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!

The Mozilla 1.0 Definition

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the what-things-mean dept.

Mozilla 279

The Evil Beaver writes: "Here we go. Mozillazine is reporting that Brenden Eich, mozilla.org's Technical Bigshot, has released the criteria to what is to be the 1.0 milestone. The 'manifesto' also explains why 1.0 is so important to reach, and why it isn't just another milestone, either. The Mozillazine article is here and the definition document here.

cancel ×

279 comments

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

But.... (4, Funny)

sheriff_p (138609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440695)

Where's the "World Domination" item?

Ha! (0, Funny)

Iron_MMonkey (529003) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440699)

No lizard shall ever defeat the Iron_MMonkey!

1.0 is artificial anyway... (-1, Flamebait)

Kjella (173770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440708)

The question is what is a 1.0 release. If it's a "perfect" browser with all features you want and no bugs, you'll never get there, it might be 0.9999 after some time but...

And if it is like the commercial apps, it's the first thing you get out the door, and never any good anyway, most of the time I'd wait for at least 1.1, so I don't really see the big point of getting to 1.0. At least with 0.something there's an indication that they're still working on it...

Of course some believe more is better so why not set version = milestone... then maybe more people would use it ;)

Kjella

Re:1.0 is artificial anyway... (1)

Dashslot (23909) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440732)

If you had read the article, you would see that first they discuss why they are having a 1.0 release, and then go on to say how it has lots of things to do with freezing APIs and providing a solid basis for future changes.

Moderators, please don't mod the parent up. This karma whore has enough already.

Re:1.0 is artificial anyway... (4, Insightful)

Uggy (99326) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440746)

I don't think 1.0 is artificial in this case. The Mozilla devel team has posted very much in advance a specific roadmap... it's not like everybody else... hmmm, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, oh what the hell let's call the next 2.0. (ahem cough cough KDE) Mozilla has proceeded in an extremely ordered and thorough manner with a specfic and detailed roadmap. I think this 1.0 will be what 1.0 are supposed to be, stable, mature, and a platform to build on if you are a developer without it changing out from under you because of a whim.

I give the Mozilla team muchos kudos for sticking to their guns and applying rigor in a age where rigor is sorely lacking.

Re:1.0 is artificial anyway... (2)

pointwood (14018) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440825)

it's not like everybody else... hmmm, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, oh what the hell let's call the next 2.0. (ahem cough cough KDE)

KDE 3 will break binary compatibility - don't say that isn't a good reason for a new major number!

Re:1.0 is artificial anyway... (1)

codingOgre (259310) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440909)

Umm, 1.2 -> 2.0 *WAS* a major jump! Why do you not think so?

Re:1.0 is artificial anyway... (4, Redundant)

Pretor (2506) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440754)

No the 1.0 is not artificial read the 1.0 definition!

The 1.0 marks the Mozilla API as a stable compatible API.

This means that users and developers can be sure that applications developed for the 1.0 version is compatible with other 1.x versions.

Just look at Galeon for a example of the problems following the Milestone releases.
For each new milestone Galeon stops working until it's updated to use the new API. After the 1.0 version is released this will no longer be an issue.

--
Pretor

Galeon can continue to function. (2)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440864)

I used the version of Galeon that went with 0.9.3 Mozilla and upgraded to 0.9.4. Galeon popped up a dialog that basically amounted to "Wrong Mozilla. Bad Things might happen." It continued to work well for me until Galeon was updated to match. Of course, I only view a limited number of sites.

1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (5, Insightful)

jedrek (79264) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440756)

Hm... I look at the 1.0 release a little differently. It's a few things:

* Feature/interface freeze. A time to stop adding features. Features are being added as we speak, like the tabbed interface in 0.9.5.
* Removal of all debugging code during the release.
* Symbolic 'ready for prime time' version.

I think that the first is the most important to developers. How many skins and plugins have been made that break on the latest milestone?

For the end users the most important thing is the feeling that they're not using alpha or beta quality software, but they're using a *stable*, completed application.

This is one of the reasons that Netscape pissed me off with 6.0. It's a totally unusable browser branched of a Mozilla release that wasn't too usable itself. Then it was crudded down with Netscape's own crap. I think that this turned a lot of people off, and Netscape will pay for it down the road.

Especially on Windows. The Windows world is not the *nix world. People don't wait for the .1 or .2 release, they expect the .0 releases to work as they should. Netscape lost a lot of die-hard fans (including corporations) with the release of 6.0. I think the Mozilla team has taken this lesson to heart and the 1.0 will be rock solid.

At least I hope it will.

(btw. 0.9.5 is *really* good, I'm using it right now and find myself using MSIE 5.5 SP2 much, much less often.)

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440787)

btw. 0.9.5 is *really* good, I'm using it right now and find myself using MSIE 5.5 SP2 much, much less often.)

I don't know, is it just me or is .9.5 slower than .9.4?

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (1)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441079)

Which platform? I know on MacOSX, for example, there was some major NSPR work necessary to fix MP bugs that seems to have had a performance impact (there are bugs open on this, and they're working on getting the perf back where it was.)

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (2, Insightful)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440844)

The Windows world is not the *nix world. People don't wait for the .1 or .2 release, they expect the .0 releases to work as they should.
Ha! Yeah, how many people do you know who have really used Windows 1.0, Word 1.0, Excel 1.0 or Windows CE 1.0? If there's a company which never gets it right the first time, it's Microsoft. I'm willing to bet that the Xbox will crash often (console crashes are very rare, you know).

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (1)

drzhivago (310144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441005)

Thankfully console crashes are typically due to the game, not the actual device. I remember Mortal Kombat for Nintendo 64 used to hang the console every once in awhile. There will only be more crashes if there is less Q/A, since the platform does not contain many variables like a regular computer.

Greg

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440898)

Especially on Windows. The Windows world is not the *nix world. People don't wait for the .1 or .2 release, they expect the .0 releases to work as they should.

You sure that you don't have Windows and *nix mixed up there?

... 2 comments, and.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440709)

I get this:

"Unable to connect to SQL server".

Whee. :P

Re:... 2 comments, and.... (1)

hey (83763) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441034)

Yes, we all do.
Why do they use a database to serve out articles?
What's wrong with giving the Unix path!
Nice and easy, reliable, etc.

error going to article (0, Redundant)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440710)

can it be the ./ effect already? i'm getting "unable to connect to SQL server" when going to the article ...

mozillazine ?!?!?!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440715)

are these not the people/person who keeps creating ficticious articles ?

Re:mozillazine ?!?!?!? (2, Informative)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440728)

No, that's Mozillaquest.

It'll still suck (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440718)

No matter how much waffle is written about this bloated bit of crapware, it will still suck compared to IE6. It will never gain any market share, either, nor be supported by the wider development community (why should they work round its inevitable major bugs when IE6 is ready to roll off the shelf?)

This is not "stuff that matters".

Re:It'll still suck (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440738)

Why? You know why... given MS' track record, the odds are on it only being a matter of time before another Nimda-type program takes advantage of some gaping hole in IE6 and then I get to try to explain virus removal procedures to my Dad over the phone. Again.

No thanks. I'll use Opera until Mozilla is at 1.0 stable.

/. effect or a conspiracy? (3, Funny)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440721)

Could it be, that what we're seeing isn't the infamous slashdot-effect, but in fact a conspiracy preventing anyone not using the latest build of Mozilla on the latest build of the linux-kernel from entering the page?

Re:/. effect or a conspiracy? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440745)

Yeah, that'd fit with the open source mentality of "lock out and mock the normal users", as opposed to the professional "all-inclusive" big-tent approach taken by most for-profit software development houses.

This sort of thing is why open source is already dead. Don't be fooled by Slashdot: they are just the flies buzzing round the corpse.

Its not a game you know.. (4, Offtopic)

onion2k (203094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440724)

Better-than-any-competition standards compliance

There in lies a bit of an issue. The standards aren't done yet. Nor will they be. Standards are an evolving thing. The big issue of the Netscape/IE wars in the late 90s was that both parties tried to predict where the standards were going, and tried to go straight to the final standard without waiting for them to be ratified.

And they both failed.

We had 'non-complient' browsers, different object models, different CSS models, IE and NS specific tags.. it was a right old mess. Trying to be 'most standards complient' implies an attempt to out-do the other browsers, which is precisely where NS particularly, and to a degree IE, fell down. It gave everyone a right old headache.

The problems arise when the web designers find a new feature they happen to like a bit (CSS colour control of scroll bars being a current example), that doesn't work in all browsers, and theres a great big shift toward the browser that does the 'coolest' things.

Yes, be standards complient. Be 100% standards complient hopefully. But just remember that it has nothing to do with how complient the others are.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (5, Interesting)

StupidKatz (467476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440774)

Here's the REAL issue: "Standards are an evolving thing." They *shouldn't* be, and true standards do not evolve much, if at all.

Imagine if a kilogram was 2.2lb one day, then 4.3lb the next. Not much of a "standard", is it?

The major browsers were all "compliant" with ... HTML 1.0 and such base stuff, but web designers are trying to make the WWW do things it was never designed to do, and *that* is where this horrible mess of Javascript kiddies, broken CSS, and browser specific "features" came from. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see all that flashy crap on a web site. Web sites need to contain *content*, not eye candy. :P

Re:Its not a game you know.. (4, Offtopic)

onion2k (203094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440822)

Not quite what I meant. HTML 'standard' is set by the W3C, but it evolves. Its currently at 4.3 (I think). So does the Moz team work toward that? After all, by the time they're done it might be at 4.7. This is the trap into which NS and IE fell. They tried to code for a standard that they hoped would be *the* standard by the time they shipped. Both missed the target. But had they written for what was at the time the current standard they'd have been releasing browser that, while stable and complient, would have been miles behind the competition in terms of features. Which is why writing a standards complient browser should be undertaken by someone who isn't trying to make money. Delibrately being behind your competition would be suicidal.

As for the content of web sites, I'm still a 'content is king' web master. As are many of us. But when we probably aren't the web surfing majority. People want flashy gimmicks and toys on sites. And more and more web 'designers' are all too willing to give it to them.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (1)

MartinB (51897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440862)

Current W3C recommendation for HTML is 4.01 (which is 4.0 with bugfixes)

Re:Its not a game you know.. (2, Informative)

Peejeh (260114) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440875)

Actually the current HTML spec is XHTML 1.0 Revision 2 [w3.org] released last week.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (1)

bertilow (218923) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440922)

Actually the current HTML spec is XHTML 1.0 Revision 2 [w3.org] released last week.

And just why do you exclude XHTML 1.1?

It's actually very unclear which version of (X)HTML is the current "HTML recommendation". If it's not XHTML 1.1 then I can't really tell from the W3C documents which one it is.

Of course XHTML 1.1 is quite unusable in today's browsers, but that's another matter. You can't really (fully) use even HTML 2 in them...

Re:Its not a game you know.. (5, Informative)

hiroko (110942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440953)

The current and last version of HTML is 4.01 [w3.org] . HTML is no longer being developed, having been superceeded by XHTML [w3.org] , based upon XML [w3.org] . These are (two of) the standards mozilla team is working to, and future standards will build upon them.

Moz does use its own extensions to the standards, and features of draft standards, but has implemented them in a manner that states them clearly as mozilla (a "moz-" prefix I think).
These extensions are not being encouraged as "wow look at this great feature" but developed to fulfill needs such as assisting the themes capability, or because a developer is particularly interested in it. The advance work is not enabled in all builds, but will give an advantage when the standard is reccommended (complete).

The point of mozillas approach to standards is to get the existing standards working fully and correctly, anything else is a bonus.

(skipping moderation duty to comment :)

You are sugar coating the past... (3, Interesting)

Carnage4Life (106069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440969)

They tried to code for a standard that they hoped would be *the* standard by the time they shipped. Both missed the target. But had they written for what was at the time the current standard they'd have been releasing browser that, while stable and complient, would have been miles behind the competition in terms of features. Which is why writing a standards complient browser should be undertaken by someone who isn't trying to make money. Delibrately being behind your competition would be suicidal.

Both these companies tried to strongarm the W3C into accepting their versions of standards by going ahead and implementing them anyway. This began with Netscape and it's "time to market" fiasco where they felt major versions of their software had to be released at "Internet time" which lead to them forcing such travesties as Javascript, Javascript CSS and a number of other nonsensities on the web users while not fixing basic aspects of their implementation of the HTML spec like rendering tables.

Thankfully, it seems that now the major browsers have realized the errors of their ways and no longer see "time to market" as being more important than standards compliance. The Mozilla team has been doing excellent works with regards to implementing a number of the W3C standards and Microsoft has now gone as far as to start deprecating some of their own technologies in favor of the W3C versions (e.g. XDR -> XML Schema and XSL -> XSLT).

Re:Its not a game you know.. (3, Insightful)

CptLogic (207776) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440840)

>>Imagine if a kilogram was 2.2lb one day, then 4.3lb the next. Not much of a "standard", is it?

That's not the "standards evolution" that happens here. It's about new functionality and methods of providing it being ratified, upgrades to existing standards such as CSS, not changing what CSS does, just expanding it's repertoire. Hence the Standard Model, to borrow from the world of Physics, keeps getting larger, so a browser needs to support more features to comply with *all* the standards.

Now they only want to be the most standards compliant browser out there, but what happens if a "feature" of another brower model suddenly gets ratified as the best way of doing things, and that "standard" gets updated to reflect this?

Standards compliance is a worthy cause, but, ultimately, a lost one. They need to sit down, pick the standards they want to use as they stand *now* and make it comply with those.
Any newer standards can be included in version 1.1 or something.

Chris.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (1)

StupidKatz (467476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440996)

In other words...

'They' need to pick a standard. ;)

Re:Its not a game you know.. (1)

CptLogic (207776) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441063)

"They" need to take a snapshot of the Standards Model at one point in time and work towards that.

It's my personal belief that all references to W3A standards, and, in fact, any other standards, should include a datestamp, akin to the "Information correct at time of printing" label you see on printed advertising and leaflets and such.

Chris.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (3, Insightful)

MartinB (51897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440891)

The standards aren't done yet. Nor will they be. Standards are an evolving thing. The big issue of the Netscape/IE wars in the late 90s was that both parties tried to predict where the standards were going, and tried to go straight to the final standard without waiting for them to be ratified.


Actually that's mostly not true. The engineers from MS (predominantly but also the NS ones) were part of the forum which defined the standards (CSS1 in particular). They went back to their home companies and implemented something different.


Yes, standards evolve, just like software. But where a standard exists, it should be followed - when you're defining software behaviour, you should follow all ratified standards up until that point.


Adding stuff on top (with the intent of influencing standards) is OK, as long as the core is followed, and you recognise that your new stuff may be in conflict with future standards, and at that point, will have to be deprecated.


If there is a ratified standard for a feature, you should follow the standard or not implement the feature.

Re:Its not a game you know.. (1)

Shafalus (181224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441002)

Yes, be standards complient. Be 100% standards complient hopefully. But just remember that it has nothing to do with how complient the others are.

Yes, but better-than-any-competition is intended as a pragmatic compromise; if the goal was 100% compliancy or even a near approximation, it would be as unattainable as Zeno's Tortoise. As Eich says later on:

Some people believe that most standards-compliance bugs should be fixed for anything that deserves the 1.0 brand. That's ok, but the number of milestones needed to fix such a long list is hard to guess, but probably quite large at the current fix rate.

Promesing (3, Insightful)

TheMMaster (527904) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440730)

"* A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed (XUL 1.0 is an API), until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Mozilla 1.0 is a greenlight to hackers, corporations, and book authors to get busy building atop this stable base set of APIs."

I must say that I find this a very "mature" perspective and this is clearly showing that the people of mozilla know what they are doing and how they should do it!
Mozilla for world-domination (using mozilla since 0.6 BOY did THAT suck!!)

Re:Promesing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441050)

If the Mozilla people "know what they are doing and how they should do it" then shouldn't there have been a browser release in the project's extremely long history?

Re:Promesing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441091)

typeo sorry, excuse me...

The fear of version 1.0 (4, Insightful)

collar (34531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440736)

People have been complaining about the time that it has taken mozilla to reach version 1.0, but from a developers point of view finally stamping "1.0" on the thing is a very hard thing to do. You cant say "oh that will be fixed in the next version" and "that feature is coming soon". Well, you can (and do) but people dont tend to respect you as much...

I'm glad that they have been taking the time to get 1.0 to standard necessary, for some reason AOL saw fit to release netscape 6.0 when they did, which I think was a huge mistake. Lets be glad that the mozilla folks are not so keen to release a product before it is ready.

Open Source goes back into the Cathederal (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440741)

* Is fixing this bug vital to web content developers, Mozilla distributors, Gecko embedders, or others who will depend on 1.0 for stable code and a minimal set of frozen APIs?
* Is there no alternative to fixing the bug that frees people to work on other 1.0 bugs?
* What goes wrong if we don't fix the bug, and just live with it for 1.0?
* What do we give up from 1.0 in exchange for fixing the bug?
* Can you stare down slashdot and C|net together and at the same time, and argue credibly that the bug is a 1.0 stop-ship problem? While we are not yet at the "about to ship, why should we take any more risk" stage, this question can help us prioritize and avoid unpleasant surprises later, when 1.0 is within our grasp.



Now that is proper requirements management, unusual in most open source projects. These are the 4 basic rules on requirements management.

Full on for them in doing this. They are running it like a proper project and trying to control requirements creep.

Open Source goes back into the Cathederal ?

Managing scope creep (5, Informative)

aegilops (307943) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440807)

I'm sure 1e5 Slashdot readers can give their two penneth in advice for project management, but suffice it to say that nailing scope for your project is a major win. Get stakeholders or key significant people to agree to what you are trying to achieve, what you include in scope, and specifically, what you exclude as out of scope.

Then, for each product or deliverable (something you can touch, or something that now exists when it didn't before etc) that you need to produce, classify them via the acronym MoSCoW:

Must

Should

Could

Won't (i.e. not in this release)


Helps to focus the mind on priorities. Otherwise, an excellent idea and full marks for the announcement so far.

Aegilops

It's a platform, so 1.0 is essential (5, Informative)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440744)

Mozilla is more than a browser. It's a development platform, a software layer that runs on top of a number of hardware/OS platforms, and masks the differences.

In this light, an essential feature of Mozilla is backward compatibility between minor revisions. So, 1.0 means: "We're done with the APIs. Please come and hack away with them, we won't break your software".

Wow, this definition document is amazing.. (3, Funny)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440747)

"Unable to connect to SQL server"

Is this some new HTSQL standard being reffered to here? WOw, I didn't know they were working on making a XUL Query tool, thoug it wouldn't surprise me...

:o)

Manifesto (3, Funny)

Root Down (208740) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440752)


... but will the workers control the means of production?

(The question is more important than it might initially seem.)

Re:Manifesto (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440836)

that woul dbe too dangerous!

Re:Manifesto (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440851)

That would be too dangerous

Re:Manifesto (1)

Simm0 (236060) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440865)

For the good of the code [mozilla.org]

Give to the code and the code will give to you. :P

Re:Manifesto (3, Funny)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440906)

For once, entirely apropos:

"When you program open source, you're programming COMMUNISM [mdcc.cx] ."

Re:Manifesto (0, Offtopic)

mav[LAG] (31387) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440973)

No - it was Wolverhampton Wanders who beat Leicester 3-1 :)

Karma whoring (2, Redundant)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440755)

Go straight to the original article [mozilla.org] instead! Mozillazine seems to be down...

Re:Karma whoring (0, Offtopic)

collar (34531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440786)

Ummm

"You cant karma whore with a link that's in the article."

Karma Whoring for Dummies (C) the dummies people who are probably mounting a law suit against me already.

best standards compliance among compeditors (2, Insightful)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440758)

they claim to want to have the best standards compliance among compeditors. first, who are the competition? all browsers? all free (beer) browsers? all open source browsers? secondly, why such a need for the standards compliance? in the past (and still currently afaik), browsers were build on loose compliance, and extending the standards to where they see the standards going into the future (css).

on a side note, it is good to see them put a loose timeframe on the release. their schedule has mozilla 1.0 in about 6 months, so we should expect it in about 9 realistically (sp). I can see their desire to want to lock down api's for a while on the 1.x version. We're seeing .x releases of mozilla almost every month. Won't we expect to have .x releases every month after the 1.0 release? maybe every other month?

all i want for christmas is a one point oh, a one point oh, a one point oh... :)

Re:best standards compliance among compeditors (2, Interesting)

jgerman (106518) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440849)


secondly, why such a need for the standards compliance? in the past (and still currently afaik), browsers were build on loose compliance, and extending the standards to where they see the standards going into the future (css).



Which is why we have the piece of crap system we have today. MS extensions don't work in Netscape and vice versa. I find it hard to believe that you are apparently agruing the importance to standards. It's called opening up the window of choice in operating systems and applications. When you know that any application can handle the same file formats or whatever, you have much greater flexibility in what you use to do your work, and it makes it convenient to work with others who haven't made the same choices as you.

Why do you morons keep posting mozillazine stuff? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440764)

It makes me want to ram an airplane into your stupid fucking VA Linux office building! Heil bin Laden!

I18N And L10N? (3, Interesting)

LeftHanded (160472) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440768)

I didn't see any mention of internationalization (I18N) or localization (L10N) in any part of this list. Although the Mozilla site [mozilla.org] has a section for I18N [mozilla.org] , L10N [mozilla.org] and BiDi [langbox.com] issues, these parts of the Mozilla site seem especially quiet. The Mozilla Team has obviously been working hard on these issues; you can tell that by the features in the latest 0.9.x releases. It just seems surprising that it wasn't mentioned in the 1.0 statement. They do want World Domination, right?

we're #1 (0, Redundant)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440770)

From the mozilla article.

We contend that a milestone where only fixes for topcrash and other severe bugs (e.g., dataloss) get checked in, with lots of regression testing and code review, is necessary before we can confidently brand a mozilla1.0. The 1.0 milestone period is therefore likely to be one during which the tree is closed to all but driver-approved changes

So for the hundred of posts about to troll for a good browser with no extra features, added features is what is causing the problems, what's with all the bloat, blah blah blah...

That day will come, and according to the article, probably within 6 months.

Way to go Mozilla. Looking forward to the not so fictitious version #1.

Could be some time..?? (3, Informative)

cybaea (79975) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440781)

Given the size of the dependency [mozilla.org] tree for the 1.0 milestone target [mozilla.org] it looks like 1.0 could be a little way off??

Does anybody want to take a stab at a date? Does anyboy even want to count the number of bugs on that page? ;-)

Re:Could be some time..?? (2, Informative)

riggwelter (84180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440810)

Does anybody want to take a stab at a date?


From the document:
we need to develop a schedule that converges on a stable, useful release in at most five milestones, preferably fewer (but likely no fewer than four).

Now, milestones tend to appear every 4 - 5 weeks, so that would be 16 - 25 weeks time (4 - 6 months)

From the document:
If things go well, we'll be within a milestone of 1.0 after 0.9.9. If 1.0 seems to continually recede as we approach it, our definition of 1.0 in terms of bugs to be fixed is broken. Therefore we will continually review the schedule and the outstanding bugs. If it takes an extra milestone (0.9.10), but 1.0 is reached soon enough, so be it -- but no one should count on an extra milestone. There won't be two or more extra milestones, or again, we will have failed to converge on a short-term stability branch and release within six months.

This would seem to confirm that timescale

On a related note... (4, Interesting)

MSBob (307239) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440782)

Since Mozilla is beginning to look rather slick these days I have a quick question to someone enlightened. Is the new AOL (7.0?) interface based on Gecko or does it still use the IE control? Anybody in the know?

Re:On a related note... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440821)

It uses IE 5 still blah

Re:On a related note... (1)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440846)

I don't know but I hope so, the sooner the "big boys" (AOL, @home...) get away from IE as a platform the better. then they can move away from MSwindows!!!!

Undefined Definitions (3, Interesting)

CptLogic (207776) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440789)

>>Good performance and memory footprint.>If things go well, we'll be within a milestone of 1.0 after 0.9.9. If 1.0 seems to continually recede as we approach it, our definition of 1.0 in terms of bugs to be fixed is broken.

What are the definitions of bugs that need to be "fixed" before a 1.0 version can be approved?

"not too many non-crash bugs and misfeatures"

Again, what counts as "not too many?"

Reading this defintion document, I don't see any hard targets to hit, or even any tolerances, just a vague commitment to tighten the code already in existence and to hit moving "standards" targets.

Judging by these criteria, I don't see how you can then stamp a *FINISHED* label to it and "ship it" as a 1.0 version.

At some point they're just going to have to decide that an arbitrary bug fix is no longer version 0.9.10 or whatever, they're just going to have to bite the bullet and call it version 1.0

As any filmmaker knows, "Nothing's ever finished"

Chris.

Rule #1 from the 'manifesto' (-1, Flamebait)

skrowl (100307) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440800)

"Our goal is to make Mozilla EARN it's slowzilla reputation. It has to take AT LEAST as long to load and small programs written in high level languages take to compile. Also, it should take so long that it needs a splash screen."

Re:Rule #1 from the 'manifesto' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440968)

> Remember, not all /. users hate Windows
> or think Microsoft is out to get them!

How can a reasonable person not think that?
You must be new to the biz.

Too little too late. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440801)

The reason the 1.0 release has been so long coming is that making Mozilla into the browser promised has proved impossible. Now that the developers have realised that they can never make the light weight browser promised, they have decided they might as well just release v1.0.


However, the arrival of the v1 release is not going to encourage mass uptake of mozilla on the platform it really needs to make progress: Windows. Windows users already have a perfectly godd, OS integrated browser, why would they eun a bloated pig like mozilla? Which means that standards will still be chopped and changes by MS and incompatability problems will plague those on other platforms, and mozilla beocmes irrelivent, as do OSes that do not run MS browsers. THE END.

Re:Too little too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441031)

Pretty lame troll, dude.

(p.s. posting this via Mozilla on Windows)

Good thing... (0)

fatcow (121528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440806)

That slashdot decided to finally post something from mozillazine.org -- we're getting tired of the links from the site that this [mozillaquestquest.com] parodies!

Polish? (3, Funny)

cybaea (79975) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440816)

I love Poland but is it really essential to fix the Polish language bugs [mozilla.org] for a 1.0 release? Aren't there more important priorities? Isn't 1.0 about a stable API (and product!) and such, and if so, couldn't fixing spelling mistakes in the Polish language pack wait until 1.0.1 or something?

The document outlines some really good principles for managing software, but this entry confuses it for me. Any Polish people here to explain why it is critical? :-)

Re:Polish? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440923)

On the off-chance that you aren't kidding, and to prevent genuinely clueless people posting follow-ups, this bug is about "polish", pronounced PAW-lish, as in "buff with a cloth to add shine". Hardy har har.

Re:Polish? (1)

KingAdrock (115014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441027)

Where are you from that you pronounce "polish", PAW-lish?

Re:Polish? (1)

Simm0 (236060) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441029)

Polish with regards to the mozilla community refers to "Bugs which require only a small change for a noticable improvement in the user interface" not the language.

Now I can put mozilla-developer on my resume (5, Funny)

Odinson (4523) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440819)

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100309 [mozilla.org]


Hey, all the team needs to do is ask.

Re:Now I can put mozilla-developer on my resume (1)

pere (23710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441046)

For more funny bug reports, check out bug 59921 [mozilla.org] - which is a tracking bug for "interesting" bug reports.

Yes. (3, Offtopic)

dinotrac (18304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440820)

I was so excited when Netscape opened the code.
A long, long, time ago.

And that's the problem. I'm not sure that Mozilla even matters any more, but I think that it does. If nothing else, Microsoft's ham-handedness with product activation, etc. may re-open the window of opportunity.

The 1.0 approach Eich outlines is exactly what the project has needed for the last 18 months, if not two years.

There comes a time when you stop saying "It'll be ready when it's ready" and start asking "How do we make it ready?"

Eich's memo is the answer to that question.
Good luck, guys.
You can do it if you set your mind to it.

Re:Yes. (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440905)

Oh, please. Microsoft's crappy browser has any domination on one non-Microsoft system at all (Macintosh). Who needs your "window of opportunity"? Mozilla will be used by the masses who run Unix, the ones who use it via embedded systems unknowingly, and hell -- Mozilla's going to be embedded in the AOL client, so you _know_ that if pure "market share" matters, it's going to end up having the most in the long run.

Mozilla is stable, fast, supports a hell of a lot of important standards correctly, and doesn't suck. Say that about any other browser if you can.

Re:Yes. (2)

dinotrac (18304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441006)

Sure - if it's ready.

The reality is that IE is 85% of browsers today.

And that's what the push to 1.0 is all about.
Making something that all of the folks who would put Mozilla in those places can use with confidence.

at the bottom of the buglist (5, Funny)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440823)

At the bottom of the buglist we see Bug #100309 [mozilla.org]

Description:
Opened: 2001-09-18 08:55

we need preparation as well as a good place to have the biggest & coolest party
ever!

that's a good bug to have

~z

release 1.0 is a bug! (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440954)

That is funny (+5) they admit that the release of 1.0 [mozilla.org] is a bug.



Also if your have the big party and thus have this blocking bug solved i think it is not wise to release 1.0 the next day.......8-)

Re:release 1.0 is a bug! (2)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441000)

That is funny (+5) they admit that the release of 1.0 [mozilla.org] is a bug.

I think you may misunderstand Bugzilla [mozilla.org] . It's an issue-tracking system, where each issue happens to have the term "bug". So, for instance, bugs are even filed for feature requests.

It's Time (1)

ronmon (95471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440838)

Nobody can accuse them of jumping into this. It's something that they have worked toward for years now and 0.9.5 has added some great features without hurting the current level of stability. This can only be good for the project.

Disclaimer: I use Galeon, so my main interest in Moz is Gecko to power the latest Galeon release. I do ride the lizard now and then just to see what they've done though. With the tabbed windows, they've almost caught up with Galeon. :)

A note for fellow Slackers, Mozilla 0.9.5 [linuxmafia.org] has been up for a couple days and Galeon 0.12.4 [ufies.org] is worth snagging as well.

-1 (Offtopic) (2)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440876)

I have a question regarding a problem I've had with every release since I first downloaded 0.9.1 (Win32)*. I'm a 14m3r who relies heavily on Yahoo! Mail. But whenever I hit the "Send" button to fire off an email via Mozilla/NS6, the browser simply hangs there, doing nothing. It doesn't even have the courtesy to time out. I end up having to fire up NS 4.7 or (shudder) IE.

I haven't been able to find anything about this on Bugzilla, even though it's something that would surely garner some notice. I'm afraid to submit it to Bugzilla myself, since it's possible that I either have some setting wrong or Yahoo! is using some non-compliant tricks that break their form. Either way, there's nothing Mozilla could do about it.

So, is anyone else here having this problem, and 14m3 enough to admit to having a Yahoo account? More important, does anyone know why? (I've sent this question to the Yahoo people, but haven't gotten a response).

* Sorry.

Re:-1 (Offtopic) (0, Redundant)

tb3 (313150) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441036)

I use Yahoo mail as my filter account, and to get remote access to my POP3 account, so I wouldn't call it lame (the spam hell known as Hotmail is lame:), but I've sent Yahoo mail with Mozilla .9.4 and .9.5 without any problems. This is on W2K SP2, at work. I suspect your problem is somewhere else in your system, but I don't think it's with Mozilla or Yahoo.

Did you try a full un-install and re-install with the latest stable build?

With Konqueror here... (-1, Offtopic)

Noxxus (259942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440878)

....who really gives a shit? Heh.

time to 1.0 (5, Insightful)

RestiffBard (110729) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440884)

I've been thinking about the length of time its taking to get to 1.0 and must admit that i have been critical of the dev process for Moz in the past but no more. it just occurred to me that one of the reasons that we've been so bitchy about how long its taking is the fact that development of Mozilla is taking place in the wide open. it was a daunting task when they began and it still is. there tons of closed projects that take years to get done but we never hear about them until they are done. we've been following moz from the beginning and so the whole thing seems to take longer than it should. maybe I'm just late figuring this out but i just wnated to make sure it was said.

Re:time to 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441033)

Yes, there are closed projects that take as long or longer, but the deal here is that Moz development is implicitly compared to IE development. IE has been an above-average browser since 5.0, which came out quite a while ago. In that time Netscape has continued to stagnate; while I realize this has nothing to do with Mozilla, it's hard to remember that. Netscape 4.x and before is so very horrible, and when I think "Mozilla" the first image that pops into my mind is "Netscape".

Also, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has developed an excellent browser in a fraction of the time that it has taken Mozilla. And yes, IE is also not just a browser but an API. But then again, IE only runs on one platform.

What;s so great about moziler ? (-1)

DumbMarketingGuy (171031) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440912)

I cannot understand why everyone gets so enflamed about a stupid browser.

We have explorer, why do the Linux hackers spend time duplicating everything ? Its a waste of resources they should concentrate on improving Linux (like adding .NET support for example) instead of simply replication something that is already available from Microsoft for free.

Oh I forgot. Micro$oft is the devil and its n0t k3\/\/1 or 1337 to use their software. Even if 70% of slashdots' readership are hypocritical IE users.

Flash (0)

10100101 (524621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440915)

Maybe i'll be able to use Flash on my Linux system soon...

Reversing the speed factor (5, Interesting)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440927)

Listen I have been using Mozilla on and off since it began to be bundled with various distros.

When it first came out I swear the pages it could render came up as fast as anything I saw from even Opera but the program loaded really slowly. In other words, when it finally came up it was really fast unless it crashed.

Now, Mozilla can handle most any page Netscrape can handle and loads faster but the page rendering seems to be slower on regular html pages not nearly as fast as when it came out initially. I was impressed by the .94+ version I am using right now and use it for most of my work. However, I do wish the thing was quicker in rendering pages. Any thoughts on this? Is it just my perception of the program?

Re:Reversing the speed factor (3, Insightful)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441078)

Is it just my perception of the program?

Why don't you do a scientific test instead of going by perceptions. Download one of those early builds you are talking about, and time it loading pages. Then install the latest build, and time it again.

And once we've hit v1.0 (1)

Flower (31351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440929)

We do the complete rewrite in prep for v2.0? Right?

&lt Just kidding &gt

To all Mozilla performace whingers. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2440963)

1.5ghz+ cpu's are cheap
1GB ram is cheap


Stop moaning and upgrade your P2 300's with 128MB ram. Sheesh!

Re:To all Mozilla performace whingers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441049)

Do you give the same advice to those who complain that Windows is slow? Doubt it. Hypocrite.

Re:To all Mozilla performace whingers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441073)

Yes. I do. I run Windows2000/Linux. I am sick of people moaing that 'mozilla is really slow on my p2 300'. Upgrade ffs. I run Mozilla on this 1.7ghz box with 1GB ram and it feels pretty smooth.

possibly a good start? (2, Interesting)

niall111 (449279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440972)

If the 1.0 release turns out to be something with rock solid stability/compliance, would it be possible that ISP's would start suggesting their customers use Mozilla, instead of IE? This would cut down on support costs associated with the bugs in IE, which i'm sure any ISP would be happy to do.

Looking Good (2)

SomeOtherGuy (179082) | more than 12 years ago | (#2440987)

Can't really speak for the whole Lizard....But the newest Galeon has been making me very happy as of late. Version 1.0 does not have to be perfect....Keep up the good work....

Rather than adding features... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2441026)

nobody wants. Why no offer a linux builds with anti alised text support built in. That would really please a lot of people. I know there are patches available, but they can be an pain in the arse to get working.


IMO lack of AA text in Mozilla is preventing people who might want to move to Linux from doing so. I know Konqueror does AA text via QT, but I find Konqueors' rendering a bit to immature yet.

reminds me of a story (1)

G Neric (176742) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441054)

Brenden Eich... also explains why 1.0 is so important to reach, and why it isn't just another milestone, either.

there was once a shepard boy who was so bored he started shouting "wolf! wolf!"... and soon the villagers didn't come running.

I'll keep downloading a Mozilla every 8 months or so and throw it at the fridge, and when one of them sticks, ok, that will be an important milestone to reach. So far, too slow, too bloated.

Starkly fantastic name (2, Funny)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2441076)

Brendan of the Eich. Clearly a highly-ranked Boskonian.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>