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!

Mozilla M8 Released

justin++ posted about 15 years ago | from the fear-the-lizzard dept.

Netscape 140

bergie writes "The Mozilla milestone release 8 is now available! Go check the coverage on MozillaZine. Go fetch it! " For those interested, MozillaZine has a pseudo-changelog available. It seems blizzard's Xlib port is coming along quite nicely. Anyone at OLS next week will be able to attend Mike Shaver's "Inside the Lizzard" talk. Congrats to the Mozilla folk!

cancel ×

140 comments

How far along is Qt version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799703)

It said that all the major toolkits will be supported.

Does someone know how far away the Qt port is?

Re:Improvement over Netscape, but barely (1)

TheMeld (13880) | about 15 years ago | (#1799704)

I suspect that they intend to put this behavior in, and just haven't done it yet. It exists (alebeit with some problems, especially with pages that have big complex tables, slashdot sometimes being one of them) in the current releases of Netscape, and has for some time. I doubt that they would remove this feature, as many users (myself included) would bitch quite a bit about it until they fixed it.

Re:Top 10 things I love about Mozilla. (1)

FonkiE (28352) | about 15 years ago | (#1799713)

1: segmentation fault !!!

whatever i tried, whatever platform i used,
whatever milestone i used ...

i'm willing to get a buggy preview of the new
browser ... but ...

no :-) on this one

Re:Mozilla not Free Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799714)

No, it'll never happen. That would mean that the browser would have to be linked against private gui libraries under Windows. And that would free them because of the GPL. And then we'd all get to watch Bill and Richard get into a love-spat the likes of which the world has not seen since Satan and Saddam went at it in South Park. The question is: which is Satan, and which is Saddam?

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (1)

AmirS (15116) | about 15 years ago | (#1799715)

After a bit of guessing, I've found it's actually bug #8559 which is about http proxies. Seee that for the info.

Using it now (Linux) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799716)

The UI is really SLOW, and there are some minor rendering problems (scrolling while rendering corrupts the display), and the scroll bars are UGLY (why arn't they using my theme)..

But most of all.. Why the hell doesn't it correctly support the Alpha channel in PNG files? This binary transparency is for the birds!

Re:"Barely"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799717)

"Some of us like having an integrated mail/news reader" you say. If you want a huge monolithic abomination, use Windows. The spirit of Unix doesn't put up with this short-sightedness. You should be able to use any mialer, newsreader, editor, etc that you want.

Re:"Barely"? (1)

drunken monkey (1604) | about 15 years ago | (#1799718)

It's my understanding that the news and mail readers are just dll/so that are loaded on demand. The only issue I see is downloading of a larger mozilla install that includes the mail and news portions. Otherwise if you don't use the mail or news functions, then you should be just running the browser code.

let me know if I'm off the rocker with the technical details.

narbey

Mozilla is Free Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799719)


I wrote this previously, but it answers the question pretty well, I do think; so here it is again --- Mozilla is Free Software.

But don't take my word for it. Please consider the following article, written by Richard Stallman (last updated Feb 12 1999):

'On the Netscape Public License'
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/net sc ape-npl.html [gnu.org] .

First line of the article: "The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in 1998, is a free software license -- but it has three major flaws."

Later on in the text: "NPL-covered software is also free software without being copylefted, and this by itself does not make the NPL worse than other non-copyleft free software license."

You can see that I am not downplaying Stallman's criticism or advice on this issue (the quotes are hardly endorsements). In particular, Stallman says: "Because of these flaws, we urge that you not use the NPL or the MPL for your free software."

However, Richard Stallman has stated, publically and in writing, that the Netscape Public License qualifies as a free software license.

What special knowledge do you have that allows you to argue otherwise?

Re:Images in Mozilla (Win32/NT4) (1)

simeon_pimpmaster (27583) | about 15 years ago | (#1799720)

This is a bug with the cache and the network library. They are in the process of rewriting all of the networking code, and that rewrite should be the default within a week or so. If you clear your cache, the images show up.

Big improvement over M6 for Macintosh (3)

imac.usr (58845) | about 15 years ago | (#1799721)

In leaps and bounds. The interface is a lot cleaner than M6 (the last build I tried). It really is as fast as people say, too. Glad to see they're not just optimizing it for the x86. Of course, I'm on a fast connection at work; I'm keen to test it at home on the iMac over dialup to see if it's as speedy over PPP.

Minor quibbles:

1. The fullcircle version creates almost 900 separate files, a lot of which are just 1-2 lines of configuration stuff. That's a lot of wasted space, even on an HFS+ drive. Perhaps some of those options could be combined?

2. It takes a bit of time to open, during which there's no perceptible activity. I almost Command-Control-Powered the machine because I thought it had hosed itself.

3. Double-clicking a word doesn't automatically select it. Yeah, it's a little thing, but after 15+ years you get used to it. :-] And yes, I would fix it myself if I had the knowledge (I'm working on getting it now).

If the finished version is as big an improvement over M8 as M8 was over M6, maybe it can replace IE as Steve's browser of choice. Now, if they can start supporting Mac OS Runtime for Java....

Is it my imagination? (2)

Jordy (440) | about 15 years ago | (#1799722)

Or has the Mozilla team suddenly kicked everything into high gear. Two milestones in under a month, my lord.

There are still things I'd love to see in Mozilla. I actually fixed a bug in the up/down key scrolling, Mozilla is amazingly easy to read and understand.

I'm not sure why people complain that it's too much, it's a very clean C++/C program and my lord LXR is useful :)

--

Up Late? (1)

vividan (38749) | about 15 years ago | (#1799723)

What I want to know is why Jasin is up so late (early?), but then again so am I :)

I am also downloading mozilla now, but I am disapointed that a full 10 minutes after 8 is released the debian sites still are only on 7... tisk tisk :)

Really it is great to see mozilla going.

Re:Up Late? (1)

vividan (38749) | about 15 years ago | (#1799724)

ack, sorry Justin.. it is kinda late and my mind isn't all there :) (Jason.. Justin.. what's the differance)

Re:Up Late? (1)

gavinhall (33) | about 15 years ago | (#1799725)

Posted by Justin:

hehe, no apology necessary. it's 5am and i'm doing that nasty miss a every sentence or so.

Re:Is it my imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799726)

It's your imagination... This is the same pace things have been moving at for quite some time. Ignore the the FUD about the slowness of the Mozilla project.

BTW: Have you noticed that SlashDot is fast enough to be almost bearable with Mozilla?

XLib version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799727)

Does this mean Mozilla will not require GTK+? Hmmm, I wonder how the two builds compare.

Top 10 things I love about Mozilla. (4)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799728)

10. Renders pages very quickly.

9. Free!

8. New features such

*segmentation fault*

Fullcircle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799729)

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why is the win32 M8 file without Fullcircle a larger file than the one with it?

Also, the only major usability thing that have yet to be completed in Mozilla so far as I have seen are right-click menus.

Of course, that strange caching thing is a problem, but the 4.0 series wasn't too much better.

I feel that Netscape has to at least meet the bar that MSIE 5's excellent caching set.

Re:Improvement over Netscape, but barely (1)

benmg (69572) | about 15 years ago | (#1799730)

No browsers support CSS 100% properly at the moment. IE doesn't do everything properly, it may *seem* like it does a lot (as a casual glance at the MSDN SiteBuilder Web Workshop DHTML/CSS reference may imply), but when pushed hard it either offers only a proprietary solution, or no solution at all.

Microsoft can claim they have best support, but if you want a particular feature that's in the standard, the high level of support is as good as Netscape 4.x's level.

When the time does come for 5.0 to be released to the public, I see an intensifying nightmare for web developers. Now they'll have to design sites for Netscape 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, as well as the IEs (fortunately IE5 is similar to IE4). Even with non-CSS based formatting, like tables, the three Netscape browsers will behave differently. Despite the standards compliance of 5.0, the decision not to support Windows 3.1 and mac68k will leave a number of users stuck with 4.x, waiting until Opera can come up with a completely compliant version of its software. As someone said somewhere, the web developer's life will get more complicated before it becomes simpler.

Oh my god ... of course it works! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799731)


I don't mean to take away from your joy, but I do want to point out (primarily for others' benefit) that your "problem" in getting it to run is hardly the norm.

Look. I've been running the win32 binary builds since November 1998 ... it hasn't been particularly difficult to do so, and I use a three-year old computer to run it, using win95.

Yes, there are bugs and crashes -- so what? These are not "consumer" releases.

Okay, I'll stop being a cranky old fart now ....

Re:Mozilla not Free Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799732)

Stallman must be Satan, and Gates is Saddam. Look at that Satanic facial hair on rms, and using clever lies to weasel people. Gates is obviously Saddam because of his iron fist and fascist repression. Oh, and summary executions.

libc5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799733)

heh, don't even bother. :) When I used slackware (3.6) on my main box, and tried running M6, I got all kinds of wacky link errors (__iostream stuff, mainly). That was after spending a few hours upgrading libs, just to get mozilla to run. I haven't tried it on slack 4.0 (still have 3.6 on my laptop), but it runs quite well on redhat 6.0, mandrake (dunno what version), and debian potato.. All are libc6 based, of course.

Re:"Barely"? (From an observer) (1)

HackLore (31416) | about 15 years ago | (#1799734)

Anonymous Coward, reminding everyone that Real Men (and women!) know when to fight and when to agree to disagree.

The last place that anyone should fight is online. There's far too much already. I'm an argumentative type, and I love arguments. But when they so clearly acoomplish nothing, that's when I stop arguing.

I think that the both of you are taking this a leeeetle to far, and I certainly hope you enjoy it, cuz that's what will be gained from the whole thing. I've seen this so many times it makes me sick - but this one fits the mould perfectly. Guy 1 posts a decent-but-not-expertly-worded post about his or her point of view. So far nothing is wrong, but tbere is the possibility for harm. Guy 2 fires back a response, which tries or succedes to refute Guy 1's point of view. He thinks Guy 1 is an idiot, and doesn't have his facts straight. Layered with some genorous misninterpretation, we have ourselves the kind of post that we all love to hate. Guy 1 thinks (rightly or wrongly) that he's (she's?) being personally insulted, so he drops his gloves. Now we have ourselves a lovely little spat, and it's hard to say who's at fault. The bottom line: Stop.

Micah McCurdy

Re:Top 10 things I love about Mozilla. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799735)

Hey you got to see something. I'm at work on a NT workstation. All I see when I run apprunner is

Registering HTML something or other

than it just disappears. At least it doesn't leave an a process lieing around.

70-110 megs? You just don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799736)

"Hmmm... MSIE 5: 70-110 megs, depending on your installation options. M8: 4.5 megs. Now, would you mind giving us that definition of "bloat" once again? Thanks"


70-110? What Linux-boy FUD drivel have you been reading? The only reason they list such massive specs are in case you do a full download with all language packs, all plug-ins, in others words: all options turned ON! If you want a base install, it requires about 12 meg. And that's just needed for installation. After all is said and done, I have used 15mb of space. I have yet to trash the Internet Connection Wizard and the old setup files (about 6mb total).

For a real idea of how much space IE uses, if you install IE5 with compatibility mode you get a directory created with all the files that are needed by IE4. A grand total of 5 meg!

I just downloaded Mozilla M8. The archive expands to 12mb. There's a lot of garbage in there, too (test apps, blah blah), and I bet you could get it down to oh... say.... 5mb as well?

The "components" directory looks as if it has about 4.27mb of "stuff" needed to render and layout HTML.

4.27mb versus IE4's 5.97mb. Gosh, I'd better switch ASAP. I only have 40gb of storage...

Vast improvement in M8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799737)


This is the first release that I consider to be
usable on Linux... WONDERFUL JOB GUYS.

If it leaks less memory than Communicator 4.61
then I'll switch.

I refer to the current Communicator as "the sieve".
It grows to 90 megabytes in size after a couple of
days of use...

Mark

Re:How far along is Qt version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799738)

As far as I know, it isn't actively being worked on. Troll Tech themselves did a Mozilla port when Mozilla first came out, but their original port would be obsolete now.

Since much of the Netscape code is essentially creating its own look/feel, the choice of particular toolkit isn't that important anyway.

Re:No QNX build! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799739)

As a matter of fact there is a port to QNX's "Photon" GUI underway. It's just not ready yet, that's all.

Re:Only i686 builds?? (2)

tgd (2822) | about 15 years ago | (#1799740)

There have been glitches in building on libc5 systems. In fact right now the configure process pretty much sucks, and misses a lot of requirements that it actually has but isn't programmed to look for. YMMV in compiling it yourself. Some people have had good luck with libc5 builds, as I seem to recall reading a while back in some of the mozilla newsgroups, others haven't. Personally, I haven't had much luck on anything but a pretty clean RedHat 5.2 or higher install.

I build the new client every morning, automagically. Some days it works great, other days it doesn't. If you want to try building your own copy with libc5, I'd suggest two things -- if its not your first time building it, wipe the sources and repull them if you're using CVS. The configure process misses dependancies some times, and things don't always get built right. If everyone else seems to be able to get it to work but you, starting from a fresh pull is a good first start.

Personally I think the CVS method of building it using client.mk is the way to go, any idiot can do it without any problems. Make sure you actually grab the M8 branch if you do though, because they're starting to drop the Necko code into the tree today (I believe), and the whole thing is likely to be horked for a while. I've heard its going to be even faster with the Necko code. I haven't even gotten close to having a Necko build work though. :)

Either way, the i686 build will run fine on a i586.

Re:"Barely"? (2)

MindStalker (22827) | about 15 years ago | (#1799741)

(navigator!=msie)!=(navigator=bad)

No
(navigator!=msie)!=(navigator==bad)

All well and good... but it still renders poorly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799742)

Oh yeah, it's fast. But half the pages on the net look awful. If this product shows the inherent limitations of the real HTML specifications, then sign me up for IE.

But seriously, it is an "okay" browser. It's fast and small, crossplatform, etc. But what would really be nice if it came out for more than just Win32, Mac, and a handful of UNIXes.

What about BeOS? What about AmigaOS (pfft)? What about Bob? etc.

Re:Is it my imagination? (3)

tgd (2822) | about 15 years ago | (#1799743)

M8 actually slipped a few days. I think its been progressing at a pretty steady state. I've built it from tree pulls probably a hundred different times this year, and its making pretty steady progress. Some milestones are closer together I think, because there are different goals for each milestone.

If there are things you'd like to see in Mozilla, suggest them to the module owners, or better yet, talk to them and start coding them.

Personally I think a great feature would be a toggle for font smoothing ala Gimp in Mozilla for the (of course superior ;-) ) X users who don't have the option of it. Its one of those things I wanted to tackle but the code is in too much of a state of flux as of yet, and I know I don't have time to keep fixing it as things change.

I'm also hoping (and I believe its happening) that the e-mail system works with multiple accounts more like Eudora does than Communicator 4.0, where it remembers which account the e-mail came in from, and replying to it sets the correct "From" address.

I don't know if its different fonts being used or what the deal is, but I think most sites look *much* better under Mozilla than Navigator.

bugs bugs bugs (1)

Edward Carter (19288) | about 15 years ago | (#1799744)

I downloaded the linux fullcircle binaries, and the thing won't even stay running long enough to pop up a window. M7 did the same thing. This is on a current snapshot of debian potato. Anyone else experience anything similar?

Re:Proxies? (2)

tgd (2822) | about 15 years ago | (#1799745)

I think proxy support (and basic things like a cache) are coming with the Necko code drop this week, which hopefully will be stable by M9.

Necko is the new networking code, replacing the current networking code. Promises to be more efficient, blah blah blah. I just hope it doesn't block on DNS lookups like Navigator does under Linux. That'd go a long ways towards making the program "feel" faster.

Howto donate cash to the Moz team?? (3)

Anonymous Bullard (62082) | about 15 years ago | (#1799746)

The Moz project is very important to the continuing success of Open Source platforms and while the code-donatin' heros know how much their work is appreciated I'd like to pass the team a few buck-equivalents from my long-ago-smashed piggybank.

Where is the website where I can get a secure connection, pull out my CC and make a symbolic financial contribution to the volunteer Mozzers?

Buy some hardware, get together for free beer or whatever - I'd just like to show my gratitude.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799747)

I haven't, but perhaps someone who is already part of that "community" (like someone who already subscribes to the list) could suggest it for me? Thanks.

Re:"Barely"? (From the original poster) (3)

Eccles (932) | about 15 years ago | (#1799748)

I knew this would be the most controversial of my ideas, but if you think about it, bookmark management really does belong in a separate application...

I've felt this for several years now.

1) Navigator's "Edit bookmarks" thing looks like a separate application anyway, so there's no reason for it to be all in one. Netscape itself should provide the bookmark manager as a separate app, but part of the whole package.

2) people do have to use multiple browsers at times, and you could rig up the same bookmark manager to handle multiple browsers (Netscape, IE, kfm, Opera) instead of having each have its own bookmark list.

3) The bookmark manager could be opened separately, or even have a way to incorporate it into a menu; then rather than start the browser and then select the bookmark, you just click on the bookmark you want.

4) Navigator's bookmark management is woefully inferior to IE's. If I could fix one thing for Mozilla, that would be it. There's no reason to make me compile the whole app just to fix that manager.

5) Some places will want to have a bookmark czar, who maintains a global set of useful bookmarks (say, to the company's key website pages, suppliers, and competitors) that should be accessible to some group of people as part of their menu. Having a separate app would allow building a manager that supports a global and a local list of bookmarks.

Also, there should be a way (if there isn't already) to have each new page submitted to an external app. This app could then keep track of the page marks, just like the back and forward menus, but it would also keep a tree view of all links traversed so that if you (for example) go to slashdot, go to freshmeat, hit "back" and then go to a Slashdot story, freshmeat would still be visible as a previous path.

BTW, I agree that responder to you was rather out of line, that there was no reason to be so antagonistic.

P.S. To the mozilla crew, good work! I'm acquiver with anticipation...

Re:s'good (2)

tgd (2822) | about 15 years ago | (#1799749)

You didn't say what platform you're running, but one reason the Linux version is both less of a memory hog now, and less prone to crashing is, I believe, because there was a bunch of shared libraries actually being loaded a bunch of times each up until very recently, and for whatever reason I guess they were chewing up RAM, and causing problems with particularly shutting down Mozilla, causing coredumps.

At least that was the explanation I read, I never actually noticed the problem myself. :)

Further information about M8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799750)

I just tried to take my own advice and point Mozilla M8 at http://www.w3c.org/Style/CSS/Tests/ and it doesn't work. :)

This appears to be a good way to illustrate the bugginess of M8's navigation capability. Again, I'm not worried about it since it is still alpha software, but I thought I should point it out in case anyone else wants to try it. Also, if any active Mozilla participants read the list, you can submit it as a bug.

Extra features in Mozilla necessary? (2)

Raul Acevedo (15878) | about 15 years ago | (#1799751)

I'm really rooting for Mozilla, but is it really necessary for it to have a newsreader, email client, and other code that doesn't have to do with actually rendering HTML?

I don't mind if it comes extra; the only reason I'm concered about it for Mozilla is that working on those features might distract the team from focusing on the #1 goal: being a web browser.

It is entirely possible that even if these features were stripped, and only added later, the code would take just as long to reach production quality, because there are already enough people on this, and throwing more bodies won't necessarily make it better. I can't help but think though that they could have moved along much faster if they had just focused on getting the pure web browser functionality first, then started worrying about plugging in extra things like email, news, and HTML authoring.

Can someone who is familiar with the code or the development team comment on this? I don't mean this as flamebait; I'm just echoing a previous poster's concerns along these lines. Would focusing on just web browsing have helped much, or are the real issues totally unrelated to this and adding the extra stuff doesn't really slow things down that much at all?
----------

M8 Proxy Setup (Ask slashdot :) (1)

ahornby (1734) | about 15 years ago | (#1799752)

Can anyone tell me the magic incarnation to get M8 to use a proxy? I can get it working by editing the prefs and then turning proxy off and on, but not get it to just work upon startup.

Cheers,
Alex.

Re:All well and good... but it still renders poorl (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 15 years ago | (#1799753)

Oh yeah, it's fast. But half the pages on the net look awful. If this product shows the inherent limitations of the real HTML specifications, then sign me up for IE.

It's probably less of a limitation of the real HTML specs as a limitation of the people who didn't follow the real HTML specs when creating their pages. My experience is that the rendering engine is positively anal about compliance, and just plain doesn't like the kludges people have put in to make things look good on IE and NS.

Re:Extra features in Mozilla necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799754)

I agree with you. All I want is a web browser, I've got my own mailer/news/editor. I want to surf the web, and surf quickly. I hate Netscape, because sometimes if I'm just waiting for a page to load to click on a quick link, netscape just shows a blank page. Hitting the stop button then shows all the stuff that could have been rendered as netscape was waiting for a network connection. I'd rather have it allocate spaces for the pictures, and put the text as it gets it. Hopefully Mozilla can do something like this, as everybody keeps touting it's rendering capabilities. This would totally make my web-surfing experiences much happier!

Anyway, as per your comment, I would like a faster web browser, the other things (editor, mailer, news reader) are nice, but I think Mozilla would also build up a loyal following more quickly with just a web browser if they focused their efforts there. And it seems this is what most people already want (ie, the other primary choices are Netscape and IE, neither of which is anything great).

Re:All well and good... but it still renders poorl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799755)

it does have a version for BeOS dumbass ...

*Shrug* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799756)

Still no Sparc (or i386) Solaris build. Particularly ironic considering
the relationship between NS and Sun. Maybe some day, but I'm no
longer holding my breath.

And I'd rather they get the !@$#$%!! thing working right as a *browser*
than spend time with MUA and newsreader functionality.

Re:All well and good... but it still renders poorl (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 15 years ago | (#1799757)

But half the pages on the net look awful.
Yeah, the ones cut in FrontPage. ;-P
What about BeOS?
ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m8/moz illa-x86-beos-M8.zip
What about AmigaOS (pfft)?
http://segfault.org/story.phtml?id=378aaf ce-02759340 (pffffft)

Zontar The Mindless,

Wow... (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about 15 years ago | (#1799758)

It does a fantastic job rendering the IE5 homepage :-)

I checked out www.mozilla.org, then "what's related", saw IE5, and decided to see how some of those horridly complex MS pages would render. Very nice.

www.zdnet.com OTOH is completely broken.

I can't wait to see how the "translate" button works.

It doesn't seem too bad for submitting comments to Slashdot either.

I still don't see the speed benefits, and I don't consider it usable for day-to-day tasks, but it is damn close. I'll take everyone's word for it that it will speed up when it is out of Alpha. When Necko is finished, that might bump up the speed dramatically too. I'm beginnning to really like what I see though.

Re:M8 Proxy Setup (Ask slashdot :) (1)

Mr. Frilly (6570) | about 15 years ago | (#1799759)

Hey, I thought proxy support was supposed to be broken? (it's in the faq somewhere)

Re:XLib version? (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 15 years ago | (#1799760)

I think the Xlib version is 100% the way to go.

I am not saying that you would look in the Mozilla code and see X calls. That is also stupid. What they should do is write a "toolkit", but that "toolkit" is totally dedicated to running Mozilla, and is statically linked with it, and the source code is right there with the Mozilla source code. It would provide a portability layer over the various windowing systems (on Windoze it should use WIN32 api only).

Multi-application toolkits have their uses, but on a system as large and complex as Mozilla it is much more efficient and less bug-prone to write everything at a very low level. In my experience it takes more code to interface to a toolkit when you need it to perform the slightest different than it was designed, than to just write all the gui widgets at a low level.

This was one of the reasons I created a toolkit of my own ( fltk [fltk.org] ). I tried to design it so that it could be static linked, and if you needed to make it work with your appliation, you were free to change the internal code and make it into an application-specific toolkit. I am actually rather disappointed that fltk is pretty much being used just like other toolkits, including the making of it into a shared library, which is exactly not what I intended...

I wish Mozilla all the luck in making the "Xlib" version and really look forward to seeing it. IMHO this version will be vastly superior in every way, and I do wish they would devote all their resources to it.

Re:70-110 megs? You just don't get it... (1)

matasar (8397) | about 15 years ago | (#1799761)

Remember that a lot of IE is now "integrated" away, making it seem that much smaller. I would wager that there're a lot of files within the system that are only necessary for Internet Explorer

Re:Is it my imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799762)

I too had worried about AOL/Netscape mucking up the works and tacking a bunch of useless features on Mozilla, but then I rememebred that the whole thing is open source. If Netscape adds a fifth wheel, look for an independant release of the mozilla code that removes it. It'll happen.

Re:"Barely"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799763)

Funny you say IE5 installs 70-110 megss...On a newly installed NT4 wks, after applying sp5, an IE5 install (with IE, OE, netmeeting, and some fonts and junk) took up about 20 megs..

IE4 installed 70 megs, but it was a windows upgrade, complete with upgrading just about your entire system drive.

Re:Extra features in Mozilla necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799764)

"... I hate Netscape, because sometimes if I'm just waiting for a page to load to click on a quick link, netscape just shows a blank page. Hitting the stop button then shows all the stuff that could have been rendered as netscape was waiting for a network connection. I'd rather have it allocate spaces for the pictures, and put the text as it gets it..."

This isn't a problem with Netscape. It's a problem with all the idiots out there who don't put HEIGHT and WIDTH info into their image tags when they write up their web pages.

- The Mysterious Voice

Re:Extra features in Mozilla necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799765)

Perverse misuse of tables is also a problem.

Re:Improvement over Netscape, but barely (1)

Kook9 (69585) | about 15 years ago | (#1799768)

1) I've always been frustrated that I could not download Navigator + mail/news (which I use) without Composer (does anybody use that?), Calender, the push client (RIP) and AIM. At the very least they should allow you to select which components you want at install-time. But I guess that didn't fit in with the whole Communicator strategy...

2) In my experience, the back button takes you back to the original link in Nav4.x, but it often fails on certain websites (Slashdot being a notable one).

3) When is Mozilla going to acquire an interface that doesn't feel clunky? I hope Netscape is coming up with a sleek skin, because write now it looks and feels horrible.

KookOut.

Re:"Barely"? (From the original poster) (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 15 years ago | (#1799769)

Maybe I was being a little thin-skinned, or I was being full of myself (I've just been offered -- out of the blue -- the opportunity by a major publisher to co-author a programming book, so my ego factor has been a little, um, bloated, lately, I guess), or I hadn't yet had enough caffeine, or some such thing, but there is a lot of FUD of this type ("damning with faint praise") being slung about, and if I misread you (and it seems I have), please accept my apologies. No offense intended.

I see my original response was downgraded to a "0/Troll". AFAIK that's the first time that's ever happened to any posts I've made @ /. (+/- 18 mos). In fact, I've had several of my previous posts on the subject of Mozilla upped to "3", "4", and perhaps even one "5" -- so maybe I was a little out of line this time. I'll try to be a good boy, and just offer helpful info when I see an opportunity to do so and otherwise keep my opinions to myself from now on, okay?

Yes, I'm against anonymous posting. I volunteer-host another Web discussion board where we don't allow it at all, and I think our discussions there are much better for it. Yes, I overreacted to your AC status. I may not agree with using it -- but it's your choice. Use it wisely (unlike the vast majority, you seem to be doing so).

Peace.

Zontar The Mindless,

Re:70-110 megs? You just don't get it... (1)

barawn (25691) | about 15 years ago | (#1799770)

That's not exactly true - the install files are
pretty much just 5MB - some of those are system
update files, but they're still just part of IE.

A Win95 machine, upgraded to IE 5, still only
used about 12MB of space (that was mainly DirectX, too).

Random opinion of mine is that IE 5 is just plain better than old Netscape, and just better than Mozilla right now (maybe when it's finished, without the bug fixes). I'm just glad they fixed it so that it doesn't have to rerender every damned time you resize the window.

Now, I just wonder if it handles pixel sizes correctly...

Re: not lib5c problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799771)

The problem is that Mozilla is built using broken RedHat
c++ libraries (versions of libstdc++ patched by RedHat to fix
their lib5c problems when originally making transition to lib6c).
RedHat and other distros based on RedHat continue to use these
broken libs (they all have the __ double underscores in error
messages).

I am using a modern glibc distro (Stampede), not Slackware, and
Mozilla will not work with that distro or any other that doesn't
use the broken RedHat patches. Mozilla will work just find if
one replaces all the C++ libs with broken versions, but who wants
to do that?

It may be possible to find a place to get snapshots of Mozilla
compiled with standard libararies, but not from the official
Mozilla download site. Or, you can compile it yourself. It will
work just fine with Slackware, or Stampede, if you do, but I do
not have the hard disk space for the intermediate files or the
recommended ram. (128 meg).

Way to go RedHat. May you rot in hell. What a shame!

Re:Is it my imagination? (1)

musicmaker (30469) | about 15 years ago | (#1799772)

up down key scrolling...

hmm... it doesnt work in WinNT!!

at least not on my computer

Re:"Barely"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799773)

hum what is emacs?

Yes. [was Re:"Barely"?] (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 15 years ago | (#1799775)

Not Intended To Be A Troll, I'm Just Having A Little Fun Here, Okay?

I do know the difference between "=" and "==", thanks. That "=" is being used as an assignment operator, and not a test for equality.

If you prefer, how about "navigator!=msie"!="navigator=bad"; (substitute neq if you desire)?

Zontar The Mindless,

Multiple Email Accts. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 15 years ago | (#1799776)

'm also hoping (and I believe its happening) that the e-mail system works with multiple accounts more like Eudora does than Communicator 4.0, where it remembers which account the e-mail came in from, and replying to it sets the correct "From" address.
That's something I'd really like to see as well.

Zontar The Mindless,

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (1)

zaw (40348) | about 15 years ago | (#1799778)

You can use program such SockCAP32 from http://socks.nec.com that's what i use to run behind my work firewall.

Cascading Style Sheet Probs - Not Just Netscape (1)

cowboy junkie (35926) | about 15 years ago | (#1799780)

People are afraid to develop CSS-based content using W3C standards because of the non-standard implementation by *both* NN 4 and IE4/5. I personally enjoyed how MS, instead of cleaning up and fully implementing CSS level 1 in IE5, instead just added new stuff with more problems. While I'd love to see Mozilla kick ass and be completely standards-compliant, the truth is that it probably won't matter, because we're stuck with the stupid mistakes of the past for years to come as folks stick with legacy browsers. It's discouraging because had Netscape and MS just had the tiniest bit of vision a couple of years ago, web developers could be focusing on creating amazing sites instead of wasting an inordinate amount of time just making sure their pages don't break on one browser or the other.

Too much like big old Netscape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799788)

How do I use it like a simple web browser? Mozilla wants to do everything for me, and the win32 version wants to write a lot of stuff in the registry. The early version were able to just start up and show me web pages, which is basically what I want to do. Can I do this with the new Mozillas too? Profiles and stuff only confuse and destroys things for me and I want to get rid of them. Is Mozilla still for me?

Re:Fullcircle (1)

gaupe (26832) | about 15 years ago | (#1799789)

From the readme file in ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m8/ :
The fullcircle (or fcircle for mac) packages include third party

software, to aid the mozilla developers in the tracking of
crashing bugs; the windows fullcircle package does not contain
many of the test executables contained in mozilla-win32-M8.zip.

The third party code is *not* open source, but
most of the build is the same as mozilla-win32-M8.zip.

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (2)

legoboy (39651) | about 15 years ago | (#1799790)

A couple things... To the best of my knowledge, the Windows version of Mozilla writes all of it's info to the file \windows\mozregistry.dat, NOT into the system.dat and user.dat files which make up the windows registry.

To your other question about a simple web browser, try viewer.exe. It is the browser, and nothing else. (Even so, it may insist on a profile.)

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799791)

It does require profiles. Too bad. I really liked the first Mozillas, however their HTML rendering was broken. The win32 version can not be used if you are merely a user on the system, with no write access to windows directoy. That is very bad too.

How is it "installed"... anyone? (1)

CAB (19473) | about 15 years ago | (#1799792)

First: How do one "install"/run this beast? Which script to run?
I can't find any guidelines on the site and the tarball is kind of sparse on readme's.

Second: The plan of milestones are ambitious. That is nice!


Best regards,
Steen Suder

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799793)

>To your other question about a simple web >browser, try viewer.exe. It is the browser, and >nothing else.

How do I make viewer to use proxies (under Linux)?
That's all I want...

Improvement over Netscape, but barely (4)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799794)

This message is being posted from Mozilla M8.

It's long been my contention that the biggest problem with Linux these days is that there are no decent graphical web browsers for it. I'm looking to Mozilla to make that change.

The current standings:

This version seems to be okay for stability on Win98. It hasn't crashed yet, although the "back" feature is still a bit quirky so I had to quit once and restart Mozilla to make it work again. Please note that this is not a huge issue for me yet, as I know this is still alpha software, but it's good to know where it stands so far.

Speaking of the "back" button, it is still broken: like Netscape, it takes one to the TOP of the previous page, rather than to the link on the previous page that was used to proceed to another page. This, IMO, makes it unusable for browsing: if I click on a link at http://www.freshmeat.net/ and then return later to resume reading Freshmeat, I expect it to take me where I left off, not dump me at the top of the page to spend a minute finding my place again.

IE seems to have figured out this little feature. What's wrong with the Netscape guys? Is this in the blueprints for Mozilla, and simply unimplemented at this point?

(Note: I didn't throw that remark about IE in as flamebait; it has its own passle of problems that make it next to unusable too... although I suspect many of the multitasking problems are results of the underlying OS, but then, since IE doesn't run on Linux, and is made by the same people who make the OS, the blame still goes to the same people.)

As for style sheets, I must say I am impressed by Mozilla's renderer, much improved over Netscape. This has been a sticky point with me, considering that serious web designers (many of whom I work with) only laugh at Netscape and barely (and grudgingly) bother to throw in a little extra code on their CSS-enhanced pages to make it readable in Netscape. And they're right: the CSS design is a good one, and Netscape's non-conformance to the W3C's standard is a serious detriment to the growth of the 'web and structured document development and acceptance. That is, people are afraid to develop content using W3C standards since 50% of the popular browser market (Netscape) doesn't support them. The fact that Mozilla renders HTML "correctly" according to the W3C is a saving grace.

Other than these issues, little else in M8 is particularly notable or worth its bloat. When it becomes a little more stable and fixes the "back" button, I'll try my hand at compiling it without the myriad of consumer eye-candy schlock that is handled better by external programs (like mail, news, and bookmark management). If I discover anything else worth noting, I'll try to remember to drop a note here for anyone interested.

Re:How is it "installed"... anyone? (2)

bergie (29834) | about 15 years ago | (#1799795)

How do one "install"/run this beast? Which script to run?

Just open extract the tarball, go to the 'package' directory and run ./mozilla-apprunner.sh

/Bergie

--

Re:XLib version? (5)

bergie (29834) | about 15 years ago | (#1799796)

Does this mean Mozilla will not require GTK+?

From the Mozilla Xlib Project [mozilla.org] page:

"The fact of the matter is that there will always be more than one toolkit for Unix. Right now the big players include Motif, GTK+ and QT. Each of these toolkits unfortunately has its own look and feel for many things including menus and scrollbars.. None of these toolkits is going away anytime soon and it is inevitable that there will be ports of mozilla to each of these toolkits.

...

One of the goals of the Xlib toolkit project is to create a common base, written in Xlib, that will include all of the functionality that is common across the Unix toolkits. The majority of the code will include simple drawing and image handling in the gfx module. It will also include some of the widget side of the toolkit. Some candidates include the nsWindow class which is the simple drawing surface used by the html layout and the XP widgets.

One of the project goals should be to make it very easy to plug in your toolkit of choice. This means that you will be able to use Mozilla in your Motif, GTK+ or QT application. Until the world chooses the One True Toolkit or dies in the process, Mozilla should be able to run on all the toolkits without hardship to people writing applications.

...

It should also be possible to have a stand alone Mozilla browser that is based entirely in Xlib. While this compromises one of the primary goals of the many Desktop Projects for Unix and Unix-like systems, it allows for a lightweight browser implementation that could be used on a Kiosk system, or on very old hardware. The fact is that Mozilla contains most of the functionality of the modern Unix widget toolkits and it is a very small stretch to turn it into a complete toolkit system."

So the answer to your question is yes, altough I'm not sure if the Xlib port is that far along yet.

/Bergie

--

Re:How is it "installed"... anyone? (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | about 15 years ago | (#1799797)

Wow, that works. This is the first time mozilla compiled for me on my humble old Slackware 3.5 with libc5. Too bad it registers, creates a neat profile, loads the main window and... POOF! Gone. I'm looking forward to M9, getting closer all the time I guess.

Re:bugs bugs bugs (2)

John Fulmer (5840) | about 15 years ago | (#1799798)

Most of the problems on the Linux version that I have seen (in M6 and M7, haven't done M8 yet) is versioning problems with GTK and friends.

Fresh compiles seem to operate MUCH cleaner.

jf

Re:may sound like a dumb question... (1)

dveditz (11090) | about 15 years ago | (#1799799)

When we get the installer working you'll be able to download separate components. Don't know exactly how Mozilla is going to be split up, but mail/news and the editor will definitely be add-ons to the browser.

Bookmarks could conceivably also be distributed separately for those few wierdos who said they wanted a separate bookmark manager, but I doubt we'll actually do that. Too many small optional packages will be confusing and just as bad as one monolithic chunk.

Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799800)

Hey, not bad. M8 doesn't hang and crash on startup like M7 did.

Re:Want stability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799801)

BURN THE TROLL! CUT HIM INTO BITS AND BURN HIM AGAIN!

Sanity Check (3)

John Fulmer (5840) | about 15 years ago | (#1799802)

I have read most of the comments here, and although most are pretty positive, there are enough 'odd' ones that require I make the following statement:

MOZILLA IS CURRENTLY ALPHA SOFTWARE!!

Please remember this when you download the Milestone releases. Feedback on problems is very good, go to http://www.mozilla.org/bugs/ for more info. But griping and comparing the Mx releases to Communicator or IE is really counter productive. It's a lot like comparing early Linux versions (pre .9) to NT 3.0. Guess who would have won that one? The actual beta won't happen until about M12 (October 1), and by Jan 1 the Seamonkey browser should be finished.

Netscape will probably start tweaking Mozilla into Communicator 5 about this time (M12), if not before.

Also please note that Mozilla is not Netscape! the Milestone releases are actually Seamonkey, which is the reference browser for Mozilla, and will not be the same as Netscape 5.0, although Netscape 5.0 will be almost completely Mozilla components (including much of Seamonkey), with some 3rd party additions.

The Mozilla project develops code, design, and modules that may be used by anyone (under the Mozilla License) to create their own browsers or app that requires HTML, CSS, or XML rendering.

Personally, I think it is going great, and the Mozilla guys are still right on track.

jf

Re:Is it my imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799805)

I think it is your imagination. Wishful thinking?

There are things which are very important to AOL/Netscape which
most users would like to see in Mozilla - so expect the final product
(Netscape 5) to be like Netscape 4.x.

Every useless feature which marketeers think users need -
integrated workgroup support, integarted email and newsreaders,
calendars, default usage of AOL/Netscape portals for everything,
what's related, etc. will be included. Look at these M releases
so far. The priority is including more and more features - sidebars,
panels, icons for this or that (most of which don't work or only
partially work so far).

Of course , in theory, Mozialla is not a browser but a collection of
classes and utilities from which a browser can be built. But, in
practice, what most people will get their hands on is Netscape
5, which will continue the fine tradition Netscape has followed of
trying to compete with every Microsoft feature and gadget and
then some - but without Microsoft's more natural integration with
Windows. Expect the Linux version to be put on the back
burner - the main focus will continue to be on a Windows
product.

After a year and a half of hype, this is what we get. A browser
that sort of works if you have a RedHat based distribution of
Linux and sort of works a little better with Windows. Starting
with a working browser. After 2 years expect Mozilla to fully
catch up with Netscape's 4.x line of products.

The hype that this is the most important open source project
in history is understandable, but the fact that so many of the
Slashdot faithful have swallowed it amazes me. There is much
talk about how clean and well organized the code is - well after
a year and a half of rewrites I'd expect something like that.
Of course this is not proven in practice given the extreme bugginess
of the releases so far, but people will continue to believe what
they want to believe. I would say that compared to other beta
software I've tried (for both Linux and Windows) Mozilla is very
substandard given the number of releases. Yes, I know they
call them "Alpha" releases but after this amount of time that is
only a label to cover up the bugginess of the code. Most Beta
and even Alpha software works much better than Mozilla - it
just works. And, most companies or teams producing Alpha
and Beta products for public release do not have the billions of
dollars the AOL/Netscape has to pump into such projects.
That just goes to show that money doesn't necessarily buy
quality.

Expect more of the same - another Netscape product with all the
required Netscape bloat and instability that reads more recent
HTML and style-sheet formats a little better. I guess people in
the open source community need to believe that things are
different, but the expectations will slowly diminish when people
who have swallowed the AOL/Netscape line realize what the true
goals of this project are - to funnel more ignorant users into
AOL/Netscape's portals while providing a slicker looking interface.
(The skins do look nice).

But it's what is under the skin that really counts.

Re:Multiple Email Accts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799806)

Yes, I want this feature so bad.

Re:"Barely"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799808)

Got any more moderation points to waste, antispelling nazi? It's "whose wife", not "who's wife", nor even "hi's wife".

Re:No QNX build! (2)

arielb (5604) | about 15 years ago | (#1799816)

these guys are working on it http://www.NexwareCorp.com/

More information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799817)

While trying to take M8 through the PNG test suite [cdrom.com] , two things became apparent:

PNG rendering is atrocious, even in comparison to Netscape.

The navigation stuff is still unstable enough to make it unusable for everyday web browsing. The Back button, Forward button, and even clicking on certain links after the site had already been visited were intermittent at best.

Images in Mozilla (Win32/NT4) (1)

christophercook (21090) | about 15 years ago | (#1799818)

I take it I'm not the only one who has problems getting images to load correctly under Mozilla.. Is this just a temporary thing to do with gif copyrights or is it a bug?

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (1)

Mawbid (3993) | about 15 years ago | (#1799819)

Lynx uses environment variables like HTTP_PROXY. Not knowing a thing about it, Id guess this is a convention and viewer follows it. If not, one can always add that feature.
--

Re:Too much like big old Netscape (1)

Chep (25806) | about 15 years ago | (#1799820)

Proxy support is currently broken. See bug #8859 (and its duplicates) for more information.

s'good (2)

Foogle (35117) | about 15 years ago | (#1799821)

I dunno, but this seems like a huge improvement. I'm running with only 32 megs of RAM so any memory sucking is very apparent to me... This release seems a whole lot lighter than the older versions. I'm starting to get excited - Our little baby Mozilla is all grown up!

Proxies? (1)

zentena (62584) | about 15 years ago | (#1799822)

Does this version support http proxies?

much better (1)

arielb (5604) | about 15 years ago | (#1799823)

the startup time is much better now. It makes it much more easier for me to replicate all those bugs (and some that I found were fixed for M8)

Some focusing issues... (2)

Psiren (6145) | about 15 years ago | (#1799824)

There appear to be some focusing issues. The scrollbars tend to flash terribly when moving over any of the widgets. Its only an annoyance though.. and it seems that Mozilla is on the road to becoming usable.

Oh my god... It actually works.. mmmm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799825)

For the first time, I finally get to see what people where talking about when raving about rending speed.

Oh, she is speedy [rendering]. And this is with 20MB ram, the crappyiest video card on the planet, and a Cyrix Overdrive, and win95.

The last milestone I managed to coax into working was M3. It's still pretty fragile, but it's come a long way.

I just can't wait until they get rid of the debug code.. mmm... (there is still debug code in this baby isn't there?)

Someone said something about pictures not displaying properly? Everything's pretty and graphical with me. Using Windows 4.00.95a.

--
Mountain (martinjs.NO@SPAM.ihug.co.nz)
Posted from M8. I don't even know what my password is.

"Barely"? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 15 years ago | (#1799836)

Man, I love it when people "damn with faint praise" because they know they have little if anything from which to generate food for FUD...
I expect it to take me where I left off, not dump me at the top of the page to spend a minute finding my place again.
Good Lord. Fussy, fussy. Who says that's the way a browser is supposed to work? Is it in a W3C spec that I missed? (Besides, you contradict yourself about 2 sentences later on this very same point with regard to MSIE.)
I must say I am impressed by Mozilla's renderer, much improved over Netscape.
As well you should be, seeing that it's not an "improvement" -- it's a whole new renderer/interface/whole ball o' wax. It's only the freshest code of its kind on the planet. There's no legacy Nav4 stuff anywhere in it. It's NEW. ALL NEW. Got it?
The fact that Mozilla renders HTML "correctly" according to the W3C is a saving grace.
It's not a "saving grace" -- it's the fscking point of the entire exercise. (Where's Commando Cluestick when you really need him, anyhow?)
...serious web designers (many of whom I work with) only laugh at Netscape and barely (and grudgingly) bother to throw in a little extra code on their CSS-enhanced pages to make it readable in Netscape...
I get so tired of seeing/hearing this, because it's not really true. I'm a serious Web designer, I use CSS all the time, and believe you me, IE 4/5 has plenty of its own quirks with regard to CSS rendering. It's certainly no better than Navigator/Communicator in this respect.

(navigator!=msie)!=(navigator=bad), okay?

...worth its bloat
Hmmm... MSIE 5: 70-110 megs, depending on your installation options. M8: 4.5 megs. Now, would you mind giving us that definition of "bloat" once again? Thanks.
...the myriad of consumer eye-candy schlock that is handled better by external programs (like mail, news, and bookmark management).
1. Some of us like having an integrated mail/news reader. 2. Why shouldn't a user agent manage (its own!) bookmarks? Personally, I wouldn't want one that didn't. 3. Fact: For its 4th-generation product, Netscape has maintained parallel releases of Communicator (Navigator+Messenger+whatever) and Navigator (and absolutely nothing else, except maybe that stupid AIM thingie -- which can be excised by any six-year-old with half a clue). If you don't like Messenger, download the standalone and quit whining. At any rate, I'd say that Netscape will likely continue this pattern in the 5th-gen releases. Besides, this "bloat" you speak of includes (at present) the browser and email/news client, and it's still smaller than the standalone Navigator 4 or the standalone MS... oh, wait a minute, there ain't no such critter. Sorry!

I wish people who are looking for something to complain about would find something to complain about before... well, you get the idea.

This is Zontar The Mindless, reminding you that REAL men (and women!) don't post as AC.

Later.

Zontar The Mindless,

Only i686 builds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799837)

Does this mean people with i586's have to build the thing themselves (impossible for me, not enough disk space :-)). Also, this probably won't work on a libc5 system will it?

Re:Improvement over Netscape, but barely (2)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | about 15 years ago | (#1799838)

I agree with regard to the back button, have you tried suggesting the new (msie) behaviour on the relevant Mozilla development list?

may sound like a dumb question... (2)

cswiii (11061) | about 15 years ago | (#1799839)

...but I've not seen the answer anywhere; or maybe I've just been blind or something. anyway...

when Moz is finally released, are they going to continue to release the standalone client alongside the communicator? I, for one, have no need for the massive disk bloat of an html editor (still use pico, vi), mail reader (pine), or newsreader (tin). Thus, it would be nice if I could download just the neccessary component...

thanks.

Re:No QNX build! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799840)

1) QNX has many compilers available.
2) people are working on browsers for QNX.
3) Just because you have never used QNX does not
mean that it is no good.
4) For stuff with real-time requirements, QNX
is a great platform, much better than Linux.

There are certain applications for which having
a reponse time from the kernel which is unbounded
is just an unacceptable condition. For those
apps, there's QNX.

Re:"Barely"? (1)

Jonathan (5011) | about 15 years ago | (#1799841)

The bit about the back button having broken behavior is hardly picky; long web pages (such as slashdot comments) make the current behavior extremely annoying.

Secondly, the fact whether Mozilla renderer has new code has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is improved or not. It would be quite possible for the new code to be worse than the older code; fortunately this is not the case.

Re:may sound like a dumb question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 15 years ago | (#1799842)

you'll be able to build it without the mail-news part and without the editor if you want.
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...