×

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!

Firefox-Based Netscape 8 Beta Goes Live

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the fox-eating-lizards dept.

Netscape 320

pigmelon writes "According to BetaNews, 'America Online's Netscape team has opened its doors to the public, releasing the first beta of the revived Netscape Web browser. (screenshot) Based upon Firefox, Netscape version 8 focuses on security and user privacy, and supports rendering with both Mozilla's Gecko and Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser engines.' Before downloading the beta, remember that it uses Firefox 1.0, which contains some vulnerabilities."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

320 comments

Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839295)

Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot?

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (2, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839337)

If it is truly standards compliant, probably not.

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (5, Interesting)

erikdalen (99500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839520)

the problem is a bug in firefox. it not caused by slashdots fucked up html code. you can get the same display bug on a fully valid html document. they have examples in the bugzilla. and it's already fixed in cvs.

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839346)

Sadly, it doesn't. Furthermore, the Slashfix extension does not work with Netscape.

I'm afraid that I have no choice but to continue my boycotts of the Slashfix extension, Netscape 8 BETA, Firefox 1.0, and Slashdot.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839353)

Slashdot misrendering actually happens MORE under Firefox 1.0.1 than on 1.0 - at least on my home PC. Kind of disturbing. It doesn't seem to happen at all at work (heh heh) using Mozilla 1.7.5. For what it's worth, slashdot seems to render properly, but the browser's interface is amazingly, astoundingly ugly.

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (1)

laard (35526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839555)

I can confirm this... on 1.0 I only saw it occasionally, since I've upgraded to 1.0.1 it happens quite often... holding control and using my scroll wheel quickly fixes it though

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839618)

So the best option for you would be to install the Slashfix extension for Firefox 1.0.1 then? :-)

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (3, Informative)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839523)

Quick fix for this:

Ctrl +
Ctrl -

Forces Firefox to re-render the page for you.

Re:Does it fix the shyte rendering of slasdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839592)

s/fix/painfully repetitive workaround/;

Re:Mirror (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839382)

Yes! Let's mirror the download page and not the file itself ;)

Download [netscape.com]

it's on netscrape bandwidth so it should fare just fine.

Extensions (5, Informative)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839299)

Unfortunately you can't install extensions cause they all say they don't support Netscape.

Re:Extensions (3, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839410)

Get $0.75/hr [tinyurl.com] for doing nothing.

Wow the dot-com bubble is back from the dead!

Re:Extensions (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839455)

Wow the dot-com bubble is back from the dead!

Yeah... it's like All Advantage all over again. I hope to make some cash before they go out of business, unlike with All Advantage, where I got $20 and they went down the tube.

Re:Extensions (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839426)

Of course. Do you expect Netscape to include Firefox functionality when it's got something IE in it? No way, man!

Re:Extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839604)

Good job using tinyurl to mask the fact that you're using it to get referrals, fucker.

Re:Extensions (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839654)

They should say Netscape doesn't allow^Wsupport them. I'm no businessman giving away "free" browsers from their site, though, so I wouldn't know.

fristage postage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839300)

stuff

first post.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839302)

www.paris-hacked.com.
first post URL spamming rights.

one word (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839305)

Ugly.

Horrible color scheme and very cluttered.

Re:one word (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839449)

It's the same Slashdot you've always visited.

Re:one word (0, Flamebait)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839482)

Ugly.

Exactly. That's what Windows-brained people will like.

Re:one word (4, Funny)

linguae (763922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839533)

Exactly. That's what Windows-brained people will like.

No, no, no, you got it all wrong. Not all Windows users are going to accept that crappy interface.

That's what AOL-brained people will like. They're willing to take crappy software from anyone, as long as it comes with flashy buttons and a "Me Too!" auto-posting button, too.

Re:one word (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839666)

ME TOO!

(Darn it! Had to do that manually, there's no automagic ME TOO button in FF). Oh, and you forgot the auto-caps-lock preference (on by default) so that they can post in ALL CAPS!

Merged Menu Bar (5, Interesting)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839308)

One thing caught my eyes is the merged top menu bars, so the page title and file menu options are on the same line now.

Is there such plug-in for FireFox?

Re:Merged Menu Bar (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839441)

do you need one? there's a search tool built right into the nav bar!

Re:Merged Menu Bar (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839550)

look at the screenshot, then read his post again. He's talking about merging the menu bar (ie: File, Edit, etc) into the caption bar (ex: "BetaNews | Inside Information; Unrele...")

Think about the consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839549)

On a 830 pixel wide screenshot, look how much of the <title> you got:

BetaNews | Inside Information; Unrele...

Sometimes the title bar text gives you useful information. Why would you want to see only the first 38 characters of it?

Re:Merged Menu Bar (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839653)

Could probally be done with a userchrome file.
I'm not at my home computer right now so I can't test it.

Re:Merged Menu Bar (4, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839663)

Probably not. In case you're interested, this effect is probably achieved by either a) overriding the paint routines for the non-client areas of the frame window or more likely b) producing a title-less frame window and handling mouse down events in the top area of the frame to simulate dragging the window around.

I was going to suggest you load view-source:chrome://browser/content/browser.xul to see how the chrome does that top part, but their view-source: code seems to be broken. Ooops! Still, you could probably browse the .jar files if you were interested.

LOUD (5, Funny)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839318)

Jesus, that screenshot [betanews.com] is like the browser version of my grandfather's "retirement shirts". Except, only if he lived inside Spencer's Gifts, and was a science fiction drama from 1963, and had ADD. And rabies.

Re:LOUD (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839336)

So uh, you don't like it?

My eyes, my eyes, my eyes!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839356)

Please give me your name and address so I can sue you :)

Re:LOUD (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839443)

Looks nice to me though, knowing all the themery (is that a word? You decide [google.com]) may take a boatload of RAM. Though if you need more RAM just to show the cool-looking stuff, you should dump your PC. Now. It's too old IMHO. That said, I love this 'scape. Me want.

why? (4, Interesting)

mohrt (72095) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839324)

What is the advantage of a separate browser? Why not make an AOL theme for firefox, drape it with AOL extentions/plugins and just use firefox?

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

Low2000 (606536) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839379)

The advantage is brand recognition. There are still a lot of people out there who know who Netscape is (or think they know who Netscape is and aren't aware of the AOL purchase).

Re:why? (5, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839405)

What is the advantage of a separate browser? Why not make an AOL theme for firefox, drape it with AOL extentions/plugins and just use firefox?

Supposedly the netscape version has built in the IE rendering engine for compatibility, while still maintaining the security of Firefox. We shall see. This may mean a browser that is vulnerable to every exploit. If done properly, however, it could be a very nice feature.

Re:why? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839525)

I looked through the prefs in the browser (I installed it a little while ago) and I can't find one to turn on the IE rendering engine. It's not in the view menu either. I stopped looking there, so maybe it would have been in the third place I looked.

Re:why? (1)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839624)

I looked through the prefs in the browser (I installed it a little while ago) and I can't find one to turn on the IE rendering engine. It's not in the view menu either. I stopped looking there, so maybe it would have been in the third place I looked.

I'm guessing that like most of the Mozilla browsers, you might be able to adjust it using about:config

However, I haven't downloaded this and am only speculating.

brand recognition (4, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839453)

One of the higherups where I work sent an email a couple months ago out complaining about this or that vulnerability in IE. He finished the email with "I guess that's just one more reason I should be using Netscape." Not Mozilla, not Firefox, but Netscape. Switching to Netscape is something I told him to do. In 1995. Ten years later, not only hasn't he switched yet, but he still thinks the only choice is between IE and Nutscrape. I don't think most computer users pay that much attention to new software (though Firefox and Mozilla are hardly new) nor to the technical aspects of software (the claim that Firefox and Netscape are both based on Mozilla will be met with a blank stare, followed by, "so I should use Netscape, and I'll be secure, right?" (and then followed by continued use of IE, because finding and downloading a new browser is still too much to deal with).

When will they package it with AOL? (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839616)

I don't use AOL myself, but there are ~20 million people who do, including my mother-in-law. Including Netscape/Zilla/Firefox on the AOL coaster would help get those people off IE.

Custom widgets (5, Insightful)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839330)


What's so wrong with using standart window captions, buttons and so on? There's a reason for that: consistency ammong applications.

Leave themes and eye candy for the OS level, and obey it if present; but please, not a single application should implement it's own custom UI controls, that's just wrong.

Re:Custom widgets (1)

betaguy9000 (863878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839363)

yeah, i agree with this; especially not a fucking abortion of a design like netscape 8 features. having firefox with ie support is always welcome, but jeebus, at least let users turn off that crappy theme.

Re:Custom widgets (1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839378)

I'll tell you what's wrong: branding.

Apple makes iTunes and QuickTime Player look like brushed metal on Windows, because Apple wants to remind you of its core competency as part of a branding initiative.

Likewise, Winamp needs to have five-pixel-wide buttons for every control because tiny controls are part of Winamp's branding.

Frankly, Netscape's vision is admirable and shows highly contuitous formancy among the AOL subdivisions. I consider this a commendable watershed among software.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Idea Incubatrix

Re:Custom widgets (1, Insightful)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839381)

Wait a minute, not a single application? I agree with you on the browser and other mainstream apps, but audio, video, design and other types of apps require their own paradigm for UI.

Re:Custom widgets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839622)

They're going after the market that uses the god awful ugly MSN chat.

My eyes! The goggles do nothing! (5, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839340)

Holy crap! [betanews.com] That has to be the worst browser interface I've ever seen. Awful color scheme, buttons everywhere, three different input bars (one for searching, one for addresses, and one for "shopping"?; worse, the most important bar, the address bar, is too small to show even the domain portion of a normal URL, and is not in a properly prominent position), funky menu positioning (by putting the menu in the title bar, I suppose you can no longer grab that part of the bar to drag the window), etc. Netscape really needs to invest in some competent UI designers ASAP.

Re:My eyes! The goggles do nothing! (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839438)

Netscape is a shell brand. This work was done in-house by AOL or contracted out to someone.

Re:My eyes! The goggles do nothing! (3, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839462)

Agreed, especially since the people using the browser wil no doubt be using 600x800 resolution, so the thing will ovetake the freakin screen with all the eye candy and no room for the address bar or webpage content will be left.....plus the so called "eye candy" sucks too...

I'm not trying to be critical, some may like it, but I just think it looks bad imho.

Re:My eyes! The goggles do nothing! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839612)

I doubt much of anyone is using a 600x800 resolution. Tablet PCs tend to be higher resolution and I doubt you could even get a driver for the ISA VGA card that ran the old 15" radius pivot monitors.

Re:My eyes! The goggles do nothing! (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839651)

I doubt much of anyone is using a 600x800 resolution. Tablet PCs tend to be higher resolution and I doubt you could even get a driver for the ISA VGA card that ran the old 15" radius pivot monitors.

I dunno, my nVidia card can rotate the screen, and my LCD monitor can rotate (meant for access to inputs on the back of monitor). I don't think I'd actually use my monitor that way, but I could if I wanted to.

Firefox exploits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839345)

They couldn't wait 1 freaking week to change to code base 1.0.1?? This is not the way to regain Netscape market share.

Had to use a screenshot with Microsoft Headline... (5, Funny)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839352)

Ok, so who's the brainiac that figured it would be a good idea to take a screenshot with a "Microsoft is making progress" headline/news item?

windows only? (3, Informative)

Anonymousse Custard (864188) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839354)

Sadly it seems to be a windows only release.

Re:windows only? (3, Insightful)

betaguy9000 (863878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839387)

Sadly it seems to be a windows only release.
I'm willing to bet they couldn't figure out a way to implement that abortion of an interface design on other OSes.

Re:windows only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839419)

I wouldn't say 'sadly' but 'gladly'.

I don't want that ugly thing produced for my Linux box.

Ugh! Looking at that screenshot makes me go to the loo. Were they smoking crack when they decided on the theme?

This is a grave miscalculation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839470)

To alienate the hordes of mac/linux users on AOL unable to use this browser is unconscionable. This is not the AOL we know from commercials on TV.

The goggles! They do nothing! (5, Insightful)

evn (686927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839366)

Just when you think the Internet can't get any uglier or more difficult to use we get another browser with piss-poor interface.

Why the heck do I need the weather below my address bar?

Why is the menu bar over by the close/minimize/maximize widgets (don't miss click the help menu or your window will vanish to the task bar)?

I /love/ the way they use completley non-standard UI elements throughout and the grace us with the standard windows scroll bar on the right.

I think i'll leave my family/neighbors/girlfriend with Firefox or Mozilla thank-you. They may not be the perfect interface but they're an order of magnitude more useful than this monstrosity.

And no, it doesn't run on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or anything but Windows. I guess that's a good thing in this case.

Leave it to AOL..... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839373)

... To release yet another bugged piece of software. I wonder if this has AIM built in so someone can write a browser-based IM punter???

Who cares? (5, Interesting)

tevenson (625386) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839377)

Someone please explain to me why, if you knew of the existance of Firefox 1.0 (or 1.0.1 now), you would still choose to download a bastardized version of it from Netscape?

Let's be honest. You're going to get the same rendering engine (at least for the most part, probably with more problems though) but with a bloated skin, no theme support, no extension support, and the Netscape icon.

I think it's totally worth it, ha.

Because of the name (1)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839627)

More average joes who have used computers for the past years would most likely know more about Netscape than Firfox. A few reasons I can come up with is that websites of various companies will state in the bottom "Compatible with IE x.x and Netscape x.x". Also, I remember the installation cds of some ISP's like videotron and Bell Sympatico would provide Netscape.

It may be a theme fully bloated without extensions support but the Netscape name and logo have been more around than Firefox.

Silly marketing strategy but it seems to work from time to time.

On a side note who else agrees that the theme might somehow remind you of Neoplanet [impress.co.jp] :o

Finally! (2, Funny)

Nailer (69468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839386)

A browser with the security of MSHTML and the sleek looks of a morbidly obese person's arse.

Best Review So Far (2, Interesting)

autosentry (595252) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839392)

"All Mozilla Products are great for me but when Netscape touches it, it turns to crap. This kept opening IE over and over. I had 30 windows open for IE. Firefox still rules!" Wonder how long they'll keep that on the front page?

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839394)

doesn't it look they're trying to copy some of the aspects of opera?

Maybe it's just me (or the theme). Anyway, no extensions means I'm never going to use it.

Why Does Slashdot look like Shit with FF 1.01? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839412)

Who's at fault here? Is it shitty slashcode or something wrong with Firefox? Anybody else having the same problems?

Re:Why Does Slashdot look like Shit with FF 1.01? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839466)

If you haven't heard yet Slashdot made a deal with Microsoft to make Slashdot only work on Windows. Slashdot is the one killer app that will cause everyone to switch to Windows.

Re:Why Does Slashdot look like Shit with FF 1.01? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839530)

now theres irony :)

pointing it out for americans who fail to grasp advanced literary techniquues such as irony and sarcasm.

Hoa Buggy (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839445)

Keeps opening IE windows for one thing, no extension support, lots of the goods parts of mozilla cut out and the bad parts of IE crammed in.

Then again thats what happens when you feel you need to make a browser that complies with most websites and not standards.

This makes sense.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839476)

AOL gets to hedge against Microsoft's IE dominance in the browser wars.. I say Netscape 9 gets bundled as the default browser on AOL 10 or 11, anyone wanna make a bet?

-

Weatherbug? (1)

Vash_066 (816757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839480)

Is that weatherbug running towards the top? Thank goodness now I don't have to worry about how people are gonna get their spyware.

Typical AOL-ish Theme (2, Insightful)

linguae (763922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839481)

The new Netscape browser is based on Firefox, but it looks, well, awful. It doesn't look as bad as some of the previous betas, but it still doesn't look good. It breaks many of the Windows design standards, such as its substandard menus, windows, icons, and title bars. Secondly, when I'm browsing the Internet (or doing anything else with my computer), I don't want to be looking at all of these flashy icons and weather and shopping and all of this other stuff. Why is the RSS icon on the URL box blocking the full URL? Where do AOL hire its UI designers from?

Next, another feature about this browser is that it can switch its rendering engine from Gecko to IE's rendering system. Well, why? IE's rendering system doesn't support the latest web standards, and even for web pages that uses a lot of IE-only extensions (ActiveX, for example), Firefox handles these situations with a couple of extensions.

Besides that, this will hurt in trying to remove substandard and nonstandard technologies from the Internet, such as ActiveX and non-standard HTML. Windows-only web developers need to get out of their Microsoft-funded cave and hop on the nearest bus to Standards Land and start dumping MSHTML, their Visual Basic-designed ActiveX programs, and ASP in favor of CSS and XHTML (standard web pages), Java or Perl/Python (standard programming languages), and PHP (to replace ASP). It will make the Internet a better and safer place for the rest of us.

In short, what's the point of this Netscape release? Firefox and Mozilla is spreading like wildfire, and they are better browsers. Safari, Opera, and Konqueror do their jobs nicely, too, so what's the point of Netscape?

And so it comes full circle. (5, Interesting)

Caspian (99221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839489)

1) Netscape releases source to Netscape browser, which by that point really sucks.
2) This source spawns Mozilla, which becomes pretty good.
3) This source spawns Firefox, which becomes even better (and actually popular)
4) Firefox gets used as the basis for a new Netscape browser, which (if the screenshot is any indication) really sucks...

There is no "5) Profit!".

The sad thing is that a lot-- and I mean a lot-- of users (particularly Windows-only folks, which is still 90+% of the population) think that the only two browsers out there are IE and Netscape. When I say "I don't use IE", I sometimes get a response like "So you use Netscape?"

Netscape's name-brand recognition among the great uneducated masses of Internet users might actually convince millions of otherwise-competent people to use this abomination.

The UI really is something (2, Funny)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839509)

It's like someone in AOL said:


"this Firefox UI is great and easy to use, so let's add a bunch crazy buttons and just generally shit all over it! Oh and throw in a theme that makes our customers want to claw out their eyes. And for extra confusion, make sure some of the pages load with IE so people are never sure what behaviour they're going to get!"

yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839510)

Netscape was dead years ago. Someone just forgot to tell the fossils who forgot how to innovate that it's over...

Shock! Horror! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839511)

Netscape releasing an ugly, bloated browser with millions of useless features that nobody in their right mind would use? Now there's a surprise.

Cyan killed Netscape (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839529)

Really, what retard decided to use cyan in the coloring scheme? That's been my biggest beef with Netscape since day 1.

Worried about use of MSIE rendering engine (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839531)

I'm worried about the use of the MSIE rendering engine. I'm worried because a lot of clueless webmasters will say "We only support Netscape and MSIE". E.G. the sorts of idiots who design the web site you must use to apply for governments benefits or for classes at your school. Now, if the people design a MSIE-only web site, and use Netscape's MSIE engine to test rendering of said site, said cluless webmaster may force you to use Windows to get gov't benefits, apply for class, or what not.

Cool! (2, Funny)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839536)

(Not.)
The worst of all worlds.
(Now that was serious.)
I've been hoping someone would do this.
(Unserious, more like fearing someone would do this.)
I guess I'll switch.
(Nearly coughing after fit of maniac laughter.)
No, not really. Sticking with Firefox. It seems to be what Netscape could have been had Netscape not believed its own hype and what IE should have been if only MS could see past proprietarily customizing everything that doesn't move fast enough.
(Looks like that IE-based browser that came with Flyswatter prominently packaged, but forget the name of it off hand...)

One question (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11839561)

I don't know much about the Mozilla license, but could AOL (AOL did buy Netscape right?) (a) stop the development of Mozilla (change the license to closed source/proprietary) or (b) sell Netscape (Gecko engine of coruse)?

Bad user skin (2, Insightful)

thomasdn (800430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839566)

I think that the user interface is really bad on this one. The buttons for search fields/etc. is too large. I personally do not like the light green/blue color they have given it. Combined with orange buttons just makes the contrast too high.
The menus in the top are located on the right unlike their usual place on the left. This is something that will cause irritations.

Some reasons.. (1)

flumps (240328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839594)

.. why I hate and will NOT use netscape:

1. It looks crap

2. It used to be slow.

3. Its probably still slow now.

4. I dont like the spinning icon in the top right. Its annoying.

5. I dont want all all these extra applications, I just want a good browser.

6. I still think it looks crap. I know you can change the theme, but I can't be bothered; I want something good looking NOW. Like Firefox.

Why give us another Netscape? Unfortunately its like Skoda, they'll never get away from their badge now.

Give it up, eh?

Didn't AOL announce... (1)

oldgeezer1954 (706420) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839615)

That they would include the MS ActiveX plugin with this browser?

ActiveX is one of the major attack points against IE/Windows.

Assuming that report was true, and considering how slow AOL has been to address prior NS vuln's, there's really no point in switching from IE.

I'll stick with mozilla.

This is horrible (1)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839646)

This version implemented something new called "Site Controls," or at least a better version of them. It also implements that master list of trusted sites you guys might've heard about a while back.

Well, it turns out that ANY site that is on the 'trusted site list' is set to display like IE. I don't know what's on this list, but I can tell you that's a LOT of sites this browser is using the IE engine for. It only defaults to Gecko when it's an "I'm not sure of this site" or "I dont trust this site" setting.

License (2, Interesting)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839656)

Now, I'm no expert on the Mozilla Public License [mozilla.org], but it seems to state pretty unequivocally that if you make modifications you have to release them under the same license (just as with the GPL) including source code. Whereas the Netscape browser license says:

3. RESTRICTIONS. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement, you may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Beta Browser or documentation, including customization, translation or localization; (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the Beta Browser, or in any way ascertain, decipher, or obtain the communications protocols for accessing the AIM Service, or the underlying ideas or algorithms of the Beta Browser (e.g. in an effort to develop other applications or services that provide similar or substitute or complimentary functionality to the Beta Browser);

and so on. There is no mention of the Mozilla license and no source code. How is this legal? Did they buy special rights from the Mozilla Foundation or something?

Ouch... (1)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839658)

[obligatory Simpsons reference]

Ouch my freakin' eyes!

[/obligatory Simpsons reference]

Designed by AOL, FOR AOL users...

File menu placement: Ignorant
URL bar W and Y-Loc: Obtrusive
Netscape search bar: Product Placement

Designing a browser only AOL users will love: Egomania at its finest.

Some things only only a mother could love, for everything else there's Linux.

Just like the sun, boys and girls, don't look directly at it.
Inject.

AOL is doing all it can... (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11839659)

...to destroy the Netscape brand, becasue they don't have the will to escape from Microsoft's nutgrip on them. First they ignored that they even owned Netscape (7 year option deal to use IE), then they try to turn it into a low cost ISP, now they are wasting time and effort on a hybrid browser. This browser is doomed to fail for a number of reasons:

  • Not only do web developers have to detect what browser is loading their page, we now have to detect what rendering engine it's using
  • The UA string is worthless
  • Usability is horrible.

I looked at the screenshot, and it seems that whoever designed this theme made every effort to make it cluttered, unnecessarily move things around (what other Windows app has the main menubar aligned to the right?), design icons whose meanings are difficult if not impossible to discern, and pick a color palette that is garish and unsettling.

Netscape is dead. Microsoft killed it, the (Bush) DOJ prevented it from getting a proper burial, and AOL is raping the corpse.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...