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.org Releases Mozilla 0.9.8

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the chatzilla-rocks-hard dept.

Mozilla 615

asa writes: "Today mozilla.org released the Mozilla 0.9.8 Milestone. New to this release are improved Address Book functionality, page setup(for printing), MNG/JNG support, native-style widgets on winXP and OS X, dynamic theme switching, improved BiDi support, speed, stability and footprint improvements, and much, much more. www.mozilla.org and www.mozillazine.org have the full scoop." The build I'm posting with (2002020305) is a little crashy, but most aspects are shaping up very nicely.

cancel ×

615 comments

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

first `Mozilla has sucked for years` post (-1, Troll)

krog (25663) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953631)

wheee! i love OmniWeb

Re:first `Mozilla has sucked for years` post (5, Informative)

irony nazi (197301) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953674)

I don' t care for OmniWeb. It keeps crashing on my G4 PowerBook. This is my first Mac in years. Does it do this a lot or is it my set up? I was hoping for a good Macintosh web browsing experience but here's my run-down of the OS X webbrowsers...

Internet Explorer - for OS X this is an excellent browser. It has many awesome features. A customizeable and cool look. Kudos to MS for making a great browsers. The major problem with it, is that it hangs for a long time whenever rendering a large page. For example, this slashdot story will cause IE to hang for ~30 seconds (on my 667MHz G4) after downloading and prior to displaying. Note that each IE window is frozen until after the hung one renders. This is unacceptable

OmniWeb - This browser seems light, fast, efficient, but why the heck does it keep crashing on my OS X.2 powerbook? Crashes appear to be caused at random and usually occur within 10 minutes of web browsing. Since this continues to happen, I haven't had a chance to try out the features of OmniWeb.

Opera - I was hoping that this would be as good on OS X as it is in Linux. The version seems to be a bit behind the Linux version and it lacks Mousewheel support and tabbed windows. Mousewheel support is neccessary to me and tabbed windows is a *very* nice feature.

Mozilla - This is my workhorse webbrowser. Although it is slower than the others and has too many features, IMHO, it doesn't hang like IE, doesn't crash like OmniWeb, and has tabbed windows/mousewheel support, unlike Opera). Still it is slow. I'm anxious to start using a galeon-ish OS X browser as soon as I hear about one. Mozilla wins by default.

Can anybody add anything to my list? I haven't heard of many other graphical OS X browsers. I figured that OS X would have plenty of great web browsers since the web designers tend to use it. Although Quicktime and Macromedia plug-ins are cool, they still don't seem as fast they do on my roommates P3. Especially under Mozilla. IE playes Quicktime movies fast, but only after it loads the pages.

Re:first `Mozilla has sucked for years` post (3, Interesting)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953724)

Which version of OmniWeb are you running? I'm using 4.1sp36 on my iBook and very rarely does it crash on me. I'm going to take another look at this new Mozilla, but the thing that kills it for me is that the keyboard support sucks. If you have two windows or tabs open, switching between them using the keyboard doesn't take the focus with it, so you have to click the mouse somewhere in the pane before you can use the arrow keys to scroll. Little things like that make a big difference.

BTW, I agree with you about IE, it's pretty nice. The only things I don't like about it are the slow rendering of big tables that you mentioned, no popup-blocking, and the Carbon text doesn't look as good to me as the Cocoa text that OmniWeb uses (especially for serif fonts).

Anyway, get the latest OmniWeb and give it a spin. Be sure to clean out any junk in ~/Library/Application\ Support/OmniWeb/ first, corrupted history files have been known to cause problems.

Ya... (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953734)

I am sure that the slow rendering problems are IE6's fault, not your craptastic iBook's...

Dude, your getting a Dell!

Re:first `Mozilla has sucked for years` post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953777)

I'm going to take another look at this new Mozilla, but the thing that kills it for me is that the keyboard support sucks. If you have two windows or tabs open, switching between them using the keyboard doesn't take the focus with it, so you have to click the mouse somewhere in the pane before you can use the arrow keys to scroll. Little things like that make a big difference.

I have this same problem in Windows, but pressing tab once brings focus back to the displayed tab. I'm wondering whether this was accidental or intentional -- but you oughta try it on OSX anyway.

Of course it's little things that keep me using OmniWeb 2.7.1b3... but that's because I think my NeXT would vomit if I tried to run Mozilla on it.

MetaTrolling (-1, Offtopic)

MetaTroll (556013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953679)

[goatse.cx]
Sites just as bad as Slashdot Unfortunately, Slashdot is not an isolated phenomenon; there are many sites out there that, in attempting to be alternatives to Slashdot, have become mere imitators, as bad as (or even worse than) the original. I'm still trying to figure out what factors lead a site down that path (a population of vocal libertarians appears to be a major factor) Adequacy.org Purporting to be "news for grown-ups", this site's banner calls it "the most controversial site on the web". In fact, this purely a troll site, started by ex-Slashdot and ex-Kuro5hin trolls who wanted more time and space to scream at each other like idiots (and draw people into screaming like idiots at them). I came across this site as a referrer in my weblogs; apparently there's a fanatical Microsoft devotee who links to this page religiously as a rejoinder to Linux advocates. I wonder if he's got any clue that I use Linux (and other Unix flavors) almost exclusively whenever I need to get work done The University of Washington lives in Microsoft's backyard, and our computer science department has strong ties to Microsoft Research. Yet we run most of our important systems (this web server, for example) on Unix. Let me be quite clear: I do not hate Slashdot because I hate Linux. I hate Slashdot because I hate inanity. Adequacy.org manages the remarkable feat of beating Slashdot's record on that count. Alternatives to Slashdot You may be wondering, "Where will I get the links and news that I've been getting from Slashdot?" I'll admit that Slashdot does post some nice links once in a while---however poorly edited and poorly moderated the site as a whole is. However, I've found that for all useful content on Slashdot, there exists another source that will point me to it. Reading other sites decreases your need for a Slashdot fix, and also makes the quality deficit at Slashdot all the more obvious. Here are my suggestions: (Note: the following list is a work in progress. For example, the Register used to be on this list; now, after further investigation, I've moved it to the "just as bad" list.) Science/Technology news This depends on what kind of news you're interested in, of course. Here's a sampling of sites that will give you more targeted, more carefully selected news: Ars Technica An amateur (in the best sense of the word) PC user news site. The editors have a broad grasp of technical issues that is rare to find in an enthusiast site; as a result, their takes on tech tend to be uncannily on the money. bottomquark When Quit Slashdot! got posted to memepool, somebody (whose name I omit, to protect him from Slashdot groupthink flames) suggested bottomquark for science news. A brief skim suggests that bottomquark provides decent links for lay science enthusiasts, with no screaming 14-year-old boys. Science Now Daily news edited by the people who bring you Science, the premier all-sciences academic journal. Requires a (non-free) subscription, but your institution may already have one. Wired News Wired has its own annoying preoccupations, such as its obsession with tech stocks and Napster, but it tends to get the stories off the wires promptly and give a more clueful interpretation than, say, CNN. On the other hand, you should definitely not trust Wired News's reportage of political issues. The entire Wired organization is deeply steeped in libertarian groupthink and feels no qualms about distorting stories and quotes to advance their right-wing agenda. Caveat lector. NewsForge All open source news, all the time. http://bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/index.html Yes, even "Slashdot" is better than Slashdot.

I don't know if I like the additional features... (0, Troll)

irony nazi (197301) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953633)

Shouldn't there have been a code freeze or something by now?

Come on!! Get to 1.0... this is taking forever!

Re:I don't know if I like the additional features. (1)

klui (457783) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953745)

Doesn't matter if it's 1.0. It'll just be another release.

I've been using it regularly since 0.95. I'm actually looking forward to: native widgets on XP/MacOS X; and they finally fixed the bug where where Mozilla/Communicator (since 4.5!) would remove downloaded helper documents when you quit the app.

Re:I don't know if I like the additional features. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953784)

Where have all the Mozilla themes gone?

Themes.org's mozilla section is practically empty. Mozillazine doesn't have a trace.

Did I not get the memo?

Damn Ximian. (1)

redhairedneo (531104) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953635)

Wont let me upgrade past 0.9.6

what's with the dept? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953636)

it rocks!?

shouldnt that be something "moving-like-a-tortise-to-version-1.0"

Finally! (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953639)

I hope they fixed the annoying password manager dialog asking for the master password EVERY time a page with a stored password came up, AND when I press the page's Login button!

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953663)

change it in your prefenences...not a bug, a feature

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953688)

No, it was a bug.

I finally fixed it by changing the master password and restarting Mozilla.

I recall trying this with 0.9.7 once, and failing, so I assume they did something to it after all.

Good job, guys! :-)

I HAVE THE FIRST POST!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953640)

I am so leet for getting the first post! I claim this first post in the name of our oppressed brother at raisethefist.com!! Stay strong and don't let the man get you down! Taco, we are coming for you next! When we catch you, you're going to get the worst dutch rub you've ever had! HAHAHAH! PH34R!!!!

Re:I HAVE THE FIRST POST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953691)

haha

Re:I HAVE THE FIRST POST!!! (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953723)

Heh. Heh. We're all laughing at your because you thought you had the first post, but instead you grabbed the two-million, nine-hundred and fifty-three thousand, six-hundred and fortieth post. Haw!

For testing or porn, use a nightly build (4, Informative)

aufbau (517042) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953642)

Mozilla 0.9.8 branched Tuesday 1/23, giving it more time to sit on a branch than most milestones get (I don't know if this was intentional). If you think you might report bugs [mozilla.org] , you should use a newer build, since 0.9.8 is effectively two weeks old. Also, 0.9.8 does not include a fix for a bug [mozilla.org] that caused porn sites to give 404 or 403 errors when users tried to open thumbnail links in separate windows.

Mozilla "nightly" builds always have the latest bug fixes and features, but they also have the latest regressions. For example, build 1/27 could not save files [mozilla.org] and some builds starting with the evening builds on 1/31 did not support cookies [mozilla.org] *. Builds after 1/31 use a new "wyciwyg" scheme to handle document.write(), leading to some problems [mozilla.org] that have not yet been ironed out.

I've been using a morning build from 1/31 for several days and it seems to be free of major regressions. Here are some of the 1/31 morning builds for various operating systems: Windows [mozilla.org] Mac [mozilla.org] MacOSX [mozilla.org] Linux [mozilla.org] .

* Don't get a broken build just to be free from cookies. You can turn off cookies in any build by selecting "disable cookies" in the security/privacy preferences.

OR... (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953717)

You could just use IE6, and stop being a guinnea-pig for some cock loving opensauce company.

Re:For testing or porn, use a nightly build (1, Funny)

taj (32429) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953725)

dude... forget the snapshots. get a date.

Mozilla is a fair browser but also a platform wanabe. In the end thats not good for anyone.

Re:For testing or porn, use a nightly build (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953765)

Better yet... try Pornzilla [netscape.com] . It is a Mozilla distribution optimized for porn.

Cool Beans... (0, Troll)

eric_aka_scooter (556513) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953643)

So when is 1.0 going to come out? It's seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years... Eric

Re:Cool Beans... (4, Redundant)

bunratty (545641) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953658)

According to the roadmap [mozilla.org] , Mozilla 1.0 will be released on or shortly after April 5.

Mozilla is a badge of Open Source failure (1, Troll)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953668)

It's seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years

it seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years because they have. and even now at 0.9.8 they are cramming in new features, breaking things in the process. and even now at 0.9.8 Mozilla is unstable ("crashy" as the Users would say) and definitely not ready for prime time.

Mozilla is a glaring example of why Open Sourcing a company project is no guarantee that anything good will come of it. mod me flamebait if you must, but i maintain that as long as OSS is not as featureful OR as stable as its propietary competition, no one, but NO ONE will use it.

Re:Mozilla is a badge of Open Source failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953722)

Hello? Feature creep is hardly limited to Open Source projects.

Re:Mozilla is a badge of Open Source failure (1)

m4g02 (541882) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953733)

Good point, they should focus on geting the bugs fixed to realase the 1.0, not add more features while there are still very visible bugs... i like it anyway, is the best one while hanging on source forge, but they should reconsider the development proccess.

Re:Mozilla is a badge of Open Source failure (1)

robson (60067) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953766)

Except I find that Mozilla IS as featureful AND MORE stable than its proprietary competition, and I'm using it right now. I don't disagree with your final point,

"...as long as OSS is not as featureful OR as stable as its propietary competition, no one, but NO ONE will use it."

Although I'm not sure it applies to Mozilla anymore.

Looks great (1)

ProfDumb (67790) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953644)


I am posting from it now. Unlike the current trunk builds mentioned in the story, the 0.9.8 branch doesn't seem crashy at all. Very quick and nice.

article -1, redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953645)

Mod this down if you will, but do we really need to know every tiny update to Mozilla? I mean, .01 is not much of an update. I am sure something is more newsworthy than this, it is sad that the slashdot editors have to post every tiny update to linux programs when ignoring lots of other newsworthy stuff.

Mozillazine Build Comments are Killer (5, Informative)

EvlG (24576) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953646)

About once I week I scan mozillazine's build comments and download the best of the latest nightlies. Helps me stay current to report new bugs, without risking too much. I recommend it for those that like bleeding edge, but still need to get Real Work (TM) done.

Re:Mozillazine Build Comments are Killer (4, Informative)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953699)

For the link-impaired, Mozillazine [mozillazine.org] tracks the progress on Mozilla and, for each nightly, gives comments on the day's build [mozillazine.org] . Of course, using the nightlies [mozilla.org] can be bleeding edge, but the Build Comments [mozillazine.org] can help to ensure smooth sailing.

WHOOP DE FUCKING DO!! (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953647)

Another month or so and it will be the 4th anniversary of netscape's death. Yeah so much greatness has come from them. Lets see you have endless beta browsers that only linux fundies use and something AOL hasn't even touched.

Things You Should Never Do, Part 1 (2, Interesting)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953650)

Of course, you can't have an announcement of Mozilla without a complaint about the slowness of Mozilla development, so here's something one up on that: a link to Joel on Software, so here it is [joelonsoftware.com] .

-1, stupid (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953701)

what a freaking moronic post dilhole

Re:Things You Should Never Do, Part 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953762)

The funny thing is that some people take Joel seriously. QNX was rewritten many times and each time it was better than the last (what Joel doesn't consider is that often you don't understand the question until you've prototyped and got to version 2 of your software).

The main issue Joel has isn't even to do with rewriting software. He says that what programmers see as bloat were actually clever fixes for bugs that we'll have to rediscover and fix again. This isn't an issue of rewriting - it's about the importance of commenting your code, and explaining why you did what you did.

Joel is right on one point though I must admit. It is easier for programmers to write code that it is to read it and often they'll suggest a rewrite. But to say that rewriting is a bad idea is ludicrous. Like anything it has a time and a place for rewriting.

Sure - be aware that many programmers will prematurely suggest rewriting. But that's the lesson to learn here. Not that rewriting is a bad thing.

dhtml performance has *regressed*???? (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953651)

why god, why?

ok, seriously though, this browser has come a LONG WAY. i use it as my primary browser both at work [key3media.com] and at home. i really think anyone who hasn't tried it out or tried it early on and stopped because it crashed too much should really try it out again. anyone who stopped because it was too slow might wanna wait till 1.0 ;-)

ok, nevermind, this one gets my stamp of approval. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953739)

the 15 minutes i've spent browsing with this build has completely wiped any cynicism out of my mind. fuck i love this browser.

Re:ok, nevermind, this one gets my stamp of approv (1)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953774)

galeon.

The build I use (1.0.2) hates https connections, so I have to fire up an [ancient] communicator to talk to my bank, but appart from that one caveat, galeon is fast, lean, tabbed (love it, thought I would hate it), and pretty.

Credit where due, galeon uses the mozilla rendering engine, so any working install of galeon gets you mozilla for free, but w/o all that outlookalike stuff.

And pretty themes!

Re:dhtml performance has *regressed*???? (1)

Herr_Nightingale (556106) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953760)

I concur mightily with your perception of Mozilla speed (or lack thereof) .. it is, to be nice, the slowest (primarily in loading) browser I have ever used. It may be faster than it once was, but Opera kills it nonetheless. Yes, I really really really like Opera. However, it would be nice to have an open sourced alternative that could compete in all areas with it.
It will take more than 1.0 to heal the slow launch issue; that can only be solved by trimming the fat, so to speak. However, I HAVE to say that the new 'zilla is a HECKUVA lot more stable than it was just a short while ago! That, plus the open sourced pedigree, guarantees that I'll be back to bug test it once the school pressure's been relieved.
Props to Mozilla dudes.

Native widgets (1, Offtopic)

BlowCat (216402) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953652)

I hope that Mozilla 1.0 will have native widget support for Windows 2005.

Just kidding. Good job, guys!

year 2020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953675)

Mozilla .999999843 released!

Re:Native widgets (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953687)

IE doesn't use native widgets, why should Mozilla?

(the native widgets don't provide all of the options needed for full CSS support)

mod this -1, unfunny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953712)

what. was that supposed to be a joke? not funny. good job?? it was a .01 upgrade. big fucking deal. what a freaking loser post.

What encrpytion? (1)

hangdog (8755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953655)

Most secured sites lock me out with sockets errors.

When can I used Secured Servers again? What's up with RSA encrpytion?

Re:What encrpytion? (2, Informative)

hangdog (8755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953662)

I'll answer the ? myself...From the Mozilla FAQ:


Have all the issues with Mozilla and crypto now been resolved?

Almost. Now that the RSA patent is in the public domain, Mozilla crypto development can proceed with minimal restrictions. In the near future the Mozilla code base will include a complete open source cryptographic library, and Mozilla will include SSL support as a standard feature.


Anybody have more (better) info?

Re:What encrpytion? (1)

sirinek (41507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953673)

This is completely ridiculous. Mozilla is 100% useless to me unless I can go to https:// sites. The version in debian sid (admittedly 0.9.7 as of earlier today) is not capable of this.

Re:What encrpytion? (2, Informative)

octothorpe (34673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953713)

Have you installed the mozilla-psm package yet? All the encryption goodness is kept in that package now. I do all my banking through the web using Mozilla 0.9.7 with no problem at all. So far I havn't found a secure site that bothers it.

Re:What encrpytion? (1)

sirinek (41507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953726)

OK I take back what I said. It works now. Thanks!

Re:What encrpytion? (3, Informative)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953715)

actually, SSL typically uses both RSA or Diffie-Hellman and DES to secure a connection. The server's certificate is signed by the issuer's private key, verified by the browser having the public key built in (hard-coded usually). Upon verification, the cert contains the public key of the server, and the server sends over a DES session key encrypted using the server's private key. Browser decrypts the key, and all communications from there are encrypted using that DES session key.

Most sites use the DH algorithm because it's faster, but others use RSA because they need to maintain backward compatibility to older browsers. Those algs are only used for authentication and key exchange, DES is used for actual messages because it's faster than asymmetric cypto.

note that the above is for unverified clients (meaning the server does not check client certificates), and is simplifed to exclude finer details like message integrity.

so basically, Mozillas problems might be more than it's RSA implementation.

Next in line (2, Informative)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953656)

Isn't .9.8 the point where focus is supposed to shift towards the mail client? Or was that .9.9? Anyway, I'm just happy that shift + left-click isn't crippled anymore...

Holy shit this is news! (-1)

DivineOb (256115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953659)

Yeah, this is great... better comment...

Hmm...

Better than the last one?

Geez /. maybe you need like a news page where you can just post the news and not expect people to comment on it...

Never fails (2, Redundant)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953661)

It never fails. I just finished downloading and installing 0.9.7 yesterday :)

Sigh.

Keep This Up! Please!! (5, Funny)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953718)

I encourage all who experience this phenomenon to continuously download and install the latest versions of all software so that the next version will become immediately available. Please note that the slower the connection you use, the more likely you'll successfully push out new versions. Imagine how you could help in accellerating open source development! Keep the developers on their toes in their quest to keep your software obsolete!

My solution? (4, Informative)

dimator (71399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953749)


$cat newmoz.sh
#!/bin/sh
cd /home/dimator/newmoz/
rm -rf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz mozilla;
wget -c -t 0 -T 40 ftp.mozilla.org//pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozill a-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz;
tar xzf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz;
rm -rf mozilla/plugins/
ln -s /home/dimator/newmoz/plugins mozilla/plugins


(I keep all my plugins in a seperate dir to make things easier.)

internet explorer (0, Offtopic)

flynt (248848) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953664)

Posting this with IE 6.0. No crashes here, looks nice...

Mozilla Nighlies forever! (2)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953666)

Yes, Mozilla rocks.

I have been using nightly downloads for a while now as my only browser. Every once in a while I'll get one that's unstable, but for the most part it is way stabler than Navigator ever was. Plus it has support for modern web standards and tabbed browsing.

The point releases are fun, but I really like the excitement of running the nighly builds.

Re:Mozilla Nighlies forever! (1, Troll)

cygnus (17101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953753)

but for the most part it is way stabler than Navigator ever was.



does that make it more better?



sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Mozilla Nighlies forever! (1)

Herr_Nightingale (556106) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953769)

If you build it, they will come ...
;O)

Mozilla is OK. Opera is great! (0, Offtopic)

spike hay (534165) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953667)

Face it: Mozilla is an ok kind of buggy web browser.

Opera is freakin great! It is faster, more stable, and blocks popup ads. Also, for those that run Windows, unlike IE or Netscape, it does not support spyware and adware. It tests, it beats all other browsers in speed and stability. You can also get great skins with it! (^:
Opera is available for Linux/Solaris, BeOS, Symbian, Mac, QNX, and of course Windoze. Download it here [opera.com]

Re:Mozilla is OK. Opera is great! (1)

HenryC (147782) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953696)

Too bad you can't open multiple windows of it. Netscape you can have multiple windows, in different workspaces. Opera you can't.

Re:Mozilla is OK. Opera is great! (1)

Genie1 (224205) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953755)

Actually you can open multiple windows and pages in the new Opera6 just like in Mozilla.

And to the parent poster. You can block pop ups in Mozilla. I have used it since 0.9.7. I do feel that Mozilla's pop up blocks works better. You can set it to block pop ups only if you didn't initiate it.

I use both Opera6 and Mozilla. Both rocks.

Opera IS adware! (1)

sitturat (550687) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953698)

Blocks adware? It IS adware.

That is unless you pay for it, which makes it the only browser you actually have to pay for.

Mozilla is free (source+beer). That is why people like it.

Re:Mozilla is OK. Opera is great! (1)

prizzznecious (551920) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953706)

Opera for windows is really great- I particularly like the mouse gestures, which is something that I haven't found in any other browser but without which I think I might wither away and die.

However, I tried Opera for various other OS's and I was thoroughly unimpressed. Opera for OSX is woefully slow and exceedingly crash prone, and doesn't even seem to have a very advanced feature set. Opera on Linux seemed a little better, but still lacked the mouse gestures (unless I missed something?), and anyway had trouble rendering pages frequently enough that I didn't want to bother with it anymore. I use Mozilla in Linux, and while it doesn't fully compare to my windows Opera, it's pretty good.

ugh.. stupid, stupid mozilla (0)

twiggy (104320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953670)

When are these ass monkeys going to do one of the tiniest, simplest things that kept me from using Mozilla in the first place?

Highlight the link/element where the tab focus is (i.e. if I hit tab a bunch of times to navigate links on a page, show me where I'm at)...

The tabbing works, but there's no visual feedback like there was in Netscape 4.X and below (and is in IE)...

It's stubborn programmers who won't spend the 2 minutes it takes to implement something such as interface feedback that make me not want to use stuff like Mozilla...

Blah on Mozilla. And its little dog, too.

Re:ugh.. stupid, stupid mozilla (1)

tupps (43964) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953695)

Well on Moz 0.9.8 on Windows running the Modern Theme I get a little box that encircles links etc that I tab around.

From memory the last couple of builds have had that feature.

Looking good so far (1)

PlaysWithMatches (531546) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953671)

I just grabbed 0.9.8, and already I've noticed one nice improvement - you can actually change sidebar tabs with less than a half an hour wait. :) It always annoyed me how, on the Windows boxes on campus, Mozilla could do little interface things like that much faster than in Linux.

Everything in the GUI seems to be noticeably faster though, in 0.9.8. This alone makes it worth the upgrade. :)

back/forward alot better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953672)

This has improved alot since 0.9.7 however Mozilla's HTML parser is still way slower then IE.

However once the internal representation is built I can say it does render as fast as IE.

If they could only speed up the HTML parser Mozila would be perfect for me.

Nice work (1)

m4g02 (541882) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953681)

i use Mozilla when work on SourceForge, and right now (for daily use) im using Opera, the fact is as long as i saw on the link looks like many problems where solved.

First of all the fast switch of themes is fixed again, so you dont need to reboot (zzz) mozilla everytime you feel like to dress it different ;)

But one of the things i saw dont have others browsers is all the favicon stuff, man!, thats a simple small fast and real nice update, if anyone wants to use a custo ico just add a line to the html source, if not the browser wont search it, any other sysadmin like me who is tired of the stupid favicon.ico always on the top of your 404 file log?. I dont want that damn icon!

Spellchecker (5, Informative)

abischof (255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953683)

To save everyone some time in common questions and answers, there's a FAQ on Mozilla's spellchecker [mozilla.org.uk] (or lack thereof).

However, there's a new development. As you may know, bug 56301 [mozilla.org] tracks the progress on the Mozilla spellchecker. And, for a while, progress had become stagnant. Then, David Einstein stepped up to the plate and started working on a spellchecker for Mozilla. His latest work is available at spellchecker.mozdev.org [mozdev.org] .

I feel that a spellchecker would bring much deserved respect to Mozilla, and I encourage you to lend a hand to David. Or, it would even help if you could vote for bug 56301 [mozilla.org] to show your support (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account [mozilla.org] to vote).

Forget 1.0 -- it's ready NOW (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953684)

Okay, maybe not.

I assume that the proprietary plugins, XML support and the odd XUL oddity are holding it back, but this is a friggin' great browser.

Still itching for when we can call it the IE killer. At this rate, though, it's totally possible that it'll be a superior browser at 1.0 than IE is in its sixth generation.

dynamic theme switching (2, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953685)

dynamic theme switching

Whoohoo, we're back to where we were several months ago!

Re:dynamic theme switching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953732)

ROFL!

What's New ... (2, Redundant)

ukryule (186826) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953693)

Somehow, I find it hard to get excited about a new release where the first item in What's new in this release [mozilla.org] starts:
  • Hebrew is now supported on Solaris. Hebrew and Arabic now supported on Mac OS ...

... and then goes on to mention the 6 new bugs introduced with this.

Not meant as flamebait, but I think i'll wait for 1.0 all the same.

Re:What's New ... (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953728)

* Hebrew and Arabic now supported on Mac OS ...
... and then goes on to mention the 6 new bugs introduced with this.

Eesh. Art imitating life, what?

Re:What's New ... (2)

jesser (77961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953729)

and then goes on to mention the 6 new bugs introduced with this.

If you look at the bugs in question, they're all bidirectional-text bugs. For example, the "pasting is busted" bug is really "Hebrew text pasted from Mozilla appears as question marks". Hebrew text wasn't supported at all before the change, so I can't see why that made you decide to wait for 1.0.

Late at Night. (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953702)

You have to go to the main ftp site to get the full download for 9.8 - On the Main page the only linked file for Windows is the stub installer.

The build hasn't made it to a lot of the mirrors yet. I checked about a half dozen before I went back to the main ftp server.

Fortunately, it is late at night, when nothing important usually happens.

;-)

Replace outlook express with mozilla mail (2)

soeliang (313941) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953703)

I'm the only one in my office using Mozilla 0.9.7 mail. It seems every build of mozilla come close to most outlook express, except the address book maintenance.

Hopefully, I can replace all my colleages Outlook express mail after Mozilla go 1.0

Don't /. mozilla.org yet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953705)

Hey all you punks, don't /. mozilla.org yet!! I was downloading the file and my speed has decreased from 22k/s to 2k/s.... please please please don't /. it

For the love of god

flash plugin (2, Interesting)

warrior (15708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953710)

Does anyone have a solution to this, or should I take this up with Macromedia? Whenever a page with flash attempts to load, it halts mozilla til the flash plugin can get a handle on the audio hardware, regardless of whether or not the plugin is actually going to play sound. I absolutely abhor flash, but the flash virus has spread so much that I can't use certain sites without it (and their admins refuse to present a flash-less page, or even understand that their programmers are using a non-standard method for their site design).

Michael

The most important fix... (4, Informative)

weave (48069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953719)

When browsing slashdot, if you follow a link from far down in a long list of comments, when you follow the history back, your old scroll position will be remembered... No longer will it force a refresh and throw you back to the top of the thread.

Re:The most important fix... (2)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953738)

That's good, I've noticed that for a while. My workaround has been to just open every link as a new tab and then close it if I'm following a discussion down below my threshold or an external link -- that way I don't lose my place. Do you happen to know if this fix will fix the same behavior in Galeon, or does Galeon have a parallel bug?

Re:The most important fix... (1)

HoaryCripple (187169) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953744)

This has been fixed since 0.9.7 or shortly thereafter in cvs. This was my *major* gripe with mozilla for a while -- 'cause I use it exclusively, *and* I read Slashdot everyday.

Re:The most important fix... (5, Interesting)

weave (48069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953763)

Speaking of this "fix", the fix created a lot of controversy. Apparently some sites like ole slashdot set their pages to no-cache, most likely to force a page refresh so as to get another ad impression. Ignoring it was debated for cases of moving back in history but Netscape objected to it because they claimed banks would worry about the security implications of ignoring no-cache directives.

The compromise was to ignore no-cache for speed purposes on http requests but don't ignore it for https requests.

The full gritty details is in big 112564 [mozilla.org] .

Re:The most important fix... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953788)

IE has supported this for years. Way to go Mozilla! Finally catching up.

Speed Increases... (1)

Steffan (126616) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953730)

I just downloaded last night's build (20020204), and it seems noticeably faster than the previous version I was running (0.97). Haven't noticed any less stability with this version (yet). Good work guys. It's slowly getting there. I've been using it as my only browser for a number of months now, and it's getting less and less painful :) Actually, it's a pleasure to use, and would be my choice, even over ie for Linux, if there existed such a thing.

What about performance on low-end machines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953731)

Some time ago I was trying to run Mozilla on Pentium 133MHz with 32MB RAM and it died after about 20 minutes of swapping (yes, 20 minutes), before even the window apeared.

I ended with Netscape 4.x (which also performs quite poorly) but I'd love to run some lightweight version of Mozilla.

Any ideas? I suppose that as it's a free and open project that maybe someone has already thought about slower and older computers, it would be very nice.

(I've already tried Galeon, doesn't work for me)

Speed Increase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953735)

Has the speed of mozilla increased much since 0.9.6? That's currently what I have and it isnt very expedient on a p166 with 64 MB ram, I'd like to get someones opinion before I took the time to download 0.9.8.

Nightly Build Progress and Developers Conference (1, Insightful)

Spuggy (69103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953741)

Using Mozilla Build 2002020208 to post this. Just gotta mention that the project is looking better and better by the day. Tabbed browsing is really one of the best features I've seen in a browser (at least on the Netscape or IE front--not sure what Opera or any other browsers have been up to). After suffering through Netscape 4.7, 6.0 (the newer releases are a lot better) and IE 5.5 at work, it's great to see that the Mozilla Builds are reaching an everyday usability level (I've found it be more stable that all of the aforementioned browsers)

For those who are complaining about the amount of time Mozilla is taking to reach 1.0.0, all I have to say is take a look at the original Netscape 6 release (gag).

On a side note, is anyone else planning to attend the Developer's Conference at CMU mentioned on the (mozilla.org) page? More info located here [google.com]

As Jamie would say it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953742)

"The kiosks are still configured to run Netscape 4.7whatever, because Mozilla crashes before it even manages to put a window on the screen. (It's been four years now! You complete losers!)"

--jwz, ex Netscape programmer.

Reference [dnalounge.com]

Beating a dead horse (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953746)

all these supposedly open-source or 'other' 3rd party browsers are a joke. The sooner you realize that Microsoft currently is and will for some time dominate the browser market with IE, the sooner I can cash in my stock at MSFT and be a very rich man. If not I will make every attempt to sue you for denying my rights to "life, liberty and property"...

What? you think I am some self-centered schmuck who only gives a crap about making a quick buck? Hell yeah! All you h4x0r wannabes should bow to the will of Bill. Peace out

--
Linus is my bitch

Debian releases? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953754)

Why do they put out RPMs but no DEBs? The ones that come with Woody are 0.9.5 I believe and are ancient compared to this. How about some updates guys? And no, I do not want to fuck around untarring it and installing it. That's what apt-get is supposed to be for!

Good news (5, Informative)

pinkpineapple (173261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953756)

New to this release is the fact that published APIs are now frozen. Mozilla has been really really annoying at changing their APIs, therefore breaking code from external developers because no backward compatibility and almost no turn around time was given from one release to another. Until 0.9.7 the Plugin API kept changing every time a dot build was made. Well, according to the cvs comments, not anymore. Developers will finally be able to release code which will work for more than 2 releases in a row? Great! This smells like Mozilla is going to be final pretty soon.

PPA, the girl next door.

Talking about... (1)

m4g02 (541882) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953757)

I also think Opera is better for daily use than Mozilla, is blazing fast, is light, has great multiple windows support (in 6.0 you can even categorize your open windows, for example i have a in-task window with all the slashdot windows and another in-task window with MSNBC ones), and user/author mode (works great for old or half blind users).

A bit of realism... (2, Interesting)

Arjuna Theban (143564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953773)

I *love* Mozilla: I love tabbed browsing, the beautiful rendering, popup control, and all the other goodies that come with it.

BUT I don't think I'll ever be able to use Mozilla as my primary browser. I tried multiple times to migrate to it, yet every single time my humble computer kindly let me know that it can't keep up.

I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I think Netscape is bloated as much as the next person, but at the same time I can't see why Mozilla is so slow and resource crazy either.

All in all, if Mozilla doesn't get *much* faster by 1.0, I won't be using it for a while.

---

Mozilla IS GOOD (1)

restive (542491) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953775)

Somewhere in the last half-dozen milestone releases, there were some critical bugs that were finally fixed. Some would get fixed and then seem to mysteriously reappear, but as a whole, the browser is really reaching solid stability.

Speed has improved, but still needs improvement, IMHO. Also, I still have to keep Netscape 4.7x around for a number of different sites and some Java support. (some of the "IE only" sites WILL work with NS 4.7x but not with Mozilla)

Overall, though...VERY good browser, and still improving significantly. I'll echo the sentiments of several others and say that we really don't need the entire feature set.

Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953776)

this might be a *little* offtopic, but it seems like with most browsers under linux have really crappy font support. is this a browser problem or a problem with your x configuration? Hopefully there can be a browser (maybe mozilla) that can render pages correctly and have quick loading times. Readable fonts would be good too.

My review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2953778)

(Posting this with 0.9.8)... Loads a lot faster, although the last time I tried Mozilla (a few months ago) I had a 200mhz 64mb PC, now I have a 1.4ghz 512mb ram, so I can't really trust that. I noticed some minor rendering problems with the toolbar (arrows to mix/max the bars seem to get pixely).. It fails to load a few images on the main slashdot page (the corners for the table headers). Mozilla is using the most memory out of all the current running applications on my system (uses 4mb more than explorer, btw im on windowsxp). And I just noticed it is acting weird when typing in this box, if I press SPACE and im at the end of a line, it doesnt show the space/line break, not matter how many space chars I enter.

all those seem minor though, so it looks good so so far!

Mozilla needs to focus on correctness, not feature (2, Flamebait)

vondo (303621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2953782)

It seems to me that recently mozilla has been making less and less progress towards a really useable release. It seemed to make good progress up until 0.9.4 or so, but is now languishing.

Now, I use mozilla as my regular browser, and have since M18 (before Netscape 6.0), but lets face it, it's still very much alpha-quality software. There are so many little annoyances and things that don't work, I find myself constantly making excuses to my co-workers. 0.9.7 is, IMO, pretty weak with constant crashes and freezes.

The problem, in my opinion, is lack of good leadership. What this project needs is a nearly complete feature freeze, only allowing things already in the UI to be added and any features (and there are a lot of them [mozilla.org] ) still missing that exist in Netscape 4.7.

As an example, look at the recent dust-up with favicons. They were put in, caused regressions in the code that weren't fixed for weeks, and never really worked very well. Now, they are mostly turned off by default, but in the process wasted at least some effort that would have been placed elsewhere. All this for a feature, that as far as I can tell is mostly eye-candy with very little, if any useability benefits to the user.

Now in 0.9.8, we have the ability to get a mapquest map of people in your address book. Is this really the critical kind of feature needed for 1.0? Is this really something mozilla.org wants to start taking bug requests on at this point?

Another example. Tabbed browsing is cool, but there are bugs there too that make it look less than professional. Besides which, I'd give all that up to get a decent printout [mozilla.org] (shortly before 0.9.8 branched, several very old linux printing bugs were re-targeted for 1.1 or 1.2), a text edit widget [mozilla.org] that worked perfectly, or to be able to compose mail [mozilla.org] with an editor that works.

In positive news, it looks like a spell checker might actually be included in 0.9.9. Yet another example, the Mail/News people made things much faster for 0.9.7 but at the expense of introducing more bugs. Threading was broken even more, messages fail to show up. Mozilla has never been as good as 4.7 in the mail/news client department, so this is a major problem. In my brief look at the 0.9.8 pre-releases, it looks like it might be even buggier now than it was in 0.9.7. Another step down, and it might become unuseable.

So, back to management, the drivers should reject any patch that adds a new feature as they push towards mozilla 1.0. Or encourage people to split off an unstable, development branch for feature addition. Maybe they agree with me about a lack of good management since they've brought on Peter Bojanic of OEOne to do project management [mozilla.org] . Of course, if you look at the mozilla 1.0 manifesto [mozilla.org] , they've been saying the right words for a long time now:

As we've said often, we're not looking for new features; we want stability, performance, best-available standards compliance, tolerably few bugs, and good APIs.

Features cost us time directly (opportunity costs born by those implementing the features, who likely could instead help fix 1.0 bugs) and indirectly (collateral costs on code reviewers, expert consultants, and other helpers). If you think you must have a feature by 1.0, please be prepared to say why to drivers, and be prepared to hear "we can't support work on that feature until after 1.0 has branched" in reply.

But, they've pretty much ignored this. Let's hope this time its better and they really mean it.

Before I finish, I'll address the two arguments people are most likely to make against my complaint:

  1. Mozilla is an open source project, so you can't expect organized development. People are scratching an itch.
  2. Mozilla isn't intended for end users, but as a base for companies to release a product

1. The majority, maybe the vast majority, of work on mozilla is still funded by Netscape and to a lesser extent other companies (RedHat, IBM, Sun). This should influence what bugs get fixed. Of course, this can't stop patches with lots of regressions from getting in if mozilla.org has as much autonomy as they say.

2. True, perhaps, but if the base has problems, its impossible or a waste of effort for several companies to run around fixing the same bugs. And then there are the linux distributors who will distribute mozilla as an end-user product.

So, I'm no longer as hopeful about mozilla's prospects as I once was. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to be waiting and trying mozilla 0.9.8 for myself before I install it for people on our systems.

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>