Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Netscape 8.0 Released

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the in-case-you-missed-him dept.

Netscape 313

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

cancel ×

313 comments

FP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576719)

Firefox still owns. FP!

No thanks... (5, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576721)

I'll stick with the Real Thing (tm). Now in version 1.04, and corporate ad-ware free!

Re:No thanks... (4, Insightful)

Hank Chinaski (257573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576767)

in fact firefox's search box contains links to ebay, amazon, google etc that are sponsored and help to sustain the mofo (mozilla foundation)

Re:No thanks... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576788)

...help to sustain the mofo (mozilla foundation)

Is that what the Mozilla Foundation calls themselves? If so, that's hilarious! : p

Re:No thanks... (2, Interesting)

Hank Chinaski (257573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576827)

yes it is. both hilarious and true.

Re:No thanks... (0, Offtopic)

dabigpaybackski (772131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576913)

Hey Chinaski, are you still with that crazy Lydia bitch or did she finally throw all your stuff out? Just wondering.

Re:No thanks... (2, Interesting)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576852)

At least they based Netscape 8.0 on Gecko (with an IE rendering option). Earlier rumours said that 8.0 was going to be based on Internet Explorer. It would have been the ultimate irony.

Browser is the The Platform [msdn.com] - expect new IE versions to have a .NET controls integration built into. (integrating that in Mozilla - either mono or dotgnu would be inviting a patent lawsuit).

Re:No thanks... (2, Interesting)

Matrix9180 (734303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576888)

the flash tour says that "trusted sites" will be rendered using the IE method "for better compatability". so the rumors were right :-\

.torrent file? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576723)

ne1 hav a torrent?

Based off of firefox (3, Interesting)

thundercatslair (809424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576727)

So do we actually need a netscape now? I used too use it untill they released 7. It was probably the worst browser I have ever used.

Re:Based off of firefox (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576773)

Well, it does use both rendering engines in the Windows version. There are still some pages that only work in IE unfortunately.

Re:Based off of firefox (5, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576791)

I love comemnts like these. One of the values of Open Source is choice but as soon as a decent Open Source version of something comes along suddenly theres no need for anything else. Choice is still good which is why I want to to see Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Konq, Safari and even IE compete to build something better.

Re:Based off of firefox (0, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576851)

Choice is still good which is why I want to to see Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Konq, Safari and even IE compete to build something better.

Hell, yeah! Why develop ONE web site when you can develop 10? Woo hoo!

Re:Based off of firefox (0)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576860)

Choice is still good which is why I want to to see Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Konq, Safari and even IE compete to build something better.

I know this is a little off topic, but your view also makes me think of the problems with our electoral system...not enough Choice! Two parties just doesn't give us enough choice! I agree...the more browsers the better. As geeks become more and more mainstream (a growing trend I think), niche browsers will flourish.

Re:Based off of firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576956)

Dude, what kind of browser do you expect from a "Thundercats" fan? Lynx?

I kill me.

Re:Based off of firefox (3, Insightful)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576844)

It will be nice being able to test your web pages with just one browser.

Re:Based off of firefox (3, Informative)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576950)

Just download the IEView [mozdev.org] extension for Firefox if you really must use that other browser..

Re:Based off of firefox (1)

Halvard (102061) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576899)

We don't but Netscape dialup customers are likely to install it.

YAB (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576728)

Yet Another Browser? Who needs it?

Trusting trust (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576729)

includes Trust Rating
Well... and why exactly should I trust AOL Time Warner?

Re:Trusting trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576903)

AOL Time Warner owns CNN, which is "the news service the world trusts". So, in AOL we trust. Amen.

Re:Trusting trust (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12577001)

I wonder what the Trust Rating of that spyware/adware/malware download site www.aim.com would be.

netscape is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576731)

why bother?
The only reason I see is some websites accept netscape still yet actively reject/redirect firefox

Re:netscape is dead (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576740)

Ever heard of UserAgentSwitcher extension?

The same netscape ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576735)


who have a home page looking like a domain squatters [netscape.com] ?
who's primary income is advertising ?
and they want people to install their software ?
cough*spyware*clicktracking*cough

Netscape is as good as dead, maybe if they concentrated on creating products that people actually want they would do a lot better

Re:The same netscape ? (4, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576761)

Nope, no click tracking here.. no spyware.. I'm monitoring the data packets sent out, none of them go to Netscape once you set your homepage to google.com.

It was good in Beta.... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576737)

And it's still good in it's newest release. The ability to switch between rendering engines is great, although the look seems too Macintosh for me. The skin is slightly confusing at first, but overall, it's a good product. Now let's find out it's spyware and popup blocking capabilities.

It WAS good... (3, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576843)

Then I rendered a site known for unwanted installation of spyware using the IE engine. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? If you use the IE rendering engine on a non-trusted site known for installing spyware w/o permission, it gets in. And the pop-up/pop-under blocking is still ineffectual.

*sighs and wipes Nutscrape off the computer*

Re:It was good in Beta.... (1)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576845)

The ability to switch between rendering engines is great

That's a bad idea. Web developers will continue to make webpages for IE instead of finding more proper solutions.

Re:It was good in Beta.... (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576954)

You mean like coding pages that are broken in EVERYTHING, despite being standards compliant?

There's still a market, believe it or not (2, Interesting)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576738)

My wife works at the EPA where they have an IMB/LotusNotes/Netscape solution on all desktops. She's running Netscape 7, I believe.

I, personally, question the time and money required to put out a new version of Netscape when there's a perfectly kickass Firefox to use, but my opinion is moot. There's still a market for Netscape, albeit a small one.

Re:There's still a market, believe it or not (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576810)

Well asl ong as the folks who put it out think its worth it It will happen. I'm quite happy with firefox, but its always nice to have a few more choices.

Re:There's still a market, believe it or not (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576894)

Please see my response to this post [slashdot.org] ... People stick to what they know and Netscape is a lot more well known than Firefox. If we want to put a dent in the number of IE users and thus make the web a better place for everyone, we need something that people are familiar and comfortable with as well as something that has backing by a major company such as AOL. This is especially true in the case of PHBs. Also, it's pretty damn cool that it can load pages using the IE rendering engine. I wonder if this includes all the ActiveX crap; would be nice to be able to use a Firefox based browser for our internal webpages that use ActiveX for everything.

Corporate Crapware(tm) (5, Informative)

c0ldfusi0n (736058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576744)

..."AOL INSTANT MESSENGER ("AIM") AND AN AOL MEDIA PLAYER ENGINE ("MEDIA PLAYER") ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE NETSCAPE 8 BROWSER. THE EXECUTABLE VERSIONS OF THE NETSCAPE 8 BROWSER, AIM, AND THE MEDIA PLAYER ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY HEREIN AS THE "BROWSER."

Thanks, but no thanks.

Wait.. let me get this straight: (1, Funny)

mikeage (119105) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576745)

"Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released" ... "[T]he 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

really? Both? At the same time?

Recent security vulnerabilities (5, Informative)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576746)

The linked article and the official Netscape 8 page are pretty light on technical details but the submitter mentions it is based on firefox 1.0.3. What I'm wondering is whether or not this includes the recent security fixes that brought about the release of 1.0.4. Would be pretty foolish of AOL to not include these since they are considered critical.

I also found the following line from the CNET review pretty amusing.

Netscape 8 is based on Mozilla.org's successful and mostly secure Firefox browser

Certainly not a false statement or anything but I thought the use of the phrase "mostly secure" was pretty funny. :-)

Anyone else get a 404 on the Trust Rating page?

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities (2, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576804)

Ahh, yes.. "Mostly Secure"

I've sent a report to Mozilla concerning what may be yet another exploit. As mentioned before in previous comments (Recently in the FF vs Opera story) I am now 100% sure that there is still a security hole in Firefox that is allowing pop-ups, pop-unders, and SOMEHOW is allowing Spyware to get in on one's machine. It's been narrowed down to either Flash, or an exploit in how FF renders HTML. I've been getting calls recently from people whose computers I've repaired, or reinstalled everything on, they're still getting spyware, as well. Hopefully Mozilla will figure this out, by testing FF with the same sites and settings I've been using/set on other computers. Once I get a reply, I'll give further details.

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities (1)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576930)

It wouldn't surprise me if it was flash, certainly flash can skip past firefox's popup blocking. You can always use a click to view extension on flash.

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576973)

Maybe so, but if it's installing spyware that's a problem with Firefox's sandboxing.

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576955)

Is that like "mostly harmless?"

Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (1)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576749)

Just start IE if you need.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (5, Informative)

c0ldfusi0n (736058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576775)

Or better yet, just use IE View [mozdev.org] & Firefox View [iosart.com] . Context menus in both IE and FF to view current page in the other browser.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (3, Informative)

c0ldfusi0n (736058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576799)

Oh and while at it, use Comparator [vasanthdharmaraj.com] .

I feel like i'm repeating myself [slashdot.org] over and over.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (4, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576781)

1) single set of bookmarks
2) tabs
3) better UI
4) plugins like adblock (presuming IE's renderer sees the final version of the DOM... that'd be an interesting test)
5) less clutter
6) one set of proxy information for IE, one for Firefox (again, presuming the IE renderer gets the data from Firefox, not its own HTTP stack)

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576887)

It is so you only have to have one browser open. So you don't have to go copy the link, go to IE, Paste and hit enter. Just click on the link in the way to get the IE rendering and hey, theres the website the way it is suppost to be.

Now my only question is, can I run Windows Update through this browser? So if someone else who decided to get it, let me know.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576928)

as c0ldfusi0n said "Or better yet, just use IE View [mozdev.org] & Firefox View."

rating system? (4, Interesting)

Hell O'World (88678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576751)

From article: site rating system called "Trust Ratings" which is driven by lists of sites provided by our trusted security partners.
Who are these "trusted security partners" and why should I trust them?

Re:rating system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576889)

Do Not Question Your Trusted Security Partners.

Useful feature... (2, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576752)

I have the View in IE plugin installed in Firefox, but toggling the renderer would be a very useful feature for them to add to the base product. I know its sort of blasphemy to say it, but fact is there are still useful sites (bank sites, in particular) that just puke under the Gecko renderer. Oh bank sites, and of course the Slashdot homepage ;)

Re:Useful feature... (1)

ExKoopaTroopa (671002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576820)

well, that's more of the bank's responsibility. My bank's homebanking site works fine in IE, FF and Opera. It is a bit sluggish, being java, but it works cross-browser.

Re:Useful feature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576970)

And exactly how many different bank web sites do you frequent? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Full Circle (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576757)

So we have come full circle again looking at the source code on which the various browsers are based:

(Mosaic->)Netscape->Mozilla->Firefox->Netscape

Re:Full Circle (1)

Too many errors, bai (815931) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576993)

Yeah, it's a forkathon. Shows how iterative software development really is, companies rarely make entire software products from scratch.

had enough of Netscape (2, Interesting)

jgionet (828557) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576758)

Now that FF is out and kicking ass I don't see any reason why anybody would want to run Netcape. It was slow loading in the past and it'll be slow forever. It's too bad really.. but I think Netscape is dead.

Re:had enough of Netscape (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576934)

there's plenty of reasons to switch to netspace, such as if you prefer an uglier browser.

Engine Switching? (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576759)

That seems like a convenience at first, but I guess it's almost as easy to click the i.e. icon when I absolutely can't get a site to render properly when using firefox. However, there is only one (1) site I frequent that requires i.e., and it never works properly anyway (Mortgage payment site).

Re:Engine Switching? (1)

trifster (307673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576834)

Others have commented but i consider this render with IE equal to firefox extion view in IE which i need when some old corp intranet pages don't work. and that fucking ofoto ;-) I think i will give it a try.

Well come on then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576760)

Why is this not as good as FireFox?

Added features... (1)

bloodyghol (761462) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576763)

Netscape, bastardizing the browser for lazy webmasters. I wonder if the IE engine comes with lots of fun IE security "features" too.

it has it's uses (3, Insightful)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576764)

I checked out the beta back when it was released. Once most of the "extra" interface features were turned off, it really wasn't too bad. Of course, since I was trying it at home, I quickly uninstalled it and went back to Firefox. However, since there are a few sites that I need to use at work that don't work all that well with Firefox (reduced feature-sets, slight wonkiness, etc), I may check this out to see if it does what I need. Being able to have one browser do it all can be quite handy...

IE or Moz (3, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576770)

The choice of rendering engines sounds interesting, will that be a boon for web developers tired of having to flit between browsers?

Re:IE or Moz (1)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576841)

Double-click, alt-tab, ctrl+v, enter.

Boy, there's one area of web development that sure would be significantly improved by adding another menu option... I mean, it takes *forever* to do that now. :)

I don't understand (4, Insightful)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576772)

Instead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?

How much time was spent duplicating efforts just so they could call it 'Netscape' instead of using that time to improve Firefox by putting out some great extensions?

Re:I don't understand (1)

BilldaCat (19181) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576816)

didn't you just nail the whole open source thing in your post?

how many OS projects have got forked for no particular reason, other than the person wanted to do his own thing and put his name on it, instead of improving an existing OS product?

Re:I don't understand (4, Insightful)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576867)

nstead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?

Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans (probably the world) make their decision of what product to use based solely on brand name instead technical merit or overall quality. This is why advertising is such an important aspect of selling a product. While Firefox has had a lot of media coverage lately I think your average user still has no idea what it is, or if they do, are probably still a bit wary to switch from what they already know. This is why the Netscape brand is so important; many people know it and trust it and won't use anything else.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576900)

I agree with what you both have said. It seems to me that the already was the "Browser War I", and Netscape lost. But rather than take their collective might and put it behind someone that could actually win the next 'war', they're splitting off in a sort of 'No, look, we're still here!!' kind of way. It's not as if this is a product they're trying to sell; they're giving it away, so why not become a major, respected contributor to Firefox.

Re:I don't understand (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576927)

It certainly would be better if they would just write extensions for Firefox and make them available as such rather than wasting time on Netscape-only stuff but, for the reasons I mentioned before, it is a very good thing that they release a Netscape branded version. Regardless of whether it is the same browser underneath many people won't use Firefox simply because it is unknown to them.

Re:I don't understand (2, Insightful)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576910)

I don't understand

What you don't understand is called branding.

What Netscape doesn't understand is that by putting the IE engine as an option, web sites will start making IE only websites, and say "Netscape or IE". They will then instruct the user to configure their browser to use the IE rendering engine by default, and the web will become a little less standards friendly.

-Adam

Re:I don't understand (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576985)

That's the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever fucking read. START making IE only sites? Because of NETSCAPE? Are you Icelandic or a fucking moron?

Why the hell... (2, Interesting)

jevring (618916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576774)

...does netscape automatically render pages known to e "safe" with MSIE?
I thought the whole point of not using MSIE was to NOT use it.
I mean, when I use netscape, I want netscape, not some other substandard browser running things in the background.
This will cause a shitstorm for developers running netscape.

The idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576777)

I have never been a user of internet explorer originally sticking with Netscape 4.x until Mozilla suite came around.
Its a shame that Netscape was battled by such a massive amount of incompetance!.

Trust Rating (4, Interesting)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576782)

Too Microsofty. Yuck. TFA says they have a database of sites that are either good or bad. I hope the phishers don't learn how to use disposable domains! (What's that you say? That's what they do now?)

But this may appeal to someone. Let's see: they have to be clueful enough to want something other than IE, and clueless enough not to want Firefox or Opera. Pretty slim pickings.

I guess there's still something left to the Netscape name as a brand, but they're quickly killing it.

Am I Alone in Appreciating New Release? (3, Interesting)

syntap (242090) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576792)

I personally appreciate the release because the BHB's I work for all happen to like Netscape, but balk at having me install something called "FireFox" that they have never heard of. Now I can say "New Netscape version is here" and all of the sudden they are off either 4.x or the bulkier Mozilla and can now be basically on the browser I wanted them on in the first place.

Re:Am I Alone in Appreciating New Release? (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576885)

Nope, check the description, it automatically renders sites with MSIE.

No Mac or Linux? (1)

tag (22464) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576795)

System Requirements - Operating Systems
Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 98 SE, ME

I guess I won't be trying this at home. I'll have to check it out at work.

Re:No Mac or Linux? (2, Funny)

genommen (880911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576849)

Yes it would be nice to have a linux version available. They have trust rating but only support an untrustworthy OS go figure.

Trust Rating? (1)

ShinSugoi (783392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576798)

Maybe I misunderstood TFA, but how is this any different from IE's security zone/trusted sites model? I thought that model had been proven to be ineffectual and flawed, so it really shocks me that AOL would try and add it to Firefox...

A million web developers just cried out in horror (5, Insightful)

Matrix9180 (734303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576800)

From the flash tour:
"If a site is considered trustworthy, Netscape automatically renders it using the Internet Explorer method, for maximum compatability."

WHY?!

Re:A million web developers just cried out in horr (1)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576893)

This would became a big security hole if someone can fool the trustworthy method.

And how is the User Agent send in those cases?, Netscape or IE or a mix of them.

Enhanced Tabs and Toolbars (1, Informative)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576802)

Just glancing at their page, it looks like they've come up with some nice paradigms too eliminate browser clutter. 1)You can choose toolbars using a dropdown box. 2)Shortcuts can include multiple websites. For example, you can set "Home" to open multiple websites in a single click.

Will it run on linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576803)

The real question here is will this run on linux? The browser works with Windows update (when in IE mode). Can we get this to work with Wine? Should be fun to experiment :)!

OK to install alongside Firefox? (1)

tag (22464) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576806)

I know you're not supposed to have two Mozilla-based browsers installed at the same time -- like Mozilla & Firefox.

Will this peacefully coexist with Firefox? I didn't see anything in a quick skim through the release notes.

Re:OK to install alongside Firefox? (3, Informative)

Arctic Dragon (647151) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576937)

You can install two Mozilla browsers on the same computer (even two versions of Firefox), as long as they use separate profiles.

I have yet to try the final build of NS8, but I did try the beta and it co-existed peacefully with Firefox. If I remember correctly, NS8 stores its profile in \Application Data\Netscape\, and Firefox stores its profile in \Application Data\Mozilla.

Wow (0)

conran (837379) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576811)

They're still making that?

Coincidentally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576822)

News flash! Mere seconds after news of the new Netscape browser being released hits the public, AOL has made an announcement that AOL 11.0 is heading for mailboxes across America as we speak!

Not dead ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576838)

Die stupid dead thing ! Die !!

Outdated (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576850)

When visiting Netscape.com, I got a nice message saying that my current browser, Firefox 1.04, is out of date. They said I should download Netscape 8. Which is based on Firefox 1.03. Does anybody else see a problem with this?

too slow (4, Insightful)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576857)

The problem with a corporate environment competing in a fast paced arena like browsers is they can't keep up. Netscape 8 is based on Firefox 1.0.3 but 1.0.4 is out and has fixed some well-discussed vulnerabilities. By the time Netscape could update their engine to FF 1.0.4, 1.1 will be out, possibly 1.1.2 or even later. By the time Netscape used 1.1, 1.5 is sure to be out.

I think that's one of the biggest things Firefox has going for it. Security, extentions, stability, tabs, are all very important reasons, but Firefox is successful, because it is small. Being small, they are flexible and fast moving, able to change to meet evolving needs. Firefox will be the guerilla fighters in the upcoming browser war

Linux version (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576865)

What happened to having a Linux version of netscape? Perhaps I just missed it? Some of us do use alternate operating systems...

Re:Linux version (1)

bjb (3050) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576902)

My guess is that they're avoiding the Mac / Linux ports simply because Netscape 8 touts the ability to use either Gecko or MSHTML rendering libraries.

Think about it.. OS X has Firefox and Safari as the two major browsers there (IE is still included, but its no longer supported). Safari is being aggressively updated, and Firefox is, well, Firefox. On Linux, I imagine people are fairly settled in their browser of choice (most likely you already know enough about computers to at least have made a good judgement on your own).

What does Netscape offer these days? Additional bloat and ad-ware? No thanks. So what could they POSSIBLY do to make their browser worth downloading? Use both Gecko and IE's rendering engine. Hey, its something nobody else has done yet (I think), so why not? It gives Netscape a bullet point that nobody else has.

So the fact that Netscape's only compelling reason is that it uses a Windows-only library, that would certainly limit the motivation to release a Mac OS X or Linux version.

Browser ID? (1)

wschalle (790478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576871)

I don't think I really want my BROWSER to have a unique ID number, thanks. I have to keep away enough identifying spam cookies as it is.

Sadly irrelevant (1)

another blockhead (515009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576880)

Have I missed something, or is NS8 a Windows-only browser?

Linux (1)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576890)

Is there a linux version? The download linked to an .exe file

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576909)

I can finally uninstall Firefox!

Turning Trust Rating into an immune system (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576920)

The Trust Rating [netscape.com] system is intriguing if it were carried a bit further. In conjuction with a built-in malware detector, every Netscape user could be feeding information to the Trust Rating DB. If a popular site is hijacked or infected, then as soon as one Netscape user accesses it, the system would detect the attempted malware activites, alert the Trust Rating system, and alert all subsequent users. The result is an internet immune system based on distributed detection.

I wonder if the ultimate version of this system is a DNS with Trust-Rating lookup process. Instead of using a plain-jane DNS, the browser would use a special DNS that returns both the IP and the trust-rating of that IP. Overloading DNS with a few bits of trust data would reduce the overhead of calling two DB for each web page access (DNS and Trust Rating).

I hear microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576940)

is thinking of basing ie7 on firefox 1.04 too...

Why discover the wheel again when you can copy it?!! :p

Windows Only? (1)

longdead (860403) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576953)

No Linux version. Not surprising with the IE renderer usage though.

Exciting. Really exciting. (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 9 years ago | (#12576976)

And in other news, nobody cared.

Adverts... Everywhere! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12576988)

Help! Where's the add remover? Is this really what the internet looks like without Adblock? Quick, back to firefox... that was scarey.

/. Editor tweeked the submittal a bit ... (4, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 9 years ago | (#12577002)

People sometimes wonder if the /. editors even look at the submitted articles ... and I can say in this case that is definitely true. What I originally submitted late last night was "The Main Netscape 8 page [netscape.com] has more info, although the "Download Now" page [netscape.com] currently says "Netscape Browser 8.0 is Coming Soon!" so kudo's to Zonk who actually checked the link and modified the posting appropriately.

BTW, the first sentance was originally "The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] is reporting that AOL will release Netscape 8.0 [wsj.com] - also being reported at BetaNews [betanews.com] and a growing number of sites. [google.com] " ... but he changed that to CNet which has the 5 page review ... the Firefox 1.03 reference is from BetaNews.

Finally, I had added this closing statement/question "While Netscape was the dominant browser years ago, it has faded dramatically ... does this release have significant enough features such that end-users will give it another try? Time will tell." ... and I personally think it's a bit too little too late - Firefox works darn well for me, and with the iview extension [mozdev.org] , I have one-click access to IE if need be. But the browser wars are far from over as IE7 appears to be copying many of Firefox's features, plus Opera and Safari continue to get good press ... so time will tell!

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...