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 0.9.5

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the more-happiness-than-one-person-can-stand dept.

Mozilla 436

agotneja writes: "Check out mozilla.org for details :) Another fine (hopefully!) release." For whatever reason, 1.0 still seems really far off.

cancel ×

436 comments

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

they should start going backwards with the numbers (4, Funny)

timothy (36799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423316)

... until people start feeling grateful for 0.9.5 ;)

Or call it "one point oh beta minus initial release testing phase DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON use at own risk edition, AKA 'only 4 more points'"

At any rate, I'll grab .9.5 now, but .9.4 is sweet.

Tim

replies to self for clairification :) (2, Interesting)

timothy (36799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423331)

... " DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON use at own risk" is not to say that it's actually risky :) In fact, I find Mozilla (recent nightlies) closer to crash free than most other software I use, certainly on a per-hour browser, since I spend most waking hours in it of late.

I just mean, if the "one point zero" is that important, maybe the wrong things are being evaluated. I bet every release is tempting to call one point zero, but Hey, aren't "point zero" releases supposed to be unstable / expected-to-be-updated anyhow? When 1.0 comes, wait for the "why only 1.0?!" flame ...

Mozilla developers, please ignore silly number flames.

timothy

p.s. time to break in 9.5 in Berlin :) Greetings to all from the KongreBhalle :)

Let's hope I can bid on ebay with 0.9.5 (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423401)

Somehow it broke from 0.9.3->0.9.4...

It's gettin better... (2, Informative)

XRayX (325543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423402)

I really like those new "Opera-Style" Features. And of course the new one is a bit more stable.
But the E-Mail Client is still something to work on (stability/speed), I like KMail a hundred times better... maybe in the next version...
X

When will Mozilla Innovate? (2, Flamebait)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423428)



I want to see the Mozilla team create NEW features, I tried to give some ideas, such as username and password autocomplete, another thought would be a shielded password and username autocomplete which uses stars to hide both the username and password.

This way someone looking at your keyboard cant look at your hands and see your password because its set to autocomplete.

Re:When will Mozilla Innovate? (2, Informative)

nikhil_g (303950) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423453)

PSM already does that, as far as my usage of it goes. You can start using PSM for autocompleting your forms also.

The username showing as "*" is something not present, but why would you need that?

Re:When will Mozilla Innovate? (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423619)



PSM auto completes your forums, but what i mean by auto complete is like when you enter in a URL, and you start entering and it guesses what you are about to type and puts it in there.

I dont like the way PSM gives me a list, why do i want everyone to see all my usernames?

And its a good thing to use "*" because what if you dont want people knowing your username for security reasons? If you are at work, using windows, then you dont want people to know your username because they could simply look for the plain text windows password and if it matches your mozilla password you are screwed.

Security is an issue when you have yuor credit card info in your browser.

Re:When will Mozilla Innovate? (1)

__soup_dragon__ (112372) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423604)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! ARE YOU INSANE??!?!?!? never mention "more features" and "mozilla" in the same sentence!!! :-))) i'm not even sure how slash's filter let this one through!! :-D

as if wating for emacs 21 wasn't enough... IMHO just polish it and bug fix it and leave the creative side for after 1.0.
and talking about emacs, i DEMAND that all distros to change their names to emacs/linux and bump their version numbers to 21 when emacs 21 is out :-D RedHat Emacs/Linux 21, catchy huh?!

Whats wrong with more features? (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423615)



I want powerful software, I'm not running on a 486 like you and having more features does not scare me.

and YES i do use linux so i know where you are coming from but in the case of a browser, features are a good thing when useful.

Re:Whats wrong with more features? (2, Informative)

benb (100570) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423663)

Every feature adds bugs. Some are probably crashs, some of them might even be security bugs.

Also, the more time you spend on features, the less time you have for bugfixing the rest.

When the homewoek is done (2, Insightful)

benb (100570) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423610)

Let's first implement the existing useful standards (of which the tag is certainly one) before we start to "innovate".

* Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsing.. (1, Troll)

cyba (25058) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423405)

> Press Ctrl+T to open a new tab. (Bug 101973.)

It looks like they copied this feature (together with the shortcut) from Galeon.

Re:* Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsin (1)

steve.m (80410) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423548)

so the copied the idea, so what ? immitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Re:* Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423624)

The Tabbed Browsing feature is interesting but it does take some room away from the web pages. There is a screen shot of the Tabbed Browsing feature in the mozillaquest.com story about 0.9.5. You can see in that screen shot that the tabs take up an entire toolbar. By the way there is an interesting discussion in that mozillaquest story about the turbo mode pros and cons. I tried the Tabbed Browsing feature and it is handy even though it takes space away from the web pages.

Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423410)

Can you imagine an anthrax spore of these?

Karma whoring (3, Informative)

damiam (409504) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423411)

Download it here [mozilla.org] , or from one of the many mirrors [mozilla.org] .

Changelog:

* The History and Mail&News applications now allow you to reorder columns with drag and drop. For instance, if you prefer to have the date listed first in your mail thread pane, drag the Date header onto the Subject header and the Date column will move to the first position.
* Warnings in the JavaScript console now show the text of the offending line.
* Venkman, the JavaScript Debugger is now available in complete installer builds. Remember to choose 'complete' install, instead of 'typical'. Start the debugger under the Tasks/Tools menu or from the command line with mozilla -venkman.
* Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsing feature. Press Ctrl+T to open a new tab. (Bug 101973.)
* People who like tabbed browsing may also like the mozilla gestures add-on, Optimoz now available at mozdev.org.
* SOCKS proxies (both v4 and v5) can now be used with all protocols (Bug 89500) except MailNews. Using socks with MailNews is covered by bug 44995.
* Mozilla has a new Site Navigation Bar for navigating sites that use the element (like Bugzilla buglists.) Choose the menu item View | Show/Hide | Site Navigation bar | Show As Only Needed to make the toolbar show up automatically when you visit pages that use the element.
* The View Source window now has a context menu with items for Find, Copy, and Select.

RPMs? (1, Redundant)

lal (29527) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423413)

Anyone know when/where RPMS will be released?

Compile mozilla, dont use RPMS! (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423427)

Think SPEED

Re:Compile mozilla, dont use RPMS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423432)

Can anyone point me at some data that actually shows me a significant difference in speed between precompiled binaries and optimized-for-your-system "build-your-own"s? Especially when using GCC..?

do you use intel pentium 4? (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423444)



SSE enhancements or whatever else you get from using the P4.

If you use precompiled binaries, then its not specifically for YOUR machine, so it could be slower, sometimes its fine if you find one compiled for the P4, or for the Athlon, but usually you dont know what its compiled for, you just see i686, so someone could have compiled this on an athlon and you are on a P4, no speed benifit!

Re:Compile mozilla, dont use RPMS! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423437)

I've never been able to compile Mozilla.

I'd rather wait for someone to create a binary instead.

Re:Compile mozilla, dont use RPMS! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423528)

Huh?

Is it really that hard to type:

export CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@cvs-mirror.mozilla.org: /cvsrootcvs
cvs co mozilla/client.mk
cd mozilla
gmake -f client.mk checkout
gmake -f client.mk build

Re:Compile mozilla, dont use RPMS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423438)

Lots of speed, but by the time you've finished compiling it they'll have released the next milestone.

Compile Mozilla == Speed (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423573)

Let's see.

My 1.2 GHz/512MB AMD Thunderbird has been compiling the latest release now for about an hour.

Speed, indeed.

Re:Compile Mozilla == Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423629)

Half an hour later: still compiling.

Yawn.

I did it within 60 minutes man... (1)

Herstel (517116) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423657)

Several days ago I compiled 0.9.4 here on 1.2GHz Athlon and 256MB memory in exactly one hour, with quite few configure options. I folowed all instruction from their web site and compiled flawlessly. When all was done the browser didn't work.

Re:I did it within 60 minutes man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423675)

It finally compiled.

The total time was around 100 minutes even though I had disabled Mail and News. I had -O3 option set, though.

The bottleneck could have been my 5400 rpm IDE drive, but I doubt that.

Get a faster harddrive (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423677)



Maybe your harddrive is so slow that its taking forever to feed the information into the CPU.

Re:Get a faster harddrive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423707)

Faster harddrives make noise. I hate noise.

I used to have 10000 rpm SCSI drives but with them I couldn't keep my computer on at night.

My current 5400 rpm Maxtor drive is practically silent. I can't hear it spinning up or the heads looking for data. After I changed the original noisy CPU fan to a huge 8 cm fan that rotates slowly I got the noise level down to 40 dB. That's tolarable, although still almost too load at night.

mozilla for OS X (3, Informative)

motherhead (344331) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423417)

0.9.4 for OS X is by far my favorite browser,

just a heads up for anyone else out there letting OS X monopolize their time like i have been. omniweb is nice, but so unfinished it makes mozilla look like oracle, Opera beta 5.0 b1.327 rocks very hard, but is just a weeeee too scandi-alien for my tastes - oh and it quits at the first sign of trick xml.

(yeah IE 5.1 is rock solid... but it makes me feel so dirty...)

Re:mozilla for OS X (1)

snookums (48954) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423442)


Does Mozilla support Java applets on OS X yet? Netscape 6.1 preview for OS X does not.

Re:mozilla for OS X (1)

Mr.Strange (204044) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423673)

There is no Java plugin for Moz/Netscape 6 yet. There has been some movement on this lately. Check out http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88870 [mozilla.org] . The bug is targetted at the .96 release.

Are we the ugly stepchild? (2)

tulare (244053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423448)

Seems like OS X is constantly a late release, if it gets released at all. Note that this doesn't just apply to Mozilla. Now, I know there are lots of people out there who will say that it is because OS X (stinks, sucks, fill in your description of choice), but all I can say is that it rocks, especially when compared to the "Classics" not to mention winders. Mebbie the OS X sucks crowd just hasn't tried 10.1 yet.

Seriously, though - I have ran up against problems like a screwball linker in OS X just as much as the next guy. But how many broken versions of, say, GCC have been released? I have to say that it must be due to a bunch of dedicated coders that any OSS works at all - and it works great! But I'd like to see the dev community work more on this platform. Just my 2c.

Re:Are we the ugly stepchild? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423703)

Got OSX, plan on developing for the platform. Mozilla rocks, I'll be installing 0.9.5 on all platforms.

How do you successfully overtake any software market? Bundle all popular software with your operating system.

Re:mozilla for OS X (2, Informative)

Mr.Strange (204044) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423704)

Speaking of OmniWeb, I think a major thing going for it is that it renders its text with Quartz and looks wonderful. Recently there has been an effort to get Quartz to draw fonts in Mozilla. Check this screen shot [mozilla.org] of Quartz working in Mozilla. Cool stuff. It's only a prototype and from the bug report [mozilla.org] looks like it has a ways to go before it lands.

SSL? (0)

Lefty2446 (232351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423421)

Does Mozilla include SSL or will it ever include SSL for accessing secure sites?

What options are out there for use on *nix platforms that allow people to access secure sites?

Adrian.

Re:SSL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423435)

If it doesn't include it in release-builds, you can definately copy over the relevant plugin from Netscape 6.x - I know that at one point, I was using a Mozilla build with SSL. (I predominantly use Netscape 6.1 rather than Mozilla, mostly because the Mozilla icons suck so badly.)

Re:SSL? (2, Informative)

bkor (21535) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423465)

SSL is handled by PSM. When you install Mozilla, also install PSM to get SSL working.

Re:SSL? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423524)

SSL is handled by PSM. When you install Mozilla, also install PSM to get SSL working.

Really? At least in 0.9.4 and 0.9.3 (IIRC, perharps earlier too) the PSM already came with the binary package, and no separate installation was necessary.

(Just checked: Yup, ssl works out of the box with 0.9.5 binary...)

Re:SSL? (1)

bkor (21535) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423591)

I didn't mean a seperate program, with 'also install PSM' I meant 'enable the PSM option in the Mozilla installer'.

Mozilla is the BEST browser! (2, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423422)

Right now no Browser even compares in terms of speed/power ratio.

Sure its debateable that Opera is faster, But Mozilla is more powerful, Its Debateable that IE is more stable, but Mozilla is faster.

Right now, in terms of speed and power Mozilla is the BEST browser you can have.

However if any Mozilla coders are reading this, what needs to be done now to make Mozilla even better, is to start intergrating tools into it, I know all the people on their 486s will scream "BLOAT" But this is what the average user wants, not the average geek.

By intergration i mean, why not tie winamp into Mozilla itself in the same way flash and quicktime are tied in so when someone clicks on an mp3 file the embeded winamp loads and plays it.

Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla all on ONE list, I dont mean jabber but i mean OFFICIAL clients, Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.

This sounds like feature bloat and yes it could be, but Most windows users have ICQ open and Mozilla open wasting vast amounts of ram, Intergrating these tools in a good way would be nice.

Mozilla also needs better memory management, I know its fast now, its as fast as it can be, but it seems they have stopped focusing on improving the speed, I say they should keep trying to make it as fast and as optimized as possible, this is for the linux using crowd, and the geeks, We want it to be fast and use LESS ram yet remain powerful. Difficult yes, but theres still room for improvement.

Some other features i want, when i download an mp3, or a file, i want to actually SEE it on the desktop or directory its downloading, i dont want to download it to a temp directory and then transfer, Some people like to open files before they are 100 percent complete, such as mp3s.

Last but not least, better and more intelligent cache, I know mozilla is fast right now, but some of us have broadband connections, while our browser is sitting idle we should have an option to allow pre caching of entire websites while we are reading that long article.

Once again, when more people get broadband it will be more important to pre cache websites by downloading BEFORE people actually click it, this gives them the illusion that things are faster because they dont have to "wait" for a page to load, its already loaded. For people on 56k i can see why they might complain, but please put some broadband options into Mozilla.

Theres alot of features i like, but Mozilla needs to be more innovative, I dont think its good enough for them to go around stealing all of IEs features, taking the old Netscape features, and stopping there.

Example, the password remember feature is nice, when i log into hotmail it gives me a list, but what if i dont want someone looking to see all my user names? How about auto complete in the username section to fill the username when i type "Han(autocompleted) HanzoSan and password autocomplete for people who cannot remember their password fully.

Thats just one useful feature that they COULD do that no one else has done. will they? I doubt it but maybe someone is reading this and will add some of these features.

Mozilla is the best browser, but in order to stay the best they need to innovate not copy Opera, IE, and others.

Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser! (1)

cyba (25058) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423449)

> (...) Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.

Mozilla is _not_ owned by AOL.

From http://mozilla.org/about.html:

The staff of mozilla.org is composed of members of that community who have a more formalized involvement with mozilla.org. We work for different companies and represent different interests, but we share the common task of making the organization (...)

90 percent of MOzilla staff work for AOL. (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423475)



Netscape is owned by AOL, Most Mozilla staff are Netscape staff.

Aol owns the staff thus they own Mozilla.

Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser! (5, Interesting)

Mr Spot (127247) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423456)

Its Debateable that IE is more stable, but Mozilla is faster.
But what use is a fast program if it isn't as stable as the program it is meant to replace? Don't get me worng, I use Mozilla too, but saying it's better because it is faster, even though it is less stable, is flawed logic to say the least.

Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla ...
Mozilla's codebase is big enough already, adding features like these would simply be increasing the code's complexity while not being as well suited to the task as a dedicated program. This is also the basis of the Unix philosophy: make several programs to do one thing, and do it well, instead of one program to do everything and suck at them all. Add to that that you do not want your instant messaging programs to die when your browser does, and vice versa.

... pre caching of entire websites ...
This is a horrible thing to do! In essence, you would end up downloading countless megabytes of data that would never get read and cause needless congestion on the internet. Say you follow a link from an article: you may only end up going to one page in that site. But your browser has downloaded the whole thing, only to end up throwing it away. That would be extremely pointless and possibly perceived as rude by the operators of the server whose bandwidth you have just wasted. Also, broadband users wouldn't need to have pages pre-cached -- their connection is fast enough without the help of a web accelerator.

Not meaning to attack you personally, but I had to voice my opinion on some of your ideas, so don't get offended by what I say.

Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser! (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423470)

Quote-" Mozilla's codebase is big enough already, adding features like these would simply be increasing the code's complexity while not being as well suited to the task as a dedicated program. This is also the basis of the Unix philosophy: make several programs to do one thing, and do it well, instead of one program to do everything and suck at them all. Add to that that you do not want your instant messaging programs to die when your browser does, and vice versa."-

Unix PHILOSOPHY IS NOT FOR 99.9 percent of ALL people on the web, just 1 percent of Unix users.

Please do not apply Unix Philosophy to people using MSN explorer!!!!

You arent attacking me, You are a unix user, So am I, but the average user is not one of us, the Average user is using IE right now because Mozilla lacks the features needed to make them switch over.

Also, telling me its a horrible thing to do precaching because it will congest the internet, Whats the internet there for? to be USED.

What about sites like slashdot? Ok fine, if my idea was flawed, INTELLIGENT pre caching, meaning YOU control which sites will precache and which sites wont.

Slashdot should definately precache. So should most news sites. As long as we control it, the net wont be congested.

We need features to help the average user, not a linux user running lynx on a 486 who complains about bloat.

I'm not trying to attack Linux users because I'm one, I just happen to know what Windows users want, They WANT bloat, thats why IE is bloated, thats why AOL is bloated, but they want USEFUL bloat, as long as these features are useful to them they dont care how complex the code gets. Of course WE care, but we can just do a custom install and 0 bloat.

I forgot to mention (2, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423480)



stability speed and power are all ratios.

Having too much speed and not enough stability is a problem.
Having too much power and not enough speed is a problem.

Having too much stability and not enough power is a problem.

Having too much speed and not enough power is a problem.

Opera = too much speed not enough power.

Lynx = too much stability not enough power.

IE = too much stability not enough speed.

Mozilla = just enough speed, power, stability, its good at everything, but not the best at anything, well rounded software is usually best.

Konqueror (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423520)

Why is it that people always forget the Konqueror?

It's lightweight, fast and damn stable.

Its not faster than MOziilla, its not more stable (0, Flamebait)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423603)



Konq is good, but MOzilla is faster, more powerful and more stable.

Plus Konq is just or linux and KDE at that.

Re:Its not faster than MOziilla, its not more stab (1)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423670)

but MOzilla is faster,

wrong

more powerful

wrong

and more stable

wrong again.

Plus Konq is just or linux

wrong

and KDE at that

at last he almost gets one right.

Re:Its not faster than MOziilla, its not more stab (0, Flamebait)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423693)



Ok, Lets see your statistics, show me the time in seconds it takes mozilla to render a page not downloaded from the net but from your harddrive.

Get some sample HTML files and so on, and see which one renders fastest, I'll bet money on Mozilla.

Stability, Konq has crashed, Mozilla has NEVER crashed in Linux or Windows ever since version 0.9.3

Put your money with your mouth is, show some statistics.

Konq is for KDE, KDE is for Unix, usually Linux.

Konq faster at loading pages than Mozilla? prove it,
Faster at loading up in KDE? of course, its built into KDE, but its not faster at actually browsing the web.

Re:Konqueror (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423667)

Konqueror requires you to install an entire buggy and bloated desktop in order to use it. It's also tied to a non-free library.

Re:Konqueror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423687)

It's also tied to a non-free library.

Are you trolling for the gnome/gtk clique or just stupid?

KDE and QT have been under GPL license for a long time now.

Worse is Better? (4, Insightful)

marm (144733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423680)

Why is it that people always forget the Konqueror?

I don't think they do. Konqueror is my preferred browser by far. It's not perfect, there are areas where it needs a little work (Javascript and Netscape plugin handling for instance) but the overall feel of the browser UI and rendering engine is unmatched. It's quick, full of useful features, relatively light on resources and renders well. In short, everything I want out of a web browser.

There are a few reasons people have stopped making much noise over Konqueror recently:

  • There hasn't been a major release of it recently, and there won't be for a little while either (not until KDE3 sometime early next year). This is due to Konqui's coupling to the KDE release schedules. Fair enough I think, given that Konqueror is a key component of KDE.
  • The inevitability of Konqui becoming popular, maybe even the most common Linux browser - AKA the IE effect. KDE is the default desktop for most distros these days, and Konqueror is the default web browser for all those KDE desktops. It's a good browser and tightly integrated into KDE. Why bother switching to anything else?
  • The fact that many users of Konqui are very happy indeed with its performance, and, perceiving the rapid success which Konqueror has had, feel no need to crow too much about it?

I think that the 'battle' between Konqueror and Mozilla to be the most successful *nix browser is a little like the 1970's 'battle' between UNIX and Lisp machines. Lisp machines (perhaps like Mozilla) were designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness above all else. If that meant a very large and complex system, then so be it. UNIX (perhaps a bit like Konqueror) was designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness but ABSOLUTELY NOT at the expense of simplicity.

We all know now who won that 'battle'.

There's more about this subtle difference in design philosophy here [jwz.org] . Yes, notice where this is hosted - Jamie Zawinski's site. Ironic? Perhaps not, given jwz's resignation from Netscape and Mozilla. You be the judge.

How biased are you? (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423706)



First there IS NO standard Window manager in linux.

Gnome and KDE come with every machine, I dont know any distro which comes with just KDE, but i know a few which just come with Gnome.

Konq will never be an IE because it will never be standard because there is no standard Linux Browser.

Konq is not the fastest at rendering, Opera and MOzilla absolutely destroy it in terms of rendering speed, I tested myself.

Konq is not powerful enough, its years behind Mozilla, and its on the level of say Opera.

Konq is good for general purpose but am I the only one here who prefers to use a BROWSER to browse the web and a file manager to manage my files,

Konq has become the file Manager, Mozilla the browser, why? Because jack of all trades = master of none, A browser should be the best BROWSER, IE sucks because it does everything, I suppose windows users want this, But you are talking Linux here.

Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser! (2, Interesting)

zmooc (33175) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423514)

... pre caching of entire websites ...

Indeed a horrible thing, but it might be usefull if implemented in LARGE caching proxy-network with a LOT of users. This way browsing would be faster on average while the traffic doesn't necessarily have to increase; if browsing using a caching proxy is noticeable faster, more people will use it. This way the load will be kept from the webservers itself and will be moved to the caching proxies.

Let the proxy cache be distributed (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423607)



Thats a very good idea, if the proxy cache is distributed, and people from certain sites sign up to it.

Say slashdot people sign up to a distributed proxy cache server, where the cache is stored on our harddrives, which would make browsing slashdot faster for US because we subscribed to the slashdot cache network.

Great idea, now go write some code.

Re:Let the proxy cache be distributed (1)

zmooc (33175) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423645)

Great idea, now go write some code.

This would only require minor changes to squid [squid-cache.org] . But I although my idea sounds great in theory, I don't think it would have the advantages it should have because the majority of the users just doesn't bother to install a proxy-server and the majority of the ISP's (at least here in .nl) chooses not to install a proxy in the users' browsers by default. And since the idea only works with a huge userbase...well...too bad.

Link tag (4, Interesting)

hereticmessiah (416132) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423423)

What I like best about Moz 0.9.5 is its better support for the <link> tag. It's really about time the more browsers started to actively support this tag considering its great utility and vintage.

Re:Link tag (5, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423684)

...better support for the tag

I think you left off the "B". Mozilla introduced the tag, IIRC, and has supported it for years.
From The Book of Mozilla, 12:10:

And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.

Penagon Officer on Ordnance in Afghanistan... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423425)

"A 2000-pound bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile," the officer said.

Re:Penagon Officer on Ordnance in Afghanistan... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423441)

What about the 5000 pound bunker-buster?

I'd still rather see them using fuel-air-bombs to "smoke them outta their caves".

There's no point in going nuclear when you can bust their mountain bunkers with these two weapons.

freshmeat.net (0, Flamebait)

peterprior (319967) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423429)

Anyone else getting freshmeat.net coming up all wacky?

Its mostly ok, but the top horizontal bars are like 10 pixels thick instead of 1 :/

Re:freshmeat.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423526)

this isn't flamebait...i'm changing this NOW.

More on Innovation (0, Redundant)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423440)



I mentioned earlier username and password auto complete.

This would also be a userful feature because

A someone looking at your hands would have no way of knowing your username OR your password
and using some sorta shielding via

stars, both the username and password could be hidden, all you'd have to do is type the first 3 letters of the username and it auto completes.

Would also be useful to be able to type in a password for say, auto login, you type in your password and now every one of your username and passwords auto completes automatically and logs you in.

This way you only have to type in a main password and it turns on an auto login feature, but if you dont know this, then its turned off so if more than one person used your computer.

I suppose its almost like the passport idea from Microsoft but i see it being useful even if not safe.

Still sounds better than passport.

Slashdot is constipated (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423454)

Why is it that the front page says the latest story is the Esoteric Programming Languages story, yet there are two more recent stories that I can post to.

I don't get it. Why are they serving an outdated front page(at least to non-logged in people such as myself).

Try and fart a bit harder slashdot, and your constipation might cure itself. HTH. HAND.

Quick Browser Comparsion: (1)

XRayX (325543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423458)

here was a really good comparsion table of all important browsers before:
"Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." *grmpf*

Not very portable (1, Troll)

evilviper (135110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423471)

Let me know when it compiles out of the box on OpenBSD then I'll believe that it isn't a horrible product.

As is now, there's a million ways for a webmaster to crash Netscape6/Mozilla, and I'm sure more than one of those bugs will allow arbitrary file execution (meaning it doesn't mesh with OpenBSD in the first place).

Mozilla is NOT IE. (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423485)



Theres bugs in Mozilla, but if you honestly think there will be a bug which allows file execution???? sure there might be a bug, and the second you all find out about it, it will already be patched because Mozilla is open source, you can patch it yourself, or the person who finds the bug will just tell Mozilla and it will be patched before anyone even knows.

Re:Not very portable (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423609)

It will compile out of the box on OpenBSD when someone using that platform pulls their finger out of their backside and ports it.


Truly it shouldn't be that difficult seeing as it already builds for so many other platforms.

Re:Not very portable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423686)

port... OpenBSD...

Listen pal, you don't think they got that "x years without a y exploit" tagline by actually have any software *running* do you. It's basically a fucking kernel and nothing else.

No-one ports software to OpenBSD - since no-one uses it.

About the tabs (1)

moZer (83729) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423495)

I think it' s a very useful feature, at least when you have the freedom to choose between tabs and new windows (unlike Opera).

A few issues though:

1. There should be a way to jump between tabs using keyboard shortcuts - Next/previous tab.
2. The closing cross button as well as the page scrollbar disappears when you open more tabs that there is room for in the main window. Not good idea - they should always be present.
3. If you open tabs a described in section 2 above, and close enough to make them fit inside the main window again, the rightmost tab's shadow will have disappeared.

Think I'll post the above as bugs/whishes when I get around to it.

Resizeable tabs please!! (0)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423644)


I'd like to be able to set my tabs to a size that i like it, I'm in high res and the tabs are way tiny

either resizeable, or have the tabs take up ALL the space by default and get smaller as you have more of them.

galeon (2, Insightful)

staeci (85394) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423507)

now I just have to wait a couple of days for the new galeon. ;-)

Mozilla blows - Gecko rules

New bug and feature request (1)

uzi (30210) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423508)

Anyone else notice a problem with 0.9.5 dealing with CNN's page? For some reason when I go there, the back button decides not to work. I then click on reload and I'm sent to the configured homepage. Might not only be CNN's page and it's not 100% reproducable, but it is reproducable.

I like the new CTRL-T tabbing feature. It would be nice if the right-click menu had an "open link in new tab" option. (Should be trivial to implement.)

Re:New bug and feature request (1)

Jack Hughes (5351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423545)

It does. Second option down on the right click menu.

Also an open picture in new tag would be useful (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423628)



It would be even more useful to right click a piture and tell it to open in a tab

Tabbed Browsing feature (1)

savaget (26702) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423509)

The "Tabbed Browsing" feature has to be the best new feature added to date.


Does Mozilla use less memory/resources while using this new feature?

an improvement for the tab feature would be (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423635)



To instead of having two tiny tiny tabs and a long huge empty space. Instead have the tabs auto resize according to how much space you are using, like two tabs would be half and half, and the more tabs you have the smaller the tabs get. its annoying to have to click tiny little tabs in the far left and see all that wasted space.

Re:an improvement for the tab feature would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423692)

Now that sir, is a good idea.

Slashdot is rendered wierd (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423564)

I Am geting box chars as I write this. I think some one messed up Gecko in tyhis release....I can not even see what I am typing.....not to mention the home page of /. is messed up as well

Clear your disk cache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423647)

Most problems seem to stem from the disk cache structures changing from the previous version.

Argghhh!!! (2, Funny)

pschmied (5648) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423569)

OK, I just got done upgrading all the workstations that I administer to 0.9.4. That's cool, all I have to do is wait for .9.5 to show up in the FreeBSD ports right?

I just don't look forward to downloading the new tarballs over my 56.6 modem at home.

*Sigh* I suppose by the time I get that one downloaded there will be 0.9.6.


-Peter

Re:Argghhh!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423589)

Why don't you make all the workstations run a copy of mozilla on a single server? That way you'll have only one installation to upgrade.

Konqueror is better! (0)

redcliffe (466773) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423572)

Why do we need heaps of different browsers? Why don't they just contribute to the KHTML library? Konqueror is far better. :-P

Re:Konqueror is better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423605)

Why didn't the khtml team use the gecko engine instead of creating their own?

Re:Konqueror is better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423625)

Because they can and it seems to work at least as well as gecko.

Re:Konqueror is better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423650)

Gecko renders more websites properly than khtml.

Themes? (2)

reynaert (264437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423613)

Anybody knows a good place to find Mozilla themes? The new x.themes.org [themes.org] isn't up yet, and the stuff on the old site, x.classic.themes.org [themes.org] , doesn't seem to work anymore.

Rebuild for faster operation. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423623)

The first thing you should do is pull down the source and reconfigure and build with --disable-debug "--enable-optimizations=-O4 -finline -fno-omit-frame-pointer -march=pentiumpro -mcpu=pentiumpro" in addition to what ever components you want.

You would n't believe how much more snappier it makes mozilla run, for example the java sdk framed docs index pages goes down from 2.5sec to 1.5sec's on my athlon 850.

Also add this line to your prefs.js file:

user_pref("nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache", false);

This speeds up loading time by using the pre-compiled versions of the javascript controls.

On the Mac... (2)

hysterion (231229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423632)

0.9.5 is nice and fast... though still not quite as fast and twice as memory hungry as good ole Classic only Netscape 4.x. The main things that would still prevent me from using it full time are cosmetic: the butt-ugly Windows-style buttons and pop-up lists, plus these few quirks in mail/news:
  • You can't select several messages by a mouse click-&-drag (I do this all the time);
  • Huge fixed non-scrollable real estate occupied by message headers (*completely stupid*);
  • "View all headers" still doesn't work ("view source" is a painfully slow substitute);
  • Silly quote style using solid bars. These break after two levels or so, and anyway, a message's body is *plain text* so display it as such, with >'s and all, dammit!
(And yes these are all in Bugzilla, but assigned for who-knows-when.) So my browsers of choice remain:
  • on Mac OS 9: Netscape 4.x
  • on Mac OS X: Omniweb
  • on LinuxPPC: Dillo
(As to Dillo, see the reasons here [slashdot.org] -- and thanks to the AC who recommended it in answer to that message. It rocks, and now that version 0.6.1 [sourceforge.net] does tables, it has all you need to go browse for RPMs or tarballs, on those low end boxes for which Konqui, kfm or anything Gecko is not and never will be lean enough. Kudos to the Dillo team for making good on the promise that Linux can revive old hardware.)

far off is right (0, Troll)

truesaer (135079) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423637)

I had tried mozilla a long while back, and it was pretty buggy. So after the last release, I downloaded a new copy because I heard it was much improved, and was in fact nearly a production release.


The first thing I tried to do, was sell something on eBay. Mozilla didn't handle eBay's listing screens very well. I couldn't get it to work, I had to switch to IE.


But, I figured, there are lots of unusual things on that page like the category selection and iPix and stuff.


So, next I went to the weather channel's site. Part of the top of the page didn't display, but it was only graphics and the rest of the site seemed functional. I typed in my zip code, hit ok, and it wouldn't display the resulting page correctly. Again, I had to switch to IE.


So I've gone back to IE. I'll wait for 1.0 I guess, which will presumably be completely functional. But these kinds of issue *must* be worked out before average people will consider using it for their browser.

Re:far off is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423679)

So what? If you use MS Windows, use IE simple as that.

Q: Why should an IE user switch? (4, Interesting)

Sara Chan (138144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423649)

Consider the typical Windows user, who uses IE 6. What are the reasons that I should give to such users for switching to Mozilla, or perhaps Netscape 6.1?


Please note that political arguments about open-source software are not what I'm looking for. The typical Windows user isn't going to listen to this.


What about features, speed, reliability, etc.? The things that I could tell users.

Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch? (1)

BigTom (38321) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423668)

It supports plugins?

Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch? (4, Informative)

Kilobug (213978) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423705)

You can speak about:
* security holes of IE
* password-protected list of username/passwords
* integration with search engines
* tab browsing
* faster and more accurate rendering for complex web pages (with many tables)
* full alpha-channel in PNG
* javascript pop-up control
* intelligent cookies/pictures manager
* pretty interface (new modern theme is so sweet)
* ...

Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch? (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423711)

Besids the complete lack of security of ie and the inherent problems of running a web browser that is part of the os, mozilla is just a personal choice. Every single major release of IE has had remote scripting vulnerabilities that leave the poor web surfer at script kiddies mercy.

Tabbed Interface To Mozilla (3, Informative)

kobaz (107760) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423656)

For all of you using the new tabbed interface of mozilla, its just a simple copy of what the multizilla guys did
[http://multizilla.mozdev.org/] [mozdev.org] This is a much better interface with many many more features. Give it a try, and report those bugs.

Google Toolbar (3, Interesting)

ecliptik (160746) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423664)

I know this sounds pretty stupid, but one thing that I like about IE is the google search toolbar you can add. Is there a way to have this in Mozilla?

Re:Google Toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423697)

No, try galeon.

Re:Google Toolbar (2, Informative)

bobbyLog (260288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423699)

Go to preferences -> Internet Search and choose Google from the list. Then just type the search term in the URL bar.
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>