×

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!

Whither Netscape 5.0?

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the where-did-you-go dept.

Netscape 349

An anonymous reader wrote in to point us to a Time Digital article (By Nathaniel Wice: Hey man!) about AOL Shelving plans for Netscape 5's release yet this year. So is the browser war really over? Does Mozilla have a chance?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

349 comments

Amusing observations (1)

WillAffleck (42386) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628504)

Interesting, considering /. rejected my submission of the same news item two days ago ...

However, to be realistic, the only way that AOL/Netscape can succeed with 5.0 is if they kick out the Linux and Mac versions REAL SOON. Without the non-MS OS crowd, they're doomed.

And, stop fudging on the standards compliance issue.

Download the thing, use it, and then b***h... (2)

luge (4808) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628507)

Really, it is a fine piece of software. No, it is not yet up to the stability levels we have come to expect. No, it is not on time (hello? W2K?) But it is featurful, standards compliant, and has a lot going for it, and I think anyone who actually runs a nightly binary (as I do 90% of the time) will see that. Furthermore, they are very responsive- I filed a bug report (li tags used by my favorite site were handled not quite correctly) and had it fixed within a week. It is already good, and will continue to get that way with your feedback. Go and grab a copy...
~luge (who is in a rush for class, thus the slight incoherence....)

Nope...IE Rules (0)

lucky816 (89435) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628510)

Netscape's bookmarking stinks...IE's is cool...It's the only reason why I use IE as opposed to Netscape... -Red


-Red

netscape vs. ie vs. mozilla (1)

BlueLines (24753) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628513)

Have you ever looked at the mozilla code? It looked like whenever MS promised a new feature, the Netscape coders slapped something together and stapled it at the end. Mozilla was "blessed" with this code as a base. It's quite unfair for the article to point to this as an example of open source development, simply because by the time the source was available, it was FUBARed. Honestly, I use IE on solaris piped into an X session on a linux box. It's slow, but still faster than Netscape natively in linux. MS had this battle won 15 months ago...netscape's just now admitting it.

Sounds like FUD to me (2)

Bitscape (7378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628515)

Has AOL actually announced that Mozilla is being discontinued? Is there an official press release somewhere? Did this reporter even bother to check for a source before engaging in what appears to be blind speculation about the future of Mozilla?

I didn't think so. Until we can answer "yes" to these questions, let's not panic.

Meanwhile, I am eagerly awaiting a stable release of the new mozilla...

Is that really such a tragedy? (1)

laktar (22519) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628519)

Think about it. Is NS really becoming more stable? Nah, it's just becoming more feature bloated. & not in a useful way. I think if more concentration is put into Mozilla (this'll free up resources & make Mozilla more attractive to work on for Linux users), then that could lead to a better, more stable browser, but NS hasn't exactly been going anywhere recently.

-Laktar, a.k.a. Nick Rosen, laktar.dyndns.org


If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
75. I will instruct my Legions of Terror to attack the hero en masse, instead
of standing around waiting while members break off and attack one or two at a
time.
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List, http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Total bullshit (5)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628521)

Sorry about the strong headline but I'm personally fed up with articles like these. Mozilla was delayed for one reason - they originally tried to base an open source project on their terrible Communicator codebase. They worked for months on that and nearly had a shipping version but they decided to scrap it and rewrite the browser totally. Now although it's nearly a year 'late' at least we're getting a small (5 MB) and standards compliant browser rather than yet another bloated released based on Communicator.

I wouldn't say Mozilla is ready yet and has a few months to go but the progress has been much improved the past few months and external developers are starting to get involved. Look at http://www.mozilla.org/ and check the weekly status updates, check http://www.mozillazine.org/ for more up to date news. There's a lot going on. Open source didn't prove to be the ultimate solution for Netscape, the couldn't release the source and suddenly get a top class browser. They had to improve the code before anyone would go near it and that's what they have done. It's took them longer than expected because they didn't understand that people wouldn't hack on any crap. They've got their act together and are doing well.

There are a number of ways to help.
1) Contribute patches and bug fixes
2) Provide testcases for bugfixes (The Gecko bugathon)
3) Rate bugs in order of importance.
4) Download builds regualrly to test them.

Read the getting involved document on mozilla.org for more ideas.

Mozilla is not dead, it's coming back to life.
--

Some thoughts (1)

cout (4249) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628522)

Netscape 5 never really had a chance. People have lost hope in Netscape. It has so many outstanding bugs, and if they are actually addressed in Netscape 5, I'm sure the Netscape programmers could find some other little nuance to annoy users.

In fact, I really think that's what the browser war is over. It's who can come up with the most annoying little nuances. What's with IE's "ftp server returned extended information?" And what's with that desktop integration? It's a ploy to make 486's obsolete, that's what it is.

My response to this? Until someone comes along and fixes this situation, I'm going back to gopher (except for reading /., of course).

Netscape (1)

warmi (13527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628525)

We can't hide the truth. Netscape lost technological battle with IE. It simply doesn't work as well as IE, is more crash prone, not as fast and generally feels clumsy when compared to newest MS offering. We really lack good browser on the unix platform - there is some hope with Opera but I don't know enough about this product to compare it to IE. KDE has one too but I found it usefull only for viewing static HTML ( localy)
So what are we left with ??
Anybody has any ideas ?

Netscape is dead, long live Mozilla! (3)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628617)

Someone tell the guys over at mozilla.org they can stop working and go home now....

I'm about as sick of these "Mozilla is a failure", "Netscape is dead" stories as I am of hearing Larry Ellison spouting off about once every six months for the last six or seven years, "The PC is dead. Network computing is the future!"

As long as people continue to use it and work on it, it won't die.

Besides, the reason it's taking so long is because it's a quantum leap over what Netscape 4.x is. Not just adding a few more fancy buttons on the same-old same-old as Netscape and MSIE have been since their versions 1.x.

I am personally very happy using and will continue to use Mozilla.

-=-=-=-=-

Re:Nope...IE Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628621)

Netscape is NOT Mozilla and Mozilla is NOT Netscape. They are two completely different peices of software, though Netscape's 5.0 product will be based on Mozilla.

On a side note, if you don't like Mozilla's bookmarking, by all means change it. You have the source.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628626)

So much for OpenSource saving Netscape. Looks like its their time to go. Anyone here still using Mosaic? Didn't think so.

Re:Is that really such a tragedy? (2)

tomblackwell (6196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628631)

I'd say that Mozilla represents Netscape's recent development efforts. It is rapidly becoming much more stable, configurable, and small.

If you want a better browser, the tools are there. Work on Mozilla. If you can't or won't, you can test Mozilla, and submit bug reports to the people who are willing to work.

Anyone who won't do any of these things shouldn't be so quick to complain about lack of progress.

It's Over Unless ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628637)

Yes, it's over unless Linux gets significant desktop share in the next year. Right now, if you are using windows, you have to go out of your way to download an inferior (in features) product. There's no way Netscape can survive that much longer.

I will NOT use IE. (2)

jafac (1449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628641)

If for no other reason than to support diversity period. A world with only one browser, that made by Microsoft, is a very sad world indeed. If you think Netscape is bad, then wait 5 years and see what IE devolves into without any competition.

However, I've been very impressed with recent Mozilla builds. It's still not ready for prime time, but then again, Netscape 4.5 and later aren't either. If there's any "last best hope" for standards compliance, diversity, and non Microsoft dominance, it's Mozilla.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

Anyone know the status of mozilla development? (1)

Skinka (15767) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628645)

According to the milestone roadmap [mozilla.org], M11 should have been out week and a half ago. What's up? I'm waiting for this one anxiously because I'm guessing it will be the first really usable version.

He used a CNet article as his source (1)

mozillaZineAdmin (75409) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628647)

No, the TIME "journalist" actually just rehashed a CNet article. He didn't bother to do any actual research at all.

Re:Amusing observations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628657)

While we are busy killing software development for non-Windows platforms, shouldn't we just kill the non-Windows platforms themselves, to free up all those development resources for the Wonderful and Amazing Windows?

Re:Download the thing, use it, and then b***h... (3)

Neph (5010) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628660)

The fact that the latest version of the developpers' source is always available is a big plus that has been overlooked a lot, I think. In a closed-source environment, even if the developpers are very responsive to bug reports and feature requests, the customer only gets results based on the release schedule -- the code they wanted could have been written for months.

Speaking of developper responsiveness, I just noticed something uber-cool over at Mozilla HQ [mozilla.org]: Bugzilla, the bug-tracking database, will now allow you to vote on what you want fixed quickest! [mozilla.org] I think this is a great way to get the community involved. I'm beginning to believe Moz' greatest contribution won't be the browser itself (which should be awesome when it's eventually ready) but the ancillary stuff like this, and Tinderbox, LXR, Bonsai, etc. etc.

Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty

Don't you believe it.. (2)

John Fulmer (5840) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628661)

Mozilla will change a lot of things.

I had just checked out one of the Linux nightly builds the other day (which was partially broken), and I was quite impressed. Very nice features, not TOO much bloat. The rendering was VERY fast, the new networking code works MUCH better than NS 4.x, and I was able to use it for quite a while before running into any problems. Very good for Alpha quality code.

This is just part of the latest rash of anti-opensource articles. It will pass, just like all the articles from last year about Linux. When Mozilla is done, it may actually be Open Source's finest hour.....

Re:Nope...IE Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628666)

Why would he if he can use IE?

Are non MS OS users doomed for life ??? (1)

anewsome (58) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628668)

If this is true (which is beleivable), then I guess us non Microsoft Operating System users are doomed for life without a decent stable web browser.


I have been a Linux only user for almost 3 years now (no MS allowed), and I've been patiently waiting for a decent web browser to be available for my platform, which is currently a Redhat 6.0 box.


So far, .. no such luck. Netscape 4.x is barely a workable solution but this is what I've been stuck with for a really time now.


If IE was available for Linux, I seriously wouldn't care if Netscape died a horrible death or not. All I want is a decent web browser for my computer system of choice.


If I had a nickel for everytime I've ever seen "Bus Error" on my machine while trying to run Netscape, I'd be a rich man. Java applets usually crash the browser, as well as just about anything else that's not well behaved pure html.


And while I'm on a rant has anyone appreciated the crappy Motif toolkit used with those awful pushbutton checkboxes on forms. Or the dropdown list widget that fills up your entire screen on drop downs that have many items. What's that all about?


So I'll be patiently waiting for a decent browser for Linux. I'd even pay for it. Whatever it takes ... I wonder how lng I'll be waiting.


Thanks Aaron Newsome [mailto]

Are non MS OS users doomed for life ??? (0)

anewsome (58) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628671)

If this is true (which is beleivable), then I guess us non Microsoft Operating System users are doomed for life without a decent stable web browser.

I have been a Linux only user for almost 3 years now (no MS allowed), and I've been patiently waiting for a decent web browser to be available for my platform, which is currently a Redhat 6.0 box.

So far, .. no such luck. Netscape 4.x is barely a workable solution but this is what I've been stuck with for a really time now.

If IE was available for Linux, I seriously wouldn't care if Netscape died a horrible death or not. All I want is a decent web browser for my computer system of choice.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've ever seen "Bus Error" on my machine while trying to run Netscape, I'd be a rich man. Java applets usually crash the browser, as well as just about anything else that's not well behaved pure html.

And while I'm on a rant has anyone appreciated the crappy Motif toolkit used with those awful pushbutton checkboxes on forms. Or the dropdown list widget that fills up your entire screen on drop downs that have many items. What's that all about?

So I'll be patiently waiting for a decent browser for Linux. I'd even pay for it. Whatever it takes ... I wonder how lng I'll be waiting.

Thanks Aaron Newsome [mailto]

IE5 > * IMHO (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628675)

My feeling is that Netscape lost the browser war a long, long time ago. The Linux version of Netscape continually crashes, and it doesn't have the features that IE has. The Netscape habit of reloading the page everytime you resize a window (particularly on a complex HTML page) is also highly annoying. I've sent mucho feedback to Microsoft to port IE to Linux. I hope they do so soon, maybe it might be an improvement over Netscape (assuming they don't port the Solaris version of IE, heh). Opera is another browser contender on the horizon. Hopefully, they'll live up to their claims. the KDE browser is ok for normal browsing, but doesn't currently offer the range of features I need to make it my one and only. Truthfully, KDE and GNOME have a long way to go before they can implement the level of integration seen with IE/Windows, another disadvantage. (Disclaimer: I use and love both GNOME and KDE regularly) I believe Microsoft not only won the browser war with anti-competitive practices, but also by putting out a superior product. I don't believe Netscape did their best, and if they did, it wasn't good enough. Also, when you install the Windows version of Netscape, it automatically installs AOL Instant Messenger, and makes no easy way to get rid of it. Isn't this the same as marketing a browser with the OS? They're trying to strongarm me into using AIM, instead of my preferred ICQ. The original Netscape ideology has gone the way of membrane keyboards... Don't force your interfaces upon me.

Re:Anyone know the status of mozilla development? (1)

tomblackwell (6196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628677)

One way that Mozilla is attempting to salvage credibility is by pushing back Milestones slightly, if the code is not ready. I'd rather have something that doesn't crash, than something that I can get *now*.

The day in the sun is almost over (2)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628679)

It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin. The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also. But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft. The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended. Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occationsh that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~

By the same account Microsoft has lost the OS war (5)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628680)

So the delay of Mozilla has meant Netscape has lost the browser war has it. I think I'd better become a reporter.

Microsft have officialy lost the OS war due to the delay in releasing their closed source operating system called Windows 2000 which was originally due out in the beginning of the year. Microsoft had originally called Windows 2000 NT5 and expected it to be released in 98, then 99, then who knows.
Insiders inside the Microsoft Corporation said this was to make sure they had integrated their messenger with every component of the operating system and also to add new features to control the user interface (e.g. a colour picker to change the colour of the screen of depth). This is one of a series of delays for Microsoft products since their experimentation with closed source in the seventies. This proves that closed source does not work.

Now you don't see many articles saying that, so why do you see that about Mozilla?
--

The day in the sun is almost over (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628686)

It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin.

The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also.

But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft.

The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended.

Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occations that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~

BTW, AOL is not 'shelving' Netscape (Mozilla).. (2)

John Fulmer (5840) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628688)

Quote:

"Netscape's parent, America Online, has quietly put off the release of Netscape Communicator 5.0."

This means delay, not kill.

Also, the article is a mirror of a recent, possibly inaccurate, C|NET, anti-Mozilla article. The author claimed the 'e-mail/instant messenger' feature, which is NOT part of Mozilla. Mozilla will have a IM component, but not integrated with the e-mail. Netscape may have other plans, but AS WE ALL KNOW!!!! Netscape != Mozilla, especially recently.

Development on Mozilla is continuing on, and while it has been delayed by about 1 month, things are still looking very good, especially on the Linux end.

jf

There isn't a good browser anymore.. (2)

blazer1024 (72405) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628691)

Once upon a time, Netscape was good. Back in the days of 2.0 and 3.0. It was fast, and it worked. I think 4.0x did too many bad things to netscape, which made it much slower than anything else. However, IE was useless in the beginning. (1.x was non-functional, 2.0 was barely functional. 3.0 was somewhat usable. [On the side: What's up with M$ not making a usable thing until v3.x? I.e. in both the case of Win3.1 and NT 3.5]) But I've never liked IE's setup, and I really *hate* the idea of a browser being integrated into the OS. Sure, it pops up almost instantaneously in Win98, but that means it's lurking around eating up memory or swap space. Plus, how do I know it's not doing something evil in the background?

Netscape has always annoyed me with the lack of advanced settings, since they considered it "advanced" to change the cache size. I want to be able to tweak it and say what I want it to and not want it to use(More than just picking to block javascript and such)..

Something I would like to see, I haven't checked out mozilla source, or any other browser, but wouldn't it be nice to just compile the options you really want? So that you can shring memory requirements and loading time? That would certianly make me happy...

This message is priced at $0.02. Thank you.

Of FUD, Mozilla, & Standards (1)

xgray (96047) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628692)

This is very similar to a fud article on c|net the other day. Nothing new. The biggest failure of AOL/Netscape has been their lack of PR for Mozilla. The less they say, the more the mainstream press is going to hurt them.

What is actually interesting was this article [builder.com] which goes on about Microsoft's new plans to support standards in future versions of IE. Would Microsoft be doing this if Mozilla didn't exist? I don't think so. If there wasn't a Mozilla, Microsoft would be pushing 'MSTML' or some other proprietary kludge.

Competition, standards, and Mozilla are GoodThings(tm) and need active support.

Astoundingly Stupid (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628694)

Yes, Mozilla is late through no fault of its own. BUT, just witness the amount of stuff that has COME OUT of the mozilla effort! All sorts of secondary and tertiary projects were spawned. All sorts of good stuff has come out of the Mozilla effort, let alone NGLayout and renderer. Everybody has been bashing and FUDing Mozilla since its inception.

TIME got its content from this CNet article (5)

mozillaZineAdmin (75409) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628696)

The TIME journalist got practically all of the content for his piece directly from this News.com article:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-808813.html

Paul Festa, writer of the above CNet piece, is not known for his kind words to Netscape.

Had either Paul or the writer of the TIME article actually did *any* research whatsoever, they would have found that Mozilla is chugging right along, and gaining more and more "third-party" support as time goes on.

It astounds me that /. readers are not only _not_ reading the contents of the TIME article before posting their opinions here, they aren't even reading Taco's piece correctly (and somehow coming to the conclusion that Communicator has been shelved completely). I would suggest checking out Mozilla.org, or mozillazine.org, or a nightly mozilla build before making comments about its demise. Ignorant badmouthing does the Open Source community no good. Even Linus T. made unqualified comments about Mozilla the other day. Seems like y'all *want* Mozilla to fail.

Re:By the same account Microsoft has lost the OS w (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628698)

I meant screen of death not depth and this message was sort of a joke mainly to point out how stupid these postings are.

When you think that Microsoft will get a massive share even though W2K is massively delayed then why should mozilla be dead even though this is delayed?
--

Re:netscape vs. ie vs. mozilla - look again (2)

asa (33102) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628700)

Have _you_ ever looked at the code? mozilla dropped the classic code base almost entirely.

Re:Sounds like FUD to me (1)

TheSlack (41111) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628702)

FUD -- definately. Purposeful FUD -- I don't think so.

The media does not comperhend what open source software is like and the development process that developes it.

Some media guys has seen that Mozilla is behind schedule -- and started a feeding frenzy. Last time I checked AOL doesn't have that much control over the project. And I love how the "delays" are apperently related to Mozilla.org!

The media just cannot understand that unlike a "normal" development process, Mozilla is being developed to be stable, robust, standards compliant browser. They are not going to release it until it's finished.

One of the things that linux needs is an "insanely great" bowser. I think that Mozilla will be darned close to it. And I am willing to wait AND HELP CODE for the Mozilla project.

Re:Amusing observations (2)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628706)

No they guy said they need to kick out the releases. You have to be able to read his defunct grammer, which is almost as bad as mine. But I think the guy meant kick out = release. So lets translate and review shall we.
However, to be realistic, the only way that AOL/Netscape can succeed with 5.0 is if they release the Linux and Mac versions REAL SOON. Without the non-MS OS (linux) crowd, they're doomed.

Re:Nope...IE Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628707)

If that is the ONLY reason holding him to IE, then one would assume that fixing that problem would make the point moot and he would decide on based on other issues.

Thanks (1)

lucky816 (89435) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628709)

...for the info. Mozilla is based on Netscape's code is it not?

Anyway I was just saying, and it is just my opinion, I like the way IE does bookmarking. So I use it...I guess I could change some Mozilla code but I guess I'd rather play with my TINI board.


-Red

Major Netscape gripe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628711)

It better have full screen browsing.

Re:Are non MS OS users doomed for life ??? (1)

jtn (6204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628714)

You know, there are other non-MS operating systems out there other than Linux. I have a perfectly stable and usable browser available on the platforms I use at home and work. For BeOS, I have NetPositive and Opera; for FreeBSD, I have Netscape and lynx. And yes, the Netscape for FreeBSD just runs *fine*.

Isn't Opera being developed for Linux? (2)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628716)

I tried it for BeOS, and it looked pretty good.

I know nobody wants to pay for a browser, but you did just tell me you might. :-)

In any event, the Mozilla people will keep on trudging towards release, and it certainly looks like they'll eventually come up with a nice product, whether Netscape offically releases it or not.

Of course the browser wars are never lost as long as people use platforms other than Windows(tm) and MacOS(tm).

D

----

KFM (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628717)

I've been worried about Netscape withering for some time. Without Netscape, Linux will not have a decent browser.

I hope that now the developers of KFM (and whatever the Gnome equivalent is) will hit the aaccelerator and bring KDE's browser at least up to par with where Netscape 4.x is now. That way, if Netscape really does die, the Linux community can yawn, shrug, and keep on browsing just like the Macintosh and Windows users will.

The Browser is the Battle (1)

castalian (100219) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628719)

The future of Linux as a viable desktop contender and alternative to Microsoft hegemony is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT ON HAVING A COMPETITIVE BROWSER! No non-hardcore types are going to use sub-standard browsers for very long. Lack of a good browser is the main thing keeping me from abondoning Windows entirely. If there is a rallying point in this epic battle, it should be around the browser, the essential window onto the Net. I therefor call on the volunteer army of Open Source developers to pick up arms and focus their efforts on Mozilla, the last, best hope of the free computing world! Viva Mozilla!

Browsers.... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628721)

.... are the best way to burn all your time, unfortunately. I find that I, for example, spend too much time on the net. Sites like slashdot will make you old before you notice.

Get a life! Go do something useful.

:-)

PS: Properly set-up Opera is really, really cool. I use it exclusively when on mswin. It's sad that such a good browser comes with such an ugly default setup :(

PPS: Why don't browsers have a cache in one file?

Re:Nope...IE Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628723)

Netscape is NOT Mozilla and Mozilla is NOT Netscape

Ya, and maybe you should read the article title again: "Wither Netscape 5.0?"

I don't see any mention of mozilla.

Re:Are non MS OS users doomed for life ??? (1)

gid (5195) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628726)

here here... that's sadly the reason why I run win98 on my work box almost all the time now, no decent linux browser... I develop php3/mysql database interactive pages that are supposed to look pretty. I simply can't do that as well under linux. Netscape 4.x has weird looking fonts, buttons, etc under linux and all are different size than the standard windows ie/netscape browser widgets. Really frustrating too... seeing as how nedit is a darn nice editor :)

Re:Nope...IE Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628727)

I like IE better too. Auto-complete kicks butt for people like me, who prefer keyboarding to mouse clicking.

Re:Are non MS OS users doomed for life ??? (2)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628728)

> I'll be patiently waiting for a decent browser for Linux. I'd even pay for it

Hopefully Mozilla will meet your needs it's a bit quicker than Netscape (hopefully that'll be much quicker once the debug code is removed) at starting up and definitely quicker than rendering.

Personally I've had very little problem with Netscape on Linux apart from it's a bit slow, it rarely crashes. The same goes for Mozilla but it may crash regularly on your machine so I advise you to test mozilla on your machine so that all the bugs are ironed out and we have a really stable browser when it is released.

If Mozilla doesn't meet your needs hopefully we'll have opera along for Linux soon but Mozilla is shaping up nicely as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to see IE for Linux just to keep competition healthy. They couldn't kill off Netscape (although they nearly did) so they can't kill Mozilla as it's open source. If Microsoft entered the Linux world with IE we'd see peoples motives even higher to produce a better web browser.
--

I would rather push my Harley then ride a xxx (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628729)

Seriously I would pay good money for a Unix web browser that is comparible or superior to IE. If it is cross plateform (ie windows) all the better.

Netscape/Mozilla's survival... (1)

croe (18536) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628730)

I personally much prefer Netscape or Mozilla over IE ANY day of the week. Yes it might be a slight bit slower but I prefer supporting the under dog rather than the giant mammoth that is MS.

I think if anything has killed Netscape and Mozilla, it has been MS instantly installing IE on the desktop of almost every 95 box. Where I live I've encountered many many people using IE, simply 'cause it was easier, it was there installed on the machine... And then the fact that every new MS product re-installs or updates your IE as it see's fit.

I've yet to hear anything on the vertict of the DOJ vs MS case, anyone know anything of this?

I really am not sure what Netscape/Mozilla can do now, to battle back against the giant mammoth that is MS, it would seem they have lost, but it they can strick some deals to integrate and install the browser with every non-MS OS, they might end up having a fighting chance. Basiclly what I mean it, I know Netscape craps out from time to time, for various reasons on different OSs, but they need to figure out why and then integrate Netscape/Mozilla to work better with the respective OSs. Once it starts regaining a reputation, start getting manufacturers to include Netscape/Mozillia with their install so that when their program requires a browser, it starts using Netscape/Mozilla...

Just a thought...

CR

I'd like to try IE, can you help? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628731)

I saw your brilliant observation regarding bookmarks and decided to give IE a try. I must be dumb, though, 'cuz I can't get it to work. You are obviously a genius, so I figure you can help me make IE work. The error I get is:

bash: ./iexplore.exe: cannot execute binary file

Have you seen that before? How do I make IE work? Please help, I don't want to go on another day without the great and wonderful IE.

This COULD be a disaster.... (1)

Snapple (3106) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628732)

Ok, people... put on your forward thinking cap...

With everything becoming more "NET" centric (more focused on the desktop here), what will happen to Linux IF the major browser suddenly disappears?

Do you think Microsoft would port their browser over to Linux?

Could this be Microsoft's secret plan to slowly kill off Linux? If someone can't browse the internet using a browser, then why would they want Linux on their desktop? (I can see the Microsoft marketing right now.... Switch to Windows, we have a browser!)

Ok... now cool off for a second.... ;) What is our alternative if Netscape disappears?

Is Opera up to the level of support (on the web site side of things) that Netscape is?

Is there another Browser on the horizon to take over as the king of NON-Microsoft OS's?

Personally, I use Netscape ALL the time (except when mandated by da boss), and would mourn the loss of it.

Just some food for thought...let's see what happens.

mozilla will arrive (1)

CormacJ (64984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628733)

Sure, it might be late, but a lot of software products arrive late. Sometimes years late in Microsofts case.

The Mozilla product that is coming out it not the product it started with. Its now got new engines and renderers. It doesn't have the wide community development support that the linux kernal has, but whats there is good.

They passed M9. They will release. People should stop beating on developers to release a product. Doing this forces a release too early, and too buggy. Its better to let them ship when its ready.

Why Mozilla 5.0 will die. (At least on the Mac). (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628734)

As I'm sure all of you are aware, us Mac users are an insanely particular, picky bunch when it comes to interface. In truth, it's because we've been spoiled: we've been given an operating system that, while lacking under the hood (no true multitasking, etc.), offers an experience and interface so finely-tuned, smooth, and consistent, that we can usually launch a program and understand it to deep levels on the very first try.

You'll often read reviews lambasting a Mac program because the "Preferences" menu choice isn't in the expected place (Edit menu), or copy has the wrong keyboard chortcut (Command-C), or because it uses a Windows bring-over (tooltips), or even because the application's menus are using an old WDEF so they appear in black and white instead of MacOS 8-style grayscale (Netscape).

We're picky, and we value our user experience.

This is why Mozilla will fail on the Mac. A completely reinvented set of controls? Not a single button that looks like a Mac user would expect? I came across some windows in Mozilla 5 that didn't even use the standard MacOS-style *scrollbars* or resize gadgets! Everything looked all Windows-y. Every single nuance of Mozilla, from top to bottom, is completely un-Mac; to those of us whom love the Mac for the UI, it's about the biggest slap in the face a software company can give. Mozilla will be discarded as "shovelware", a bad port that's mainly Unix and Windows-centric.

Internet Explorer, on the other hand, seems to understand the Mac user. They're adopting MacOS technologies left and right (Sherlock, translucent drag images, consistent drag and drop). They're extremely careful to adapt MacOS Appearance controls (nice shaded list views, buttons that look how they're supposed to look.) The whole thing feels and woks like Mac program should.

I understand the reasons behind the Mozilla interface. Totally configurable! Totall customizable! To me, it sounds like a nightmare in waiting. A parable: with MacOS 8.5, Apple engineers devised a way to swap out practically any interface element with another to create colorful and unique "themes". Zany windows, hi-tech windows, unique shapes. At the last minute, this feature was pulled, and has never been seen since. While Mac users were upset, the reason was simple: consistency in an experience is important. Just because I can have a "hilarious" South Park browser, doesn't mean that's a good thing for most users.

To conclude, I offer a bit of sadness: Mozilla 5 is the first release of Mozilla I don't care about. I remember the glory days of constantly checking the netscape FTP servers for a new version of Netscape (back in the 1.x 2.x days). I remember voraciously pouring through release notes, excitied about what I can make my web pages do. But now? It doesn't matter. A program designed by engineers, with features only an engineer could love, not a user.

It's dead.

Want it? Request it? (2)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628735)

Full screen browsing has never worried me (I can get rid of all the buttons and just have the title bar showing which is good enough for me).

But if you want the feature (which you seem to do) then please put an enhancement request in at Mozilla.org. First of all please check bugzilla to see if such a request has already been made (it probably has) and if it hasn't then submit a 'bug' report but categorize it as an 'Enhancement' so they know it's not really a bug it's a feature (request). More info on how to do this is at mozilla.org, just make sure you mark the bug report as an enhancement request rather than an actual bug.

You may then want to report the 'bugs' id number so people here who also want the feature can vote for it.

--

I'll do it myself if I have to... (1)

John Campbell (559) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628736)

We've got the source. It doesn't matter what AOL and Netscape do. As long as there's someone in the world who wants a fast, stable, standards-compliant web browser, Mozilla isn't dead. And, no, IE does not meet any of those requirements.

Re:I will NOT use IE. (1)

jhoffmann (42839) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628737)

same here. and while i agree that life would be tougher without a second mainstream browser on the windows platform (expecially given MS's past history), there is just too much other stuff working against MS in this case.

MS's browser share is almost 100% tied to its desktop OS monopoly (there may be some die-hard Mac OS users, but for the most part would probably just as well use something else. the unix version is some sort of hideous monstrosity that should be put to sleep asap.) they don't have a browser for win CE (last i heard , they were licensing a spyglass browser for it). and webTV doesn't use IE -- MS is trying to get the boxes to run CE instead of whatever they're running now and when they accomplish that, they won't even be able to run IE on it.

so the question is: do you think MS/IE is going to dominate the total number of browsers out there? that's the key to see who controls the web standards. and what's the prospect for growth in information appliances/non-windows desktops, which is where MS is struggling mightily with IE market share?

/. as a news source and delayed code. (1)

primetyme (22415) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628738)

A lot of noise has been made lately about /. being a type of news outlet, but with a summary like 'shelving plans for Netscape 5's release' and 'does mozilla have a chance?' its simply a lot of hype, instead of an objective stance. Anyways, as for mozilla

But more and more peole are downloading and installing the Mx releases with every release. The M8 release had something like 80,000 downloads the first day it was released(dont quote me, cant find the email with stats). Everyone else here has already pointed out the comparisons with W2k and how its late as well.

Here's my rub: People like to bitch when a piece of software crashes, is buggy, or doesn't work well. (There have been numerous articles on /. itself lately addressing this fact actually) But the same people also bitch when the software is late because they're taking their time in doing the things right instead of shoving a product out the door, bugs and all. Serious people, you can't have it both ways. These same people are the ones that don't really do a lot of coding, because if they did code a good amount of time, they'd understand the delays in re-writing a browser from scratch, and the amount of work that takes.



XUL is your friend (3)

linuxci (3530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628739)

XUL which is used by Mozilla to customise every aspect of the user interface is responsible for the look and feel of the Netscape browser and allows the user to apply skins to cusomise the look of their browser and this INCLUDES all the widgets (buttons, etc) as they're using their own XP toolkit.

This means that Netscape can release a Mac skin as the default with their Mac version and a Windwos skin with their win version and whatever with their UNIX version (we linke many skins!!).

At the moment it's just easier to ship one skin.

I seriously doubt the Netscape branded Mozilla will look like what you've got now.
--

Re:I'd like to try IE, can you help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628740)

Sure. Grab an old DOS floppy and boot up your computer using that. Then USE FDISK to reset your partitions. Reboot, and then use the command FORMAT C: /s Once that's done, grab the RC2 build of Windows 2000. Put it in your CD-ROM drive and run the setup.exe program on it. 40 minutes later and you'll be set!

Re: If Mac users are influential with Apple... (3)

Hermelin (15608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628741)

...why did Apple release QuickTime 4.0?

In it's current state, I mean.

It violates a lot of the so-called interface rules of a mac. Not a single button that a Mac user would expect seems to be the case for QuickTime 4.

But maybe I'm wrong, since I don't have access to a Mac. The PC version is stupidly designed and lacks sane control structure.

Arghh! (2)

davie (191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628742)

  • Again, mozilla != Netscape.
  • Netscape 5.0 will be based on a totally new code base, not a rehash of the old bloated 4.x code. These complaints and speculation that 5.0 will be "worse" than 4.x versions are baseless.
  • For those who haven't been paying attention, the browser is evolving beyond a pr0n viewing tool--developers want to use browsers as application platforms. This is what MS and Netscape (to a lesser degree, I guess) have been pushing for years. IE and NS have been too broken to be really useful for this purpose, but a standards-compliant browser is what's called for, and mozilla and NS 5.0 will (AFAIK) finally begin to deliver.
  • In order to build a better browser, not just another crappy 4.x build, and attempt to become compliant and stable, mozilla.org had to start with a clean slate. That's why it's taken so long to get this far.
  • Contrary to published reports (including the CNET and Time articles), the developers aren't bailing out, and outsiders are participating.
  • The URLs have been posted here, go download a milestone release or a nightly build and try it out. Don't take the media BS at face value.
  • Any mozilla build you download now is going to be Alpha (pre-Beta, not "Compaq Alpha") software--in other words, don't whine about it being "buggy," it's there so you can work with it and report bugs, Ok?
  • Finally, get yourself a slashdot account and add the mozilla.org and mozillazine slashboxes to your preferences so you can keep up with what's going on.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm fed up with all the disinformation on mozilla. Even our key advocates have been quoted as trashing it recently, which really bothers me.

Time for Microsoft to enter the Linux market? (1)

HarveyOpolis (14530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628743)

All I want is Internet Explorer for Linux.

I really don't have much against Microsoft. I'm jealous of Bill Gates. I hate the operating system. But, the company has treated me well.

I really don't like Netscape though. I thought it was the cat's meow back when the 1.x versions were being released. But since 2.0 came out, it's been going down hill.

2.0 had frames support. Next hting I know, every site has these horrible frames dividing up every inch of the screen into tiny little squares, filled with animated gifs and blinking text on a black background.

Then there was Navigator Gold.. where everyone and their mother could create a web page. Granted, I wouldn't have a source of income without it... but I just find something evil about the software.

And Linux, the most stable OS I've used on an Intel x86 chip. I have to run Netscape, the lease reliable software for it... WHY!?!?

Gah.

Possible Reasons Communicator 5 is Delayed (2)

meersan (26609) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628744)

Top 15 Possible Reasons Netscape Communicator 5 is Delayed

(Of course, I'm not saying I 100% believe it has been delayed. I don't recall seeing a source on that article. But anyway....)

15. But they aren't done adding One... More... Feature! (IRC? WTF? Just gimme a browser that doesn't crash all the time under X.)
14. The Netscape campus has been invaded by communist squirrels.
13. The remaining bugs are on strike for better health benefits.
12. It is in accordance with prophecy.
11. It has been proven by scientists that the web causes cancer (what doesn't?), and the browser will not be released until further knowledge on the matter has been obtained.
10. Mozilla is caught in a subspace neutrino field distortion.
9. They're trying to put down a peasant revolt against AOL.
8. The developers are too busy playing Quake.
7. Communicator 5 was actually released in May. Everyone else has happily been using it for months now. We just didn't know how else to tell you that we don't like you.
6. They're arranging the code so that delays will be easier to conduct in the future.
5. Future looks cloudy, ask again.
4. Browser? What browser?
3. They're all drunk.
2. Too busy making smartass excuses instead of coding.
1. It's all your fault. Now get out there and beta test!

Beginning of the end? (1)

dbrown (29388) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628746)

I don't know about the rest of you, but this is really scary to me. Think about it. Of all the applications that you have, which one do you use the most? For me, its far and away my web browser. If a particular platform does not have a full featured browser (secure transactions, proxy, java, javascript, plugins, etc), its very unlikely that I would use it.

I see many people saying that "netscape was crap, I'm glad to see it go". Well, if netscape had never existed for Linux, I really don't think linux would be anywhere close to where it is today. An OS without a full featured web browser is a dead OS.

Mozilla is not up to the task yet, and won't be for quite some time. Netscape works, but is falling behind in support of new features (HTML 4, CSS2/3) fast. If Linux and other OSes don't have a modern browser, there is not much of a future for them.

Heck, if anything, I smell conspiracy. AOL buys Netscape. In the DOJ case, MS claims they haven't stifled competition (pointing at AOL/Netscape). MS gets off. AOL lets Netscape die. AOL and MS form a partnership. Result, MS is the only platform with a modern browser and AOL has the icon on the desktop. You heard it here first.

- Darrick

Quantum Leap (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628748)

You do realize that that would be just about the smallest possible leap to make don't you? At least at an atomic level...

Re:Why Mozilla 5.0 will die. (At least on the Mac) (5)

mozillaZineAdmin (75409) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628749)

You obviously are misinformed. The UI can be done to look *exactly* like Mac users would expect.

You don't understand the reasons behind Mozilla's interface. The interface was implemented the way it was so that they could maintain one codebase with very little native code. In addition, the CSS2 and later specs essentially require that things like buttons, form-fields, drop-down menus, etc. be implemented by non-native controls, because the specs require them to do things that non-native controls can't do (change opacity, for example).

Please attempt to inform yourself about Mozilla before making such disparaging comments. You've used a pre-beta build that has had little or no work done on the user experience, because they've been focusing on getting the back-end code running properly. What good does it do to work in the user experience if the back-end code is shifting out from underneath it?

These issues will be addressed, but you can express your concern in the Mozilla newsgroups, and let the developers know how you feel. That's much more constructive criticism than what you attempted here.

Re:Browsers.... (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628750)

> PPS: Why don't browsers have a cache in one file?

Umm, can you imagine how slow that would be?

First, you have to keep some sort of index of where certain URL's are stored
in the file, and how big they are. Secondly expiring URL's would be a
nightmare because you'd have to copy the rest of the cache elsewhere to
remove the now unused space.

Even worse, you'd have to lock the entire cache every time you update it
(which, remember, is going to take ages), and the entire thing would lock up
while it did it.

Also, 10 tasks all seeking deep within a 50+MB would be quite heavy on disk
activity...

I think Mozilla does have a chance. (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628752)

I am not too worried.

I am looking forward to Mozilla's new browser. I have used Milestone 9 and I like it. It looks and feels good.

I am also hoping that nekko can be incorporated into Gnome and KDE's file managers.

M$'s browser will only get LESS standards compliant if it is the only one left and that IS something to fear.

Re:What is "it"? (1)

Egorn (82375) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628753)

Yes Mozzila Netscape etc...
------------------------------------------ -

Re:Netscape (1)

PurpleBob (63566) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628754)

KDE's browser is called Konqueror. The version in KDE 1.1.2 is actually pretty nice... except that it can't log in to Slashdot.

Now here's how far KDE/GNOME integration has come. I recently switched to GNOME, but I miss Konqueror. So I decided to see what happened if I ran kfm. The KDE icons appeared on my desktop alongside the GNOME ones! Clicking on the "home" icon started kfm flawlessly.
--

Re:There isn't a good browser anymore.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628755)

Responding to your comment about advanced settings...

UI features such as preferences have historically been very expensive to implement in any multi-platform product. In communicator, the reason is that the UI was coded by three seperate teams - Windows, Mac, and Unix.

It was also felt that new features shouldn't go in without appropriate UI, so they didn't.

So how is this different in mozilla?

Config settings are stored in a file, as before, and you can edit it.

But, this file, and the UI itself is manipulated with javascript.

By replacing the javascript, you can customize the UI to provide as much or as little options as you want. For example, if *you* wanted a 'clear cache' button on your toolbar, *you* could put it in. If you want a 'simple' browser, for kids, you could make a toolbar with only 'Back' for example.

At the other extreme, you could configure the browser so that it exposed *every* possible option.

For more details - see the XPFE home page at mozilla.org [mozilla.org]

Incidentally, modifying the front end code is really easy - and it's a great way for someone to get started helping out the mozilla project.

Desktop Manager Browser (1)

Prophet (13824) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628756)

Hey! If it doesn't render in the Desktop Browser then don't go there! ;)

Re:IE5 > * IMHO (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628757)

They're trying to strongarm me into using AIM, instead of my preferred ICQ.

Mozilla will include jabber (http://www.jabber.org) which lets you IM to people on AIM, IRC, ICQ, Yahoo, etc.

Development for Jabber is totally open source, as is a lot of the other "add-ons" people are bashing mozilla for "wasting time" on. That is, the IRC client, telnet client, etc. They're all stuff OTHER THIRD PARTIES have put together.
W
-------------------

Good luck with gopher (1)

Mr. Piccolo (18045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628766)

... If you find any sites that still work, and still have useful information, let me know.

I decided to check out gopher sites not too long ago, but out of all the sites I checked, the server either doesn't want to connect, has no info, or the info is 3 years old.

Opera (1)

Hermetic (85784) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628767)

If you are dead set against IE, try Opera. It is small, fast and quite unfriendly, but it works. It works extremely well, better than either of the others.
The 'hotlist' is a much better implementation of the book marks/favorites crap than the others have done(more of an Explorer feel to it) and the multiple windows is so much better to work with than opening new windows in IE or mozilla.
It's just better.

Sorry, I really like it.

Re:Some thoughts (1)

Devil Ducky (48672) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628768)

Netscape 5 still has the biggest chance... there still are and always will be the loyal few... we stuck with them during the versions 1.0 - 2.X, we stuck with them through netscape still charging and IE being free, we even stuck with them when AOL bought Netscape (I personally hoped that Sun would pick up the browser work). Once this version is out we will be there overflowing their ftp site and it's mirrors. Then the rest of you will follow....

P.S. If it didn't have some nuance that annoyed why would they ever upgrade?
P.S.S. Desktop Integration isn't the ploy to obsolete 486s, all M$ programs are a part of that conspiracy.

Silly, Silly article (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628769)

This is a really dumb article. AOL is not shelving Communicator 5. The Netscape devlopment managers decided to slip dates in order to meet quality targets. I don't know of a product in development at Netscape which didn't slip at least once.

Mozilla.org isn't 'saddled' with anything from AOL (referring to Instant Messenger). I think AOL IM is GREAT and the relatively minor task of integrating that support into the browser is real easy thanks to our open modular architecure. In fact, it's already been hacked on by third parties, who have, incidentally, also gotten IRC to work in the same framework.

Anti-mozilla articles have plagued the project since the beginning. That's why it's important to only release the Beta when it's ready, and not before. Its important to make a good impression with the first beta. After the beta is released, who will remember all the nay-sayers like Mr Wood who wrote their crap?

Here's how you can help make the first beta great:

  • Download the nightly builds [mozilla.org]
  • try out all the features
  • discuss on the mozilla newsgroups
  • use mozilla as your browser.
  • report bugs with reproducible test cases
  • learn CSS, XML, javascript, MATHML, XUL, and make some websites which show the true power of Mozilla.

Signed
Netscape Engineer

the browser war was over long ago (1)

SEAL (88488) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628770)

Mozilla may not be dead, but the browser war was over long ago. IE isn't a perfect browser, but neither is Netscape. However, that's enough for Microsoft to win. They have the dominant OS, and a "good-enough" browser packaged with it. Why should I install another app to duplicate functionality on my machine? And I used to be a die-hard Netscape fan. I would imagine the family purchasing a new computer wouldn't even think of Netscape.

And then, there's my other beef: AOL. I hold little respect for this company, and yes, maybe I fear their intentions a bit. Similar to MS. But look what they've snatched up:

Winamp
ICQ
Netscape

You better believe that they'll try to merge functionality into Netscape 5.0. Probably more AIM crap and advertising and who-knows-what-else that I don't want to install. Netscape 4.5+ was annoying in this fashion due to their blatant attempts to direct everyone to Netcenter. I still use 4.08 as my browser of choice on Linux because of this.

I'm hoping that Mozilla will be available separately from Netscape, so that I can use a less commercially-tainted browser. These big companies fighting over us peons really gets on my nerves sometimes.

In that regard, I'd be happy to pay the Opera guys 30 bucks if the Linux version was mature. At least its a chance to get away from the bloat. Hmm I haven't checked that lately... maybe I should go do that.

SEAL

Why we need Mozilla (2)

s!mon (15429) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628771)

As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla is doing the right thing - standards complaince. Yeah its late as hell, and by the time it comes out, there might be an IE 6 release (or shall we say...bloat?). Mozilla is focused on releasing a small modular browser that follows standards.

The largest problem with the web is poor support for w3 standards. After you look over webpages created with CSS2/CSS and HTML 4, you'll wonder why its taken so long for somebody to actually implement the standards. While technology has been so important for the first few releases, the standards are more important in the development of the web now.

If there is one thing that Linux and the Internet has taught us, it is that open standards are good for the consumer and for the developer. If nobody follows standards, even browsers, then what happens is fragmentation. In other words, Mozilla is the right way instead of moving towards poor compliance.

Finally, lets remember that Mozilla is a very ambitious project and does have a chance to dominate the browser wars once stable and released. Lets look at it this way - Mozilla is designed to be modular and cross platform. Necko, XUL, Jabber, so much good and hardly any bad.

I know that when N5 does finally come out, developers will jump on it because it does support standards. Websites will be more attractive, easier to design, easier to read, and what else?

...and N4's CSS implentation is the worst...

simon

Re:Anyone know the status of mozilla development? (1)

Skinka (15767) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628773)

Absolutely, I just have it when people whine about it. "give me a browser now or I'll tell my mother." blah. Even so, I still would like know when I can expect a new release. Nothing more frustrating than having to wait and hope that today is finaly the day (and then it's not).

Re:This COULD be a disaster.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628775)

mozilla is open sourced and somewhat useable. if AOL pulls the plug i would imagine development would continue albeit slowly. Redhat would probably take over since they need a decent web browser for linux...or any other opensource company which IPOs soon.

Re:Browsers.... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628777)

Sorry, but I think you're completely wrong.
I can tell you a lot of words here but think that one proof would be enough: all DBMS's store data in one file! Contrary to your claims it's WAY faster, easier on disk activity and more reliable.

Re:netscape vs. ie vs. mozilla (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628778)

Didn't they do a rewrite of most of the code sometime after it was released?

Re:I'd like to try IE, can you help? (1)

scumdamn (82357) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628786)

Try using Whine:
[windowsuser@windowssucks.org rootytoottoot]$ iwantinternetexploooooorrrrerrrrrr && whydoesitnotworrrrrrrrk && waaaaaaaaaaa &
It works for me every time!
Whine works for Office too!
[windowsuser@windowssucks.org rootytoottoot]$ i; wish; i; had; offiiiiiiiiiiiiice; waaaaaaaa; kill myself &

IE hasn't won. Try Mozilla before you judge. (2)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628787)

IE hasn't won the war. They won a huge battle and have a lot of marketshare, but Mozilla has a better chance in the long term:

1/ Non MS platforms are going to become more important. Linux, Mac, Pamltops, Set-tops. Mozilla/Netscape 5.0 will dominate these markets. Windows may never go away, but it's days of 90% market share are numbered.

2/ AOL will push Netscape on it's user base. They can't afford to let MS embrace and extend the Internet, so you can bet that 20M or so AOL users will be using Netscape by the end of 2001.

3/ Mozilla will be technically superior to IE. That's why it's taken so long. Try the browser - it's fast, standards complient, and Open Source. It might have taken a while to get rolling, but individuals and companies outside of Netscape are starting to add features and use components for their own projects.

I don't know if Netscape will ever get back their dominent position, but that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that there will be a robust, cross-platform, standards complient alternative to IE with considerable market share (at least 35%). That's all that we need to keep MS honest and be able to surf effectively from our favourite OS.

Netscape is NOT Mozilla (?) (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628788)

"Mozilla" has always been the internal name for Netscape Navigator since version 1. mozilla.org is about opening up the internal process to external developers. There probably never will be a released product called "Mozilla", only a source tarball. In short Mozilla == Netscape, and if in doubt, check your HTTP headers or about:Mozilla [about]

Re:Nope...Netscape Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628789)

Press Alt-B (Ctrl-B in Windoze) and you get an easy to use drag-n-drop bookmark utility. Why is IE's any better?

Re:Why Mozilla 5.0 will die. (At least on the Mac) (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628790)

you dumb shit. Mac OS is dead not the other way around. MacOS 9 is the last MacOS that apple is going to ship. MacOS X is now totally unix -- dont like the new MacOS X interface ? too bad. you guys will have to adapt when your favourite OS ends up with a GUI thats different from any other Mac OS before it.

Re:Possible Reasons Communicator 5 is Delayed (1)

justo (2858) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628791)

um, i think irc is a third party effort, not part of the main development.

So what? (2)

Capt Dan (70955) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628793)

So what? As has been stated before, netscape is delayed, not dead.

Remember the days when IE was the underdog? IE 2.0 was a seriously junior league bit of code. Then bam! out of the blue comes ie 3 (or 4?) and suddenly netscape begins to lose market share.

My point is, there is still plenty of room for netscape to manuver and come out on top. There is still plenty of time for another browser to appear out of nowhere and take over.

It's just a matter of a group of people sitting down to write a good software architecture. Maybe Netscape has done this with their code rewrite. Maybe Opera did this from the start. I dunno.

Think of the "browser war" as a soccer tournament. Netscape's losing at halftime during the first game of a tournament. Opera and the K browser got bye's through the first round.

So, are you the guy watching from the sidelines, or are you going to grab a bucket of water for the tired players? YOu can whine, or you can jump on mozilla, or the k browser, or any number of browser projects.


"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
"It was like trying to herd cats..." - Robert A. Heinlein

Re:I'd like to try IE, can you help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628794)

THANKS DUDE!!!

I now have IE running perfectly. I don't know how I went without it all this time. Wow. Let me say that again. Wow.

At first I was concerned because that FDISK thing you made me do seems to have gotten rid of all of my files in my home directory, and they took like a really really long time to create.

But then I realized that sacrificing several years' work is a small price to pay for the ability to run the great and glorious IE.

THANKS DUDE!

YOUR 3L337!

MICROSOFT ROCKS!

OK, now I'm gonna download some porn......

Re:IE5 > * IMHO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1628796)

IE5 simply doens't compare with mozilla's new browser. Mozilla's new browser if far superior. I might be a little biased because i'm a developer and Mozilla's browser is way superior to IE5, CSS support is awesome, javascript, top that off with XUL, rock my world. You talk about the page refresh when you resize, well that's gone in the new browser. It is alot less bloated than Communicator was. Adam Lock's activex control for the gecko engine is a huge contribution, can't thank him enough. We'll start to see mozilla's engine in kiosks and custom browsers a lot more. All that remains to be seen is how stable will it be, hard to tell at this stage.

Re:Download the thing, use it, and then b***h... (2)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1628798)

I like the voting idea - both in concept and execution. It's a wonderful change from the closed-source model of "we'll fix the bugs we want to fix, regardless of what our users want.

Now, for all of you who liked my request for one-click image autoload toggle [slashdot.org] a week or so ago, drop by and vote! Maybe a future version of Mozilla will offer you as much control as the old 3.01 Netscape!

Of particular interest - bugs #15148, 15145, 9307, 11875, and 7380. Special thanks to MattyT [slashdot.org] for doing the legwork of RFE submission and articulating a scheme whereby things could also be allowed/disallowed as a function of domain. I'd be overjoyed with one-click global toggles for all images/cookies/java/javascript, but it'd be positivly orgasmic if the toggles applied globally or according to a user-defined list of accept/deny domains depending on the user's configuration. (Bury the configuration as deep as you want in the menu structure, so long as the actual process of turning these "features" on and off is a single click or menu-hotkey.)

Now if only we lived in an alternate universe where this had been implemented in 3.02, or rather 3.1 [slashdot.org] so many years ago, and had been part of the codebase ever since! :) Just imagine, a browser where one mouse-click will turn off images, cookies, and javascript, rather than hiding it under the present (4.x) pile of menus...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...