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 1.1 Alpha Released

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the from-good-to-great dept.

Mozilla 464

theBrownfury writes: "Mozilla.org has released Mozilla 1.1 alpha, the first post 1.0 milestone. This release has been in the works for almost 2 months now incorporating over 1700 bug fixes and more than a dozen new features. Including: Quartz rendering for OS X 10.1.5 users, new layout performance enhancements targeted at DHTML, faster startup times and more. Here are the release notes and the link to the releases page or FTP for downloads."

cancel ×

464 comments

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

FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685019)

first post motherfucking assholes!!!!

Claimed for CLIT! (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685110)

You lose sucka!

Re:FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685135)

The first post! I learn to. I want the fistr post motherfucher also. how i ca make it? T.I.A. :):):)

HOw i can make the slashdot name? T.I.A. :):):)

Re:FP! (-1)

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (537317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685187)

I heard you can make it. You can make the slashdot name. Hope this help!

Java Exam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685020)

My Java exam is today. CS0401 will be owned by me.

Re:Java Exam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685085)

Wow, you study the java? what bean you like? i like the bean from Brazil, but iknow some like teh bean from Columbia. I like it witht he white milk and the sugar. :):):)
you to?

Juan Valdez (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685107)

onJuan()
cry()

Re:Java Exam (-1)

flaw1 (572429) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685231)

Java is a toy. Learn a real man's programming language: Visual Basic.

fpfpfpfpfp (-1, Offtopic)

The Step Child (216708) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685023)

fpfpfpfpfp pfpfpfpfpf

Wooo! (3, Interesting)

Clay Mitchell (43630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685024)

Hopefully this version will fix the problems I get loading pages with lots of dhtml... takes forever to load those :( (for example, flat mode comments @ shacknews.com)

Re:Wooo! (2)

Cally (10873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685142)

> the problems I get loading pages with lots of

> dhtml... takes forever to load those

There's a bug with large background images slowing page rendering; I haven't checked for a few weeks, it may be fixed now. Otherwise, perhaps it takes a long time because it's, like, a big file? Have you tried saving it off locally and reloading? (clear the cache if you want to be really anal about it ;)

And so? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685032)

Did they fix the Mozilla 1.0's Remote DoS? OSS projects are intentionally written buggy, just to keep developers busy.

excuse me but (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685035)

This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.

Mz 1.1 is quite stable really. Only one crash in the several days I've been using it.

Btw, you need to go into the preferences and turn pipelined http on - it's off by default. In my experience, it increases speed by about ~25%. Very good stuff.

Re:excuse me but (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685103)

If it's one of 'those' sites that positions everything with 300byte gifs, it loads alot faster than 25%.

I benchmarked it against IE on one of my p0rn sites, it loaded the page in under a second, IE took over 4, every time.

Re:excuse me but (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685213)

the first rule of trolling is never apologize for trolling (unless the apology is part of a bigger meta-troll)

Java Problems... (2, Insightful)

PoiBoy (525770) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685036)

Hopefully they've finally fixed some of the problems running Java applets. For example, I can't play games at http://games.yahoo.com using Mozilla. I've seen tons of bugs at Bugzilla, but not being a Java expert I don't know what is what.

Re:Java Problems... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685054)

You can't run Java applets when you don't have a Java Virtual Machine installed. By default, Mozilla doesn't have one installed.

Head over to:
http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/index.htm l

Re:Java Problems... (1, Informative)

BabyDave (575083) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685102)

In my experience, when you have installed a Java VM there are numerous problems, ranging from slight display glitches in the applets, to the occasional random browser implosion. These problems don't occur when you're using IE.

[For reference, this is with Mozilla 1.0 and Sun's JRE, either 1.3.1 and 1.4.0_01. YMMV with other VMs]

Re:Java Problems... (2, Insightful)

Spacelord (27899) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685243)

The problem isn't IE vs Mozilla ... the problem is applets written for Microsoft's bastardized Java VM vs the official SUN implementation.

Re:Java Problems... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685068)

I like the java to, you also? Im like it with the white milk and sugar. taste good for me. you also?

I can be slashdot people now? I want the slashdot people(name) for me noe how to make that? T.I.A.:):):)

Re:Java Problems... (-1)

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (537317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685203)

I heard you can make that. You can make the slashdot people(name). Hope this help!

Re:Java Problems... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685087)

Mozilla needs at least Java 1.3.1_02 on Windows and Java 1.4.0_01 on Linux for applets to work properly.

Even then, lots of applets are MS pseudo-java (and only work in the Microsoft VM) rather than real Sun/IBM/etc. Java. AFAIK the games.yahoo.com used the MS-Java specific crap (for no good reason) last time I checked.

Applets actually written for Java 1.3/1.4 work brilliantly, I find, and the fact that 1.4 applets get the DOM of the page they are embedded in is cool, too. Next step: drag-n-drop applets in Composer :-).

Re:Java Problems... (2, Informative)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685118)

I was playing dominoes on games.yahoo.com just last night - on mozilla 1.0

I had a lot of trouble installing java on moz 0.9.8 a while ago, but when I did a full reinstall with 1.0 it went without a hitch, installed, and runs absolutely perfectly...

Re:Java Problems... (2, Insightful)

codingOgre (259310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685119)

Not true I just played Collapse right now in a tabbed window with moz 1.0 and it worked fine.

Make sure you have the Java plugin installed!

Re:Java Problems... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685172)

wow. I have ZERO trouble playing games at yahoo.com.
did you follow the steps to get java correctly installed? I followed both proceedures on the mozilla site to get java working well and both make the java-intense yahoo.com games to play pretty much flawlessly.

Re:Java Problems... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685225)

I tried to play pool on yahoo games using sun java but the installation was very clunky. It would just lock up the computer until I installed the Blackdown [blackdown.org] version of Java.

release notes (-1, Redundant)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685037)

I can whore for karma too...release motes here [mozilla.org]

no karma Re:release notes (0, Offtopic)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685070)

If you only read the posting you should seen it already links the release notes.

Re:release notes (0, Offtopic)

robkore (251928) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685073)

I can whore for karma too...release motes here

Usually helps if said link is not in the above posted article, but nice try anyway. 'E' for effort.

Re:release notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685199)

Thou receiveth what ye giveth.

WHOAH! (-1)

Anal Cocks (557998) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685043)

When did Mozilla 1.0 come out!?

For some reason... (5, Funny)

OccSub (572282) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685046)

getting to that FTP server before it gets slashdotted kinda reminds me of when Indiana Jones is diving under some massive stone door, which is about to shut him in the acient temple.

Re:For some reason... (4, Funny)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685101)

Nah, he at least had a chance of success...

Re:For some reason... (2)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685226)

Wasn't a problem. I just DLed 1.1a, installed it and am using it now. It slurped all my old Netscape settings and it feels.. Snappier than N6.2. I just might stay with this one which is an Historical Event because I have been using Netscape since 0.98...

Lone Gunmen at MTV pull a chrisd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685051)

chrisd [slashdot.org]

This is a milestone (1, Redundant)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685053)

This is a milestone, not a regular release. Many people will want to wait for the mozilla 1.1 release. This kind of stuff makes you look forward to mozilla 1.1 already though :-)

roadmap: Re:This is a milestone (2, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685093)

and to fill in the next mozilla realaes lets look at the roadmap [mozilla.org] :

1.1alpha 12-Jun-2002
1.1beta 17-Jul-2002
1.1 09-Aug-2002

Security fixes in mozilla 1.0 not included here.

Fuck crapzilla! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685059)

Before you moderate this as flamebait, ACTUALLY READ THIS.

I first tried mozilla 0.6 at christmas 2000 and it was slow buggy shit! Back then I was a windows 98 user which used IE 5.5. Fortunateley Opera 5 came out and it was much better than both of them.

In fact it wasn't until about 0.9.3 before they produced anything decent, then they fucked it up!

Ive tried 1.0rc3 and its still shit! Why is it so fucking slow! Ive got a 450mhz processor which is still only about three years old but come on!

Now that I'm a linux user much better browsers now exist including Opera, Konqerour and IE6! Im sorry to say this, but mozilla really is a peice of CRAP! Its even crappier when used with GNOME (thats why I use KDE instead)

Konqueror is the best browser for linux FULL STOP! When 3.1 comes out mozilla will be extinct!

Now you can moderate this as troll or flamebait BUT THIS IS THE TRUTH! You wasted FOUR years on this crap and its total shit!

Mozilla deserves to die! I will not tolerate this shit when Opera and Konqueror are so much better!

Re:crapzilla???!!!??? (0)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685147)

450 MHz is starting to get long in the tooth... how much RAM do you have, and how may other apps did you have running too... some people bitch about software being slow & buggy and never consider the ancient computer they are running it on...

Re:crapzilla???!!!??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685219)

I used to have 64MB, now 320. Mozilla is just as slow even with 320mb. You don't need several gigahertz of processing power to run a WEB BROWSER, its not rocket science.

Re:crapzilla???!!!??? (2)

colmore (56499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685223)

that's funny, i've been running 1.0 on a 250 MhZ Celeron, and it works just fine. (64 Megs RAM)

Re:crapzilla???!!!??? (-1)

boltar (263391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685238)

Any browser that can't work properly on a 450Mhz
system is very very badly written. Sorry but
I used to be able to run netscape 3 (which had
java, javascript etc) on a 486/66. HTML , Java etc
has not go so much more complex in the last 5 years
that a browser requires a 100 fold increase in performance
for it to run ok.

Re:crapzilla???!!!??? (-1)

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (537317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685249)

I hope you are not insinuating that a 450MHz processor is not fast enough to run a fucking *browser*. Are you crazy? Godammit a fucking BROWSER!

Well done to the team (again) but.. (2, Informative)

wackybrit (321117) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685065)

Once again we have to say well done to the Mozilla team for finally delivering a very usable product. It's great to jump between Linux and Windows and to have the same browser. Some people have complained about its memory use, but if your machine is halfway decent, it's really a simple Web browser that gets the job done.

However, there are several things that stop me from using it 100% of the time. I still stick to IE for about 25% of sites, because.. of all the little bugs! I'm hoping some have been cleared up in this Alpha. They include:

* Keyboard not responding sometimes when you open a new Mozilla window (this is in Bugzilla)

* When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.

* Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute.

* Mozilla often bawks if you're loading large JPEGs into it direct from hard disk.. and it just displays a blank/white screen with scrollbars.

* Many sites still don't display well in Mozilla. This is the Web developer's fault, but still.. Mozilla can do all of those DHTML menus and stuff, yet I still run into problems on sites that use them. An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (3, Informative)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685083)

* Selecting text for copy/paste is difficult. I often have to select more than I want, and then trim it down.

* In the Windows browser, selecting text will even do strange things like go back the the previous page, or close the browser window! It may be the gestures getting confused, but it's highly annoying.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (2, Insightful)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685115)

* Selecting text for copy/paste is difficult. I often have to select more than I want, and then trim it down.

huh?, this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it. Mozilla handles it much more gracefully.

Set your gestures to the middle mouse button and never worry about it again, it's simple really.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (5, Informative)

stang (90261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685180)

this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it.

I just figured this one out the other day.

To select a portion of the word, drag your cursor so that the next word is highlighted, then back up. IE extends the selection word by word, but retracts it character by character.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (1)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685132)

In the Windows browser, selecting text will even do strange things like go back the the previous page, or close the browser window! It may be the gestures getting confused, but it's highly annoying.

Then change your optimoz / mouse gestures settings...

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (1)

voidstart (581484) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685106)

* When you click on some links, it doesn't go to the destination.. and it just displays a picture off of the current page! Hit Refresh and you finally go on your way.
I had this same problem. For me it was caused by HTTP Pipelining. If you have it enabled, try disabling it.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685112)


Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute.


WTF?

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (5, Informative)

Cally (10873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685127)

* "IE compatability mode" -- if you do View / Page info, you'll see that pages without a DTD at the top are rendered in "quirks" mode. This tries to cope with broken HTML of the sort that litters the web.

Tobe honest, I don't see the other problems you mention. When you say "mozilla is often the first app to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces..." -- well this just never happens to me, on NT4 or Linux. Are you trying to use win9x or something? If so, I suggest you nuke that PoS first, install a real operating system (I'd count NT as "real", others may disagree ;) and a pound gets a penny most of your issues will clear up.

The other major cause of issues is installing over a previous version. Try nuking your ~/mozilla (on Windows: %SYSTEMROOT%/profiles/[username]/Application Data/Mozilla ) and reinstalling.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685162)

if you do View / Page info, you'll see that pages without a DTD at the top are rendered in "quirks" mode. This tries to cope with broken HTML of the sort that litters the web.
Yep, Slashdot.org is in quirks mode =)

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (5, Insightful)

Nerant (71826) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685129)

Some points you raise:
"* Mozilla is less system tolerant than IE. Mozilla is often the first application to lose its icons and its interface starts falling to pieces. This is probably because of my memory or the CPU overheating.. but IE remains stable until the last minute."

And this is a problem in Mozilla why? You yourself state that it's because of your RAM or your overheating CPU. I don't understand how changing software will fix your hardware problem.

"* Many sites still don't display well in Mozilla. This is the Web developer's fault, but still.. Mozilla can do all of those DHTML menus and stuff, yet I still run into problems on sites that use them. An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!"

This wouldn't help anyone: sticking an IE compliancy patch would only encourage web "developers" to stick to supporting IE specific html. Mozilla renders standard HTML, not "Microsoft HTML". You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML. Once again, you expect the Mozilla team to make such a terrible compromise when you clearly state that "This is the Web developer's fault"

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (2)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685229)

You want more sites to display properly in Mozilla? Email the webmaster and ask him/her to write standard HTML.

While I agree with you, I'd like to defend the original poster by saying that this isn't always an option. Especially not when dealing with corporate web pages, even those of small companies.

Many web designers charge more, sometimes much more, to produce standards-compliant web pages without all their Javascript and IE-specific tricks. And a lot of companies, especially small ones, will fight tooth and nail against anything that makes their web page less flashy or "attractive" to users.

(The biggest irritation here for me is the thousand-and-one nonstandard ways of using drop-down navigation menus. To say nothing about the horrible usability of said menus in the first place!)

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (3, Informative)

delphi125 (544730) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685131)

They also include:

* Not supporting my (home) wheel mouse. Telling users they need new drivers is not an option!

* Losing an entire folder of bookmarks being dragged. The bookmark section in general needs a fair amount of work

Despite that, the pop-under tabbed browsing is the best thing since er the wheel mouse. I just want 'em both!

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (2, Informative)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685267)

Not supporting my (home) wheel mouse. Telling users they need new drivers is not an option!

How many times have people had to go to a hardware company's support site to get the latest drivers for their hardware? Or even the latest version of ActiveX to support the new game they want to install? In windows this has been a fact of life for years and this is not a mozilla only problem. At least you have an option of getting a new driver, most hardware companies are completely oblivious to anything but windows.
I've been using mozilla for almost 2 years. I've never had a problem with the wheel mouse. I've installed it on both linux & windows machines. And I've used several brands of wheel mice including the genius net mouse which is'nt even a wheel but a toggle switch really. And they all worked perfectly. You need to give alot more information.

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685151)

An optional 'IE compliancy' patch in Mozilla would be very very useful!


And an optional Mozilla (ie Actual Real W3C standards) Compliance for IE would be be even more useful!

IE compatibility patch... (4, Insightful)

gusnz (455113) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685153)

Well, there's one IE emulation script here [eae.net] that I know of. It's a regular .JS script, designed more for designers to adapt scripts easily than for clients, but it shows off the advanced side of Moz's JS 1.5 support (getters/setters for properties...).

This brings up one of my older thoughts: you know how we can format sites with user-defined stylesheets, how about user-defined .JS files added to each page you load (without a local proxy)? Is it possible to add DOM properties with the user prefs JS files somehow? This could be very useful -- emulate IE, any other browser, customise the behaviour of any document function...

delivering a very usable product? (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685188)

Unfortunatly not, well interms of usablilty,
The prefreances box is still not resizable, this is one of the most WTF bugs, evryone uses the preferances box so why is it so hard to see what going on.
Try setting your Mail & New group / Send format, the options fall off the bottom of the page.

Mozilla also fails to use my system colours, this is another clasic 'You fool' usability bug.

Somone at AOL/Netscape should be driving fixes for this type of bug, because they piss people of far more than taking a while to display somthing, or occasionally having to hit refresh.

Ahhh where have the tabs gone (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685207)

I always though tabs worked a bit funny (not closing the current tab), but now there worse, they close the most reciently opened one first, apparently this is a bug fix in the 1.1 release.... more like a buggered fix...

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (1, Redundant)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685195)

no no no no no NO! I hope they NEVER make an IE compliancy plugin or whatever.. only the laziest and worst web developers write IE specific code. If the browser displays HTML standard code (it's not code it's script btw.. calling a HTML jocky a programmer is an insult to programmers everywhere) then the website that is written correctly will display corectly.

Never EVER allow sloppy work to ever become acceptable. and anything that is IE specific is sloppy work.

I know I'll get flamed and modded down for this, but it's true. there's a standard out there people for HTML and DHTML, USE IT!

Re:Well done to the team (again) but.. (1)

esarjeant (100503) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685254)

That's odd, my experience with loading large JPEG's was exactly the opposite. Other browsers (Opera, Konqueror, older versions of Netscape) would "bawk" at large JPEG's loaded from the local filesystem.

In contrast, both IE and Mozilla loaded these images without a hitch.

I have experienced the keyboard focus problem once, but that could have purely been a fluke. No issues with links working / not working, that went away with the early versions of Mozilla.

Quartz rendering. (2)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685066)

Quartz rendering for OS X 10.1.5 users

Woo-hoo! I wonder if this is using that Silk [unsanity.com] program I haven't gotten around to installing yet.

Doesn't matter. Mozilla was the only thing I was going to install it for, because decent looking text is the only thing I miss from OmniWeb.

--saint

Re:Quartz rendering. (1)

psxndc (105904) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685144)

decent looking text is the only thing I miss from OmniWeb

Huh? I can't even look at IE anymore because of the beautiful job OmniWeb does. Now if only Omniweb could handle tabbing between fields in a form correctly.... As I finished writing this, I started up Mozilla and I personally think Omnoweb does a better job display wise. IMHO, YMMV.

psnxdc

Re:Quartz rendering. (1)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685212)

As I finished writing this, I started up Mozilla and I personally think Omnoweb does a better job display wise.

Uh, that's what I said. "Decent looking text is the only thing I miss from OmniWeb" could be reparsed to "OmniWeb has decent looking text, and that's the only feature that I miss." And it is, now that I'm hooked on tabbed browsing and the Pinball theme for Moz.

Sorry if that was unclear.

--saint

Re:Quartz rendering. (2)

BlueGecko (109058) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685165)

wonder if this is using that Silk program I haven't gotten around to installing yet.
Yes and no. Previous to OS X 10.1.5, if you wanted the new antialiased text, you had to redo your graphics routines to use Quartz/CoreGraphics. In OS X 10.1.5, Apple changed things so that an application could get the better text while continuing to use QuickDraw. However, because this actually breaks a number of apps (AIM and AOL being biggies), the application must request the better text, which of course means that you'd normally have to wait until a new version came out. Silk simply tells the system to let all QuickDraw apps get the new text by calling QDSWitchText whether they do or no; it has almost zero logic within itself, and all the Moz developers had to do to get better text is call QDSwitchTextDraw().

1700!? (-1, Troll)

march (215947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685072)

No offense, but I've been developing software for quite some time now and 1700 bug fixes (which means there are a *heck* of a lot of unfixed bugs I bet) for something as self contained as a web browser is unfathomable.

My current project is an entire trading exchange from trade entry to clearing and it was built by some 15 or so people. We have 28 outstanding bugs. I am sure we will have more when it gets in front of a broader range of users, but 1700!?

What is going on?

Could it be that the OSS model doesn't work properly on large projects like mozilla? Should stricter software engineering practices be, um, practiced?

That being said, now that 1.0 is officially out, it definitely rocks, but was it worth the wait?

Re:1700!? (0)

azzy (86427) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685081)

prat

Re:1700!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685185)

prat. I know that one! prat prat prat! and I konw some otheres to. can i please have a name for the slashdot? T.I.A.:):):)

Re:1700!? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685092)

Its like the old saying, Too many cooks spoil the broth.

If you look at the about screen for the Konqueror browser they have about 25-30 programmers each doing a little job on their own. Thats why it really rocks!

Mozilla however was hacked together by thousands of serperate programmers each adding salt.

Maybe it would be better if mozilla was developed like the linux kernel was, and thats the main programmers reveiwing patches before they are accepted.

Re:1700!? (2, Informative)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685265)

Mozilla however was hacked together by thousands of serperate programmers each adding salt.


To a large degree a myth. Yes, there are many people who add small patches but a substantial portion of the core code is written by paid Netscape employees. The really hairy parts tend to get hacked on less because there is such a steep learning curve. The idea that it is a chaotic free for all is entirely bogus.

Maybe it would be better if mozilla was developed like the linux kernel was, and thats the main programmers reveiwing patches before they are accepted.


Doh. Every patch requires at least [mozilla.org] two reviews.

Re:1700!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685128)

This has been mentioned over and over for a long while. In the past, the response has been that the number of bugs includes feature requests. I wonder whether it also includes duplicate bug reports. I do not know how bad it is but I doubt it equates to 1700 severe bugs, which I agree would look like a development model which does not work.

Re:1700!? (2)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685154)

"for something as self contained as a web browser"
Excuse me, but what do you mean by "self contained"? Do you think a web browser is a simple piece of software? It isn't. It doesn't just have to parse HTML. It has to handle text and multimedia, as well as dynamic scripting, etc. It has to be able to handle all the stupid errors by webmasters everywhere, and has to make sure it doesn't crash doing this. It has to implement a number of standards (HTML, CSS, DOM, ECMAScript, etc. etc.), and do it correctly. Of course there will be many bugs. A browser must also work on a wide range of systems. Don't forget that Mozilla is a cross-platform browser, and many bugs arise from this. What works on one platform might lead to bugs on another.

In addition to this, new features are added all the time, and bugs in these new features will be reported and consequently fixed.

I don't think you have quite considered the amount of work which must go into a web browser.

The system you are working on doesn't sound very impressive compared to a full-featured browser. The system specialized and works in a carefully adapted environment, doesn't it? You can't even begin to compare your simple little system to a full-featured web browser which must handle today's standards as well as correct others' errors.

This has got nothing to do with open-source, but with the kind of project being worked on.

Then again, I guess it is possible that IHBT... In fact, it is quite likely. I don't know why I even bothered replying...

Re:1700!? (1)

march (215947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685201)

However, I still believe my statement of being "self contained" is valid. The browser has very descrete goals that can be parceled off for people to work on. The program it self runs on a single computer by a single person. You do not have to run mozilla on 15 different machines at the same time to browse the net for one person. It does not need to handle the stress of a 1000 users at the same time in unpredictable ways.

I was not putting down the folks that did the work, but rather the process by which it was done which, by the deliverable dates alone, clearly is not working optimally.

Personally, I don't think you have worked in a large scale production environment and are just doing the knee jerk OSS reaction that OSS work is better than anything else. It is sometimes better, and it is sometimes worse.

When your browser has to pass $500 million a shot without making a mistake, then we can talk about process, standards, redundancy and total work loads.

Re:1700!? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685239)

I don't work with OSS. I don't even work with browsers. I work with proprietary solutions, and the only people who get to see our code sign NDAs. I haven't written a single line of code in Mozilla.

No, your points are not valid. You don't realize the sheer number of situations a browser has to handle. I already mentioned that it has to support several standards and do it correctly. Have you ever even read through such a standard? HTML 4.01? DOM2?

Mozilla doesn't have to handle the stress of 1000 users, but it has to handle the stress of multiple standards, features related to both browsing, e-mail, news, IRC. It has to handle the stress of millions of web pages.

Damn, IHBT again. But it's my day off so it doesn't matter.

Hallelujah! (4, Interesting)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685078)

From the release notes:
Image blocking for Mail & News has been implemented
This is one feature I found missing from 1.0 which I felt should have been in. Other than that, I've found Mozilla to be a good mail client, despite my normal hatred of intergrated mail clients in software; best of all, I can use the same program in Windows and linux to access my IMAP mail!

Next step is to figure out an easy way to automate transferring my contacts from Outlook (I've got an iPaq with all my contacts which syncs to Outlook) to LDAP, then both Mozillas (and my webmail program for externally accessing email) can use the same contacts list.

Re:Hallelujah! (0)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685247)

what i would like to see in future versions of mozilla-mail is the option to reject ALL emails if the sender is not in the address book, hows that for a spam filter... and for the web browser the option to "automatically delete disk cache when the browser is closed"

Zilla (2, Funny)

Konster (252488) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685084)

In other news, Gnuzilla, the Open Source RMS P2P Rantware was released today. Milestones included with this release are Dogmas We Don't Care About and The Kernel That Make Us Wonder Why.

Kazilla was released today, in version 0.000241. Although there is nothing noteworthy about this release of Kazilla, the popular P2P application, please be aware that it includes Spyzilla and Spamzilla software that may or may not install Screwmezilla based upon your approval, acceptance or non not acceptance of the EULA attached to Kazilla.

The ever anticipated front-end to Slashdot's popular moderation system was also released to the public. Modzilla 0.7,28.90 is a GUI interface that streamlines and integrates popular random client-side interactions with www.slashdot.org's acclaimed moderation system.

Re:Zilla (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685200)

The above posting was brought to you by Trollzilla, the app you can do without!

Stuff (2)

vandan (151516) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685086)

Good to see the Mozilla team pushing forward from 1.0. Unfortunately for me, I just finished compiling 1.0, and I don't think I'll be upgrading any time soon. What we need now is that elusive spell-checker (not for me - for .... everyone else .... at work - seriously), the calender to stabalise and maybe get a MySQL backend, and the SkyPilot theme to be included alongside 'classic' and 'modern'.
But anyway, I am no longer scared of demonstrating Mozilla to friends and colleges. Crank on Mozilla! You've come a LONG way since I first tried you out (Mozilla M5).

Re:Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685155)

Is your recently compiled Mozilla stabal?

Re:Stuff (5, Funny)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685158)

"...calender to stabalise..."

I think you *do* need that spell-checker yourself.

Re:Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685215)

you forgot file browser, PDV viewer, maybe even integrate gimp's code into mozilla along with xmms, a dvd player, audio editor, non linear video editor, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation manager, and possibly the Linux kernel while we are at it... The damn app isnt bloated enough so we need to add more crap into it...

I say remove EVERYTHING except for the browser part. and smakc the hell out of everyone that asks for a program to be integrated into it that you ca nget elsewhere.

i cant get over how fricking stupid people are... Gimme everything in one program because I am too lazy or stupid to comprehend using something else for that task.

latest build... (2, Informative)

Zadig (26610) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685095)

if you want the latest build, you can always download it from :
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/lates t-t runk/

Download manager (3, Insightful)

barnaclebarnes (85340) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685124)

I assume that 'Download Manager' is something akin to Gozilla or Getright but without all the Spyware/Adware crap.

About time too. This feature should be a core piece of any Browser. I should be able to schedule downloads, do segmented downloads and autmatcially resume downloads right from within the browser, not have to use some thirdparty app that is not integrated.

/b

Re:Download manager (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685206)

I've never used it, but I doubt it does all that. If it's anything like the download managerd in Galeon and IE for Mac, it's simply a big window with a list of all the files you're downloading. It's only real purpose is to keep you from having 500 little download windows, so you can just go to that one and see how your downloads are doing.

Now, Mozilla's might be different. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Download manager (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685211)

No, sorry, the download manager is still very bare bones and does fairly little. It has alot still to be done to it imho. I don't like it how it goes down too when Mozilla crashes - like having the life boats going down with the ship.

did they find them??? (0)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685133)

those four people that need to be found so mozilla.org can update their license??? i reccomend a house to house search in Redmond Wa. starting at bill gates & monkeyboy ballmer's house, they might have kidnapped em...

DoS in Mozilla/X (4, Interesting)

kyhwana (18093) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685137)

Anyone know if this has the fix for the remote DoS
when X/XFS is running?
(For those of you who don't know, you can kill X
by including "body { font-size: 1666666px; }" in a stylesheet

Re:DoS in Mozilla/X (4, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685156)

As you can read on bugtraq, the general attitude is that it's more a problem within X and/or XFS than in Mozilla.

Re:DoS in Mozilla/X (2, Informative)

kyhwana (18093) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685197)

Well, the DoS doesn't happen in any of the other browser for X, so it'd be nice if mozilla could handle it the same way.

FAST!!! (1)

Nomad7674 (453223) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685148)

Wow, Mozilla 1.0 was just released, with much pomp and circumstance (or if you read CNET, much weeping and gnashing of teeth) and already we are seeing a 1.1 milestone being announced. You'd think the Mozilla team would take a month or so off to recover. Guess this is one of the lesser-publicized advantages of OpenSource - vacation time is not an issue because the volunteers (those doing it out of love or a feeling of duty to the community) aren't being paid anyway!

1700 bugs?!?!?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685149)

Excuse me, but isn't that a little bit excessive???

I mean, the mozilla project is 4 years old, and to have thousands of bugs is a disgrace! Isn't anyone assigned to quality control?!?!?!

Open projects like this are a good idea, but if people aren't even bothering to check their code for bugs before submitting patches, one can only assume mozilla will have worse security problems than ANY microsoft program!

To the mozilla coders: Check your code! How can you slag off microsoft if your project has 10x the amount of bugs?!?!?!?

Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! (0)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685184)

i would still trust mozilla before i would trust M$-IE even with mozills's bugs & all, look what you get with IE--> vulnerabilitys needing to be patched every week and it takes Micky$oft months to make a patch, IE= popup advertising, backbutton vulnerability, and dont forget cybercrooks & malicious websites can read & write to the Windoze OS thru IE... with mozilla i have much better control of surfing the WWW where IE hands over control to the WWW...

Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! (5, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685208)

I'll bite.


So how many bugs are open on IE? How do you know it's 10x as many bugs? For that matter, how do you actually raise a bug on IE if you find one? Microsoft do their best to hide that kind of information.


The fact is Internet Explorer is closed source. You have no idea how many bugs are open on it, how many are fixed between builds, the quality of patches, the quality of the code or even what features are being worked on at any given time. Mozilla allows you to do all which consequently means a lot of people are motivated to find and reports bugs and often submit patches.


Besides, a lot of the so-called bugs on mozilla are covering feature work, more deal with embedding and API cleanup, more are dupes, more are issues restricted to specific sites and more deal with issues on specific platforms. They might all be labelled "bugs" but the number of crash/non-functional/quirk issues are actually a subset.

Re:1700 bugs?!?!?! (-1)

boltar (263391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685248)

Say what you like about IE but 1700 bugs found
in version 1.0 (which has taken years to be
released) is farcical.

Impressive... (1)

v4mpyr (185039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685179)

to say the least. I'm running a 450mhz w/ 128M of RAM and this new milestone is super fast and stable (something I haven't seen in ages). Beats the snot out of 1.0 and Opera, IMHO.

New release very soon after 1.0 (3, Interesting)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 12 years ago | (#3685191)

It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.

If someone there is worried about people facing this 1.1 new release when, in press releases they have been told about 1.0, then don't worry. The big milestone of 1.0 is about compatibility: the interfaces have been frozen so further development will be easy to do. This is a concert only for enterprises developing applications based on Mozilla technology (PDAs, portable aps, embedded devices), not for the desktop end user.

Any comments on how this compares to Chimera? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3685214)

Now that Quartz rendering is supported, does anyone have experiences in how stable and fast this is compared to Chimera (the Aqua version of Mozilla, not the old X11 browser).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?