windows (2)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301287)

In Windows NT/2000, users can set in the mouse preferences for the mouse to automagically move to the default button in dialog boxes and alerts. However, Mozilla doesn't currently cooperate with this [mozilla.org] .

The bug has keyword [mozilla.org] "helpwanted", so if you know how to accomplish this functionality, please speak up :). Or, if you aren't inclined to programming, you can also vote for the bug [mozilla.org] (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account [mozilla.org] to vote).

Interesting (1)

synclayre (312365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301311)

Im still using an 0.8.x build of Mozilla and for some reason Im failing to see all the instability that the newer releases are striving to thwart.

Maybe its just me? Im not a 'power user' perse... most of the sites I visit aren't multimedia intensive with the exception of some Flash which isnt readily supported anyway.

I guess if something happens in which my browser stops working Ill upgrade, but until then Im happy where I am =/

Kudos to the Mozilla team for all they're hard work and maybe someday Ill upgrade and check out all the new features ;)

First bug post... (1)

painkillr (33398) | more than 12 years ago | (#2301330)

Or maybe it's not the first.

For mozilla 9.4, win32 on winXP using the GrayModernIII skin:

Edit > Preferences > Mail & Newsgroups

The formatting in the window is in a messed up font and the background doesn't show. Blah.

----------------
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>