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 1.2 Unleashed

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the shaftoe's-lizard-vision dept.

Mozilla 693

asa writes "Mozilla 1.2 has just been released. New to this version are features like Type Ahead Find, basic toolbar customization (text/icons/both), support for GTK themes on Linux, multiple tabs as startpage, Link Prefetching, "filter after the fact" and filter logging in Mail, Palm sync for Mozilla addressbook on MS Windows, and more. This is the latest stable release from mozilla.org, and all users of Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla 1.0.1, Mozilla 1.1 or any of the alpha/beta/release candidates are encouraged to upgrade to this release. You can get builds and more info at the Mozilla releases page and you can find daily Mozilla news and discussion at mozillaZine.org."

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

0th post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766145)

isn't it good to be me ? Anyway, Moz rulez

Opera 7 beta has also been released long ago (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766200)

Of course Slashdot mentions every .1 release of Mozilla and Phoenix, but I have seen no mention of the release of Opera 7 beta. [opera.com] It's incredible, but they have actually managed to improve the speed from Opera 6. Especially on sites that are heavy on tables (Slashdot). It's a bit crashy, and configuration dialog is not complete (and I don't like skinned programs), but for the most part is a great step forward from Opera 6.

And sorry for riding on your frist ps0t...

Re:Opera 7 beta has also been released long ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766225)

Opera is proprietary closed source trash. And what's exciting about a new BETA?

Christ, moron. Grab a fucking clue!

Re:Opera 7 beta has also been released long ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766263)

If you get excited about a .1 release or a beta, you need a fucking clue...

Anyone still using Mozilla? (3, Interesting)

rpjs (126615) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766147)

Now that we have Phoenix, I mean...

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (1)

octaene (171858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766152)

Quite! I'm very glad that Mozilla is now out with a stable release that allows more customization. I've been waiting to modify the toolbar without having to hack up my own theme...

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (5, Informative)

ciryon (218518) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766156)

I'm using Phoenix in Linux but Mozilla in Mac OS X.

Mozilla is a good, stable browser with lot's of plugins available. It you have a fast computer it's probably a better choice than Phoenix.

Ciryon

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (5, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766167)

Actually, as Phoenix is a cut-down version of Mozilla, it means we shall soon "type ahead" with it too.
BTW, Mozilla is better for those who also want an integrated mailer, we're not discussing the very same app, here...

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (5, Informative)

colinramsay (603167) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766175)

I don't know if that was a play on words or a reference to Type Ahead Find, but either way Type Ahead Find is a feature of the latest Phoenix milestone.

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766182)

Type-ahead find is already in Phoenix (as of 0.4 anyway.) Very, very, nice.

To reply to the parent's parent, Phoenix still needs things like a security manager. But it's getting there...

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (3, Informative)

AmunRa (166367) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766169)

Well seeing as phoenix uses the gecko rendering engine, any improvements to Mozilla/Gecko will get incorporated into pheonix, so development on Mozilla is good for Phoenix....

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (1)

wangqi (85958) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766174)

Yes, I am using the "beast"!

After trying out some many variants of browser derived from Mozilla, I still feel Mozilla is the best among them.

Mozilla Rules!

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (1)

KiwiRed (598427) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766177)

I'm still using Mozilla, at least until Phoenix has travelled through a couple more versions... (While Phoenix is faster, i just prefer the feel of Mozilla for now...)

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (5, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766179)

Er, yes. I find Moz to be plenty fast enough, and I use a truckload of extensions which don't quite work in Pheonix yet.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about, I'm using XFT builds for Redhat 8 that Blizzard puts out and they're snappy and look great. I did try Phoenix when I was on Windows, but found it to be no faster than Mozilla but with fewer features. I might try it again in a bit, but Moz is just fine for me.

I'm waiting on Galeon 2 myself, at least then it'll integrate well with gnome.

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (1, Redundant)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766226)

Yeah. We need to load test our Beowulf Clusters :)

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766229)

Sure. You want a web browser these days, you use Phoenix. You want a "communications suite" that lets you chat, send email, etc, you get Mozilla. Different goals.

Of course, since you change a single #define and then compile Moz to get Phoenix, I'm not sure that you can really say that you aren't using Mozilla...

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (4, Informative)

colinramsay (603167) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766261)

Not true. From the Phoenix 0.4 release notes:
Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite? It's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.
Phoenix is just Mozilla with a couple UI tweaks. We wonder when people will stop saying this. 30,000 lines of code have already been added or changed from Mozilla. We've forked the global history and download manager backends. And XHTML2 is coming to Phoenix.

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (2, Informative)

Universal Nerd (579391) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766274)

I do and will continue to do so, actually I use the daily builds with the spam filter. I really like Mozilla and it's mailer is just great for me - nothing flashy or fancy.

Oh, I run it on a machine with 512Mb RAM so Mozilla doesn't seem like that much of a hog.

Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (2)

Dog and Pony (521538) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766306)

Yes, I use it to read my mail. Since that doesn't need so much speed, it is fine. Probably will never be my browser.

Then again, I don't use Phoenix either - though I do try every new release to see if I could switch to it. Not yet is all I can say.

What I do use? IE and Opera. They work great, render nicely and are fast. So, I can't block some ads? Big deal. At least maybe my favourite sites will be up for a few more weeks, due to them getting at least some money then.

IE is still set to block ActiveX and scripting, third-party cookies etc. Those are the things that bother me. Not some images.

Xft support is there, but you've gotta work for it (5, Informative)

AmunRa (166367) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766149)

Although XFT (Anti-aliased font) support is now in Mozilla 1.2, it is not enabled by default. you have to 'roll your own' and pass the appropiate configure flag (--enable-xft) to get it to work!

are we there? (5, Informative)

muyuubyou (621373) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766153)

With Type Ahead Find and some IE skin [mozdev.org] we might port grandma to Mozilla without complaints.

Re:are we there? (2)

edgrale (216858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766202)

I hate to spoil this, but it would appear that the IE theme won't work with Mozilla 1.2... or at least I can't get it to work.

Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the modern theme.

Don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766206)


great idea except thanks to the wonder of open source mishmash and the developers changing the skinning model the IE skin now only works on Moz 1.0 and hasnt been updated in ages, not that iam suprised ,when the poor skinner spends a lot of time creating the skin only to find out it doesnt work anymore isnt exactly going to win any fans

Re:Don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766242)

open source mishmash and the developers changing the skinning model

This volatility is what pisses me off the most in most open source projects.

Why don't they do what Vorbis did with ogg? Design an upwards compatible architecture in the beginning so that you don't have to break it later on.

I still have oggs that I have encoded with the earliest working encoder versions and they still play beautifully with the latest ogg123.

Could it be that the open source mishmash suffers from a featuritis: someone codes a "cool" new feature and it just have to be added to the program even if it breaks earlier stuff. Witness the ridiculous "feature freeze" on Linux 2.5 for instance. It was unfrozen to add more features. Fucking morons. Now the 2.6/3.0 kernel will be late, late and late again.

not yet, NTLM is missing! (2)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766207)

Unless i am missing something NTLM support is still missing. In order to use mozilla I seill have to use an external proxy [geocities.com] to create NTLM support.

Grand ma does not need it, but i need it to pass my company M$(or novell, i am not sure) proxy.

Re:not yet, NTLM is missing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766281)

Well, if the only thing you need is ntlm support you should consider using this python proxy on your local machine
Works like a charm

http://www.geocities.com/rozmanov/ntlm/

Re:not yet, NTLM is missing! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766298)

Gee, thanks. That's exactly what in cocksucking sakes we're using. But this cocksucking fucking shit SHOULD BE BUILT INTO THE BROWSER!

Re:are we there? (4, Interesting)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766233)

With Type Ahead Find and some IE skin we might port grandma to Mozilla without complaints.

And with Lo-Fi Classic skin [mozdev.org] it probably runs on my mother's computer (P166, Linux) without problems. And on my father's (Celeron 300, Win98SE) and mine (PIII-600, Linux/Win98SE) even better =)

(I wonder why people complain that it "doesn't look like IE"? Lo-Fi is admittedly uglier than IE, but it at least honors system defaults and is damn fast, which is why I love it...)

Re:are we there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766314)

Yeah, because she is probably so slow herself, she won't notice everything grinding to a near halt in comparison.

First install! (5, Funny)

holviala (124278) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766159)

223.74 KB/s

With some limits (3, Insightful)

Martigan80 (305400) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766160)

Building on Mozilla's customizability, you can now show toolbars as text/icons/both (in the default Classic theme).

So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

Re:With some limits (3, Flamebait)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766170)

So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

And boy, does the Classic theme suck. Why don't they make the modern theme a default? Someone installing Mozilla for the first time might be pushed away merely because of the classic theme...

Directory listing (2, Informative)

Ace Rimmer (179561) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766161)

One of the first things I noticed is great speed improvement. For example the directory listing
(which used to take a few mugs of coffee) is now reasonably fast.

Whoohoo. I can finally try to look inside a doxygen generated documentation on a local disc! ;)

New roadmap (5, Informative)

edgrale (216858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766165)

For those of you who are interested, here is a link to the new roadmap [mozilla.org]

source: mozillazine.org [mozillazine.org]

Re:New roadmap (2, Funny)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766248)

New release? New roadmap? How soon before the clown at MozillaQuest [mozillaquest.com] releases an article like "Mozilla 1.2 is the buggiest release of the Browser-Suite ever, and the release of 1.0 is delayed even further?" Please don't mention Bugzilla or the article will get something about sweeping the bugs under the carpet or something =)

Kewl!!! Windows IE users kiss their ass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766166)

Yes i mean "Kiss their STINKING ASS"

1.0x (1)

daserver (524964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766173)

I think 1.0x is still considered the stable one... 1.02 will be out soon. In fact according to the roadmap 1.0x will continue to at least 1.4.

Re:1.0x (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766176)

But will windows IE users kiss their stinking ass?

New flash player, too (5, Interesting)

darCness (151868) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766180)

In case you weren't aware, a new Flash player for GNU/Linux [macromedia.com]
has been released too. It's recommended that you upgrade to this version if you're
going to use Mozilla 1.2. Unfortunately, audio seems
to be broken (at least for me under Mandrake GNU/Linux 8.1).

I've filed a bug report with Macromedia about this. Keep
it in mind if you upgrade.

Re:New flash player, too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766181)

OK! all that is fine...but will windows IE users kiss their ass...i mean their stinking ass

  • IE stinking ass

Re:New flash player, too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766199)

IE roxx.

Luser.

How about Flash for PowerPC Linux? (3, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766253)

Why is it that commercial vendors who say they support linux only provide packages for Red Hat?

Last I heard, Red Hat only ran on x86. Or actually I remember they had an S/390 distro too.

On other x86 distributions, you at least have the hope of using alien to switch the package format. But I use Debian on a PowerPC Macintosh.

I'm pretty sure Macromedia wrote software for the Macintosh before they even had any products for Windows. Flash right now is supported on the Macintosh, so the software is supported on PowerPC architecture.

How about getting us a Flash for Debian PowerPC Linux?

The "Red Hat" only mentality is why I think there isn't much hope of companies succeeding in shipping proprietary products for Linux. People on other distros or architectures get particularly irritated that they can't do whatever the product provides and write an open source replacement, where they wouldn't have bothered if the commercial app supported all the platforms.

If a bunch of volunteers working for no pay can support, what is it? 8000 packages on eleven architectures, why can't a commercial vendor support all the major Linux distros and architectures?

Re:How about Flash for PowerPC Linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766270)

Not only are you a moronic Debian slave, but you were stupid enough to buy a fucking Mac as well?

You really ARE a glutton for punishment. I suppose your girlfriend or boytoy must treat you to healthy doses of S&M too.

Re:How about Flash for PowerPC Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766285)

The "Red Hat" only mentality is why I think there isn't much hope of companies succeeding in shipping proprietary products for Linux.

Especially since the package management in RedHat is horrible.

How hard would it be to have rpm install all the dependencies automatically like apt-get does? But no, you have unintuitive mess of flags and options and when you're missing a package, just rummage through the CDs yourself and install them manually.

Re:New flash player, too (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766259)

Question - does this release fix the braindead problem with Flash that prevents it working with Mozilla on a remote display?

Re:New flash player, too (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766303)

Bad form to reply to my own post, I know, but...

I just gave this a try (Flash6 beta + Phoenix 0.4) and it WORKS! Woohoo!!

Mozilla + Flash was the last thing I was waiting for to set up a remote X terminal for my son.

shame there aren't more users (5, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766183)

less than 7% of my million monthly hits are something other than Internet Explorer

it's a damn shame esp. when Mozilla is now the superior product.

Re:shame there aren't more users (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766186)

That is exactly why someone announced here:
that Windows IE users should kiss their stinking ASS.

Re:shame there aren't more users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766193)

That is exactly why someone sad...that windows IE users should kiss their ASS

Re:shame there aren't more users (3, Interesting)

great om (18682) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766249)

how much of this is because people with 'alternative' browsers (like opera, for instance), change their reported browser tag?

I, personally, have no idea, but I thought I'd throw this possibility out there

-Om, Posting from Omniweb

Re:shame there aren't more users (5, Interesting)

G-funk (22712) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766258)

Mozilla now is like ie 3/4 at the time... A far better product to use (standard compliance not withstanding), but as stable as a 2 legged stool.

I love mozilla, I use 1.0 all the time under linux at work, but it just can't cut the mustard when it comes to windows. It was a sad moment when I had to return the little "e" to my quicklaunch bar after a few weeks of bittersweet mozilla pain.

Re:shame there aren't more users (4, Informative)

jonr (1130) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766297)

The more I use Mozilla, the more I like it. A good mesure of a quality software (or anything else). IE feels like a toy browser now. Mozilla is stable, fast and support correct standards. I just don't understand what people are doing wrong to get Mozilla unstable, on my Atlhon 750/XP it runs for days.
J.

Re:shame there aren't more users (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766271)

less than 7% of my million monthly hits are something other than Internet Explorer
>
>
Maybe it's because you're runnning a site that's of little interest to non-windows users?

Immediate theme change? (4, Insightful)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766184)

What happened to it? The last time this worked was around 0.95 or so. Having to restart to change themes is, for one thing, primitive, and another, a pain in the butt.

Anybody know what's going on here?

Re:Immediate theme change? (2, Informative)

KiwiRed (598427) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766215)

I'm using the same theme with 1.2 (orbit retro [mozdev.org] ) that i was using for 1.2b... Apparently themes were broken between 1.2a and 1.2b, but no idea what will happen with 1.3a...

Running it now... (2, Interesting)

haxor.dk (463614) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766187)

Moz 1.2 runs great. Fast, stable, the HTTP pipelining is a *gem*.

And, of course, no M$ spyware.

What more can a nerd want?

Re:Running it now... (3, Funny)

Quazion (237706) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766250)

Mozilla has no spyware ? bah then i dont want it!

Re:Running it now... (3, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766260)

What more can a nerd want?

The ability to run multiple instances of Mozilla on different screens. This worked until 1.0rc2, and then they removed it. Since I *need* this funcitonality for my job, I have to keep a copy of the old version lying around :-(

Wow, important features (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766188)

Wow, all those wonderful cool colourful bells and whistles and STILL no cocksucking NTLM support, which means 99% of corporate workers have no fucking use for this piece of shit.

(Not a troll...I use Mozilla exclusively at home under Linux...but it's as useful as tits on a boar at work)

Re:Wow, important features (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766283)

Somebody explain it to me like I'm a six year old: How in cocksucking FUCKING sakes is the parent post a troll? Yeah, my language is a bit fucking colourful, but I told it like it cocksucking is.

Until NTLM support is added, Mozilla will not be cocksucking usable by the majority of corporate lackeys authenticated by NT domain servers.

FUCK! I'll see you god damn motherfucking cocksucking whores in metamod!

funny (3, Interesting)

jki (624756) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766197)

from the link prefetching FAQ [mozilla.org] :

What about folks who pay-per-byte for network bandwidth?
- prefetching is a browser feature; users should be able to disable it easily

Is there a preference to disable link prefetching?
- Yes, there is a hidden preference that you can set to disable link prefetching. Add this line to your prefs.js file located in your Mozilla profile directory: user_pref("network.prefetch-next", false);

Although I admit link-prefetching may be good, but if it becomes a on-bydefault feature in most browsers, the ones that it will damage are the content providers. Those cannot turn it off (and actually do not have anyway of knowing whether their content is being prefetched (and not potentially viewed at all) or not. Well, I am just whining. Generally, Mozilla seems to be doing great :)

Re:funny (2, Informative)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766212)

I thought content providers have to explicitly specify what links to prefetch?

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766230)

It is the content provider that chooses what to be prefetch.
So please stop trolling.

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766231)

the ones that it will damage are the content providers.

Errr, how can it hurt content providers? Re-read the FAQ again. The content provider has to do one of three things for it to even think about prefetching: use the appropriate <link> tag, the appropriate Link header, or the equivalent <meta> tag....

Re:funny (5, Informative)

Rovaani (20023) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766243)

If you'd read the whole FAQ you are quoting you wold see that
Are anchor (<a>) tags prefetched?
No, only tags w/ a relation type of next or prefetch are prefetched. However, if there is sufficient interest, we may expand link prefetching support to include prefetching tags, which include a relation type of next or prefetch in the future. Doing so would probably help content providers avoid the problem of stale prefetching links.
So content-providers can decide all by themselves if they want to pre-serve the content. Althoug it is possible for a malicious web-site to set pre-fetch headers pointing to third-party web-site , thus draining their bandwidth.

Also:

As a server admin, can I distinguish prefetch requests from normal requests?
Yes, we send the following header along with each prefetch request:
X-moz: prefetch
Of course, this request header is not at all standardized, and it may change in future Mozilla releases.

Unleashed... (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766204)


Isn't that a bit dangerous for a dinosaur ? I mean I'd prefer to see it safely tethered to my desktop rather than going out on its own causing wanton destruction. Hell I have enough problems without something running around unleashed on my box.

When will we ever learn ?

Re:Unleashed... (1)

G-funk (22712) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766277)

Small japanese man looks up to the sky in fear...

"Oh no! Gojira! - I mean mojira!"

Let loose the dogs^H^H^H^H^H lawyers of war!

Re:Unleashed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766309)

Excuse me, your racism is showing.
Here's a little hint: Get an education.

Why on earth? (1, Interesting)

Binarybrain (253017) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766205)

Why the heck do we need Palm sync for Mozilla. I think its neat and I thank the open source dude that wrote the code for it but geez.. Bloat city. Do these people that write Mozilla realize that most people just want a quick browser that does the job.

Re:Why on earth? (2, Funny)

yatest5 (455123) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766227)

Do these people that write Mozilla realize that most people just want a quick browser that does the job.

So use Phoenix. And then shut up.

Re:Why on earth? (1)

fallacy (302261) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766273)

most people just want a quick browser that does the job.
...and that's what Phoenix [mozilla.org] is for.

O.K. I'm not condoning bloatware, but if Mozilla Mail is to compete with other mail clients, then it will have to support the various methods of sync'ing information.
This is probably a bad analogy but: I find myself using Links [mff.cuni.cz] a surprising amount of time, even though I have Phoenix installed. By that token, does that mean that Phoenix (or Mozilla etc) is bloated because it supports images?

[I've refrained from simply spouting "Well download the source and compile it yourself then!" as I know how annoying that is when people assume that everyone has a whizz-bang PC and a super-fast broadband connection.]

Re:Why on earth? (2, Informative)

samfreed (572658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766286)

I, 4 1, would like to keep only one database for my contacts. At the moment, I have 3: on the palm/jpilot, in Mozilla (for Email), and on my Nokia phone.

This consolidation is important to me. Looking forward to having in on Linux.

Re:Why on earth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766295)

I and many people I know have been waiting for this feature since about .67 or so. This is great

Now if only the calendar project (good work so far) would provide palm sync for their kit.

Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766208)

I would like very much to use Mozilla 1.2 on my Debian PowerPC (woody) Macintosh.

Unfortunately, once Debian reaches a release, the software is frozen except for security updates.

That means the mozilla that's available for Woody is still 1.0. I have all kinds of problems with it, problems that are likely to be fixed in 1.2.

I know I could get a .tgz file and install it in my home directory, but I'd really like to have a proper debian package and install it on my system, and uninstall my 1.0 mozilla.

You won't see a 1.2 .deb for woody, or an official 1.2 at all until the next debian major release. That's going to be a long time from now.

But maybe someone somewhere has a homebuilt deb on their ftp or website that I could fetch and install with dpkg -i. Anyone?

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766218)

Well then, ask yourself, why the FUCK do you choose to use Debian?

Stupid fucking moron.

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (0, Troll)

SpitFU (617828) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766221)

Three commands isn't that hard to run.
./configure make make install

People need to get off their lazy behinds and start working. Compiling it for your system will help in leaps and bounds as far as speed of the software.

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766313)

./configure make make install

And break the package management by installing out-of-distro software from the source? No thanks.

Have you ever compiled Mozilla yourself? (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766316)

First of all, "make install" doesn't make a debian package. I want something that will work with the debian package system (apt & dpkg). That's important to be able to maintain a system, to be able to do uninstalls and upgrades.

Secondly, I compiled Mozilla myself once, just to check it out. I did it on my Compaq laptop. As the compile progress, I had to rush around deleting files because, in the end, it requires 1 gigabyte to do a build.

The /home partition on my Mac is 700 MB. My whole debian installation fits on a 2 GB drive. I don't have enough space in any of my partitions to do a mozilla build.

I could do a build off of an NFS server, using my desktop PC that has lots of disk space.

But there's another problem - my Mac is vintage 1996. It has a G4 CPU upgrade, but the Altivec instructions that make a G4 advantageous are not use by software like compilers. The hard drive is a narrow SCSI-2; the memory bus is 50 MHz.

It would take several days for me to build mozilla myself on my Mac.

Wouldn't it be a lot nicer if someone who actually built both debian software and mozilla regularly did the work and shared it with everyone?

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766256)

Michael Crawford, crawford@goingware.com [mailto] , moronic Debian slave.

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (1)

Rubbersoul (199583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766269)

change your apt_get preferances to use the testing or unstable server and you will be able to get a .deb of newer versions.

Re:Debian packages for Woody? How about PowerPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766289)

Hello.

For those of you wondering about the parent, Debian has Stable, Testing and Unstable releases. Mozilla 1.2 will be in unstable soon, and maybe 1.1 in testing soon. Granted soon might mean a month or two, it will be out. Also, People usually end up posting home-brewed repositories for you to add to your /etc/apt/sources.list. But, with that, you will likely have to pull some libraries from unstable for the program to work (e.g. home-brewed Phoenix takes libc from unstable).

Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (3, Interesting)

deadmantalking (187403) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766213)

A serious question. OpenOffice started incorporating GTK/GNOME widgets, Mozilla builds support for GTK themes...
Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?
Anyone has any insights?

Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (5, Informative)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766222)

Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?

Something about the QT license. It's GPL or proprietary (it's your choice), while LGPL (the license of GTK) is more corporate-friendly.

Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766284)

serious question. OpenOffice started incorporating GTK/GNOME widgets, Mozilla builds support for GTK themes...
Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?
Anyone has any insights?
>
>

Because QT/KDE is a pile of shit that they don't want anything to do with?

Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766304)

A lot of software I'd like to run needs qt/KDE.
It's a bitch ain't it.

What is the use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766214)

... of releasing new version numbers when the same old bugs haven't been fixed. There are persistant and annoying bugs which simply aren't being fixed from one release to the next, some of them being really old. I really embarrassed myself the other day by telling someone their site was stuffed (in more polite terms), only to realise it was Mozilla messing up (a very old bug, been there for a year or so).
Now I know adding features is more sexy / entertaining than fixing bugs, but isn't the point of making software for the gramdmas & officeworkers of this world, and not just autistic programming-savant fun-seaking obsessions?

Re:What is the use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766224)

because they want Windows IE users to kiss their stinking ASS

Re:What is the use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766310)

So, download the source code and look for the bug yourself. After you come up with a fix, send it in. That is one of the joys of open source. Stop complaining and take some action.

Moz Light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766216)

Will a "light version" (ie browser only) still be available?

Re:Moz Light? (1)

KiwiRed (598427) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766239)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Phoenix [mozilla.org]

Re:Moz Light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766254)

From http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/phoenix-re lease-notes.html


What a bunch of idiots. Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite? Don't you know the importance of brand recognition?

Oh, where to begin. First of all, it's not "lite." Not only does Phoenix aim to match the featureset of Mozilla -- subtracting features deemed geeky and better offered as add-ons -- but it extends it. For example, it adds customizable toolbars and quicksearch in bookmarks and history. It offers an add-on manager, a better wallet, and a new downloads sidebar pane.

Second, it's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.

Third, "Mozilla" is not the name of an application; it is the name of a monolithic suite containing a browser, a mail client, an irc client, and an indoor skating rink (we hear that's coming, anyways.) Even if we did decide to call this browser Mozilla, we'd still have to call the standalone mail client (see below) something else. We also believe Mozilla, in general, is going in the wrong direction in terms of bloat and UI, and see no reason for our releases to carry those connotations.


so please....dont call it mozilla lite!

Again me saying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766217)

Windows IE users kiss their stinking ASS

Bandwidth costs (1, Offtopic)

pubjames (468013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766223)


Just out of interest, does anyone know what kind of bandwidth charges you face doing something like this? I mean, OpenOffice, Mozilla, RedHat ISOs, - there must be massive bandwidth charges associated with distributing this kind of stuff, isn't there? Does anyone know what these guys pay per Gb, and what their monthly bills are like?

Without Mozilla, IE would not be free (3, Insightful)

dagg (153577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766237)

If AOL stopped supporting Mozilla development, then they wouldn't be able to hold it over Microsoft's head. It is quite a dance those companies play.

This was posted using Mozilla 1.2

--

Your sex on a platter [tilegarden.com]

Re:Without Mozilla, IE would not be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4766251)

AOL supporting Mozilla development?

What the hell do you mean by that? It's the community that's keeping it over Microsoft's head, not some friggin' corporate paid code monkeys.

Mozilla to win this war (2, Insightful)

i_luv_linux (569860) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766244)

I like Mozilla and I think it is the only challenger to IE now.

However there are certain shortcomings. Number one is that there is no WYSIWYG editor for Mozilla. Something like HTMLArea. There is sort of such editors, but they do not work as nicely as IE WYSIWYG editors. I mean they are not even close to IE editors. So Mozilla should work very hard to bring such features. As the number of applications that use such features increase Mozilla will destined to doom unless it brings such features.

Second there is no support for drag and drop. There is drag and drop but not using onDrag and onDrop type of events which makes the programming extremely simple. That's a must have in my mind.

Third Mozilla for some reason is a little bit slow in Windows. Not the engine itself, but the program. For some reason it feels less responsive compared to IE. I thought that it is because of this skin, someone claimed that that's not the case, I am not sure whether he is right or wrong. But there is no point of having skins on the browser, it is totally stupid, useless. Get rid of the skin thing permanetly. Try to make sure that your program feels like a native application. Mozilla on Mac OS X is somewhat joke. It doesn't feel like a native application.

Mozilla's being standard complaint is good, however on the net lots of articles are written for IE, because of the historical reasons as we know it. So Mozilla should allow the users to make a nicer transition by enabling certain non-standard IE-only features as much as possible.

Before Mozilla I was only using IE, because Netscape was not good enough, even though at first I tried not to use IE. Now with Mozilla that changed a little. I still use IE most of the time, but I like Mozilla too.

Please use mozilla net installer (5, Informative)

suds (6610) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766280)

Please use the netinstaller (~250kb) which would find a closest mirror for you automatically to download.

Hooray! (4, Insightful)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766282)

One of the last uses I had for explorer was to browse CNN. Mozilla 1.1 had problems formatting HTML on some (most) CNN articles;

Upgraded, tested, and now it works like a charm. What is that procedure to remove IE again?

Mirrors (2, Informative)

melvin22 (523080) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766287)

Well, someone had to do it. You can find mirrors here: http://mozilla.org/mirrors.html [mozilla.org]

Download manager? (1)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 11 years ago | (#4766307)

Has anybody made an improved download manager for Mozilla yet?

Yuioup
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?