Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netscape Communicator 5.0 Delayed

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the it's-always-something dept.

Netscape 258

dougc1 writes "According to this CNET article, Netscape plans to delay release of Communicator 5.0 for two more months." Well, I'm doing okay with 4.7, but it sure would be nice to have a more stable and faster Netscape - someday. (sigh)

cancel ×

258 comments

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

one word... (0)

daemonchild (101472) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481324)

mozilla
netscape doesn't really matter anymore, imho

Is that beta or final? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481327)

Delay by final release or beta release?

Mozilla (1)

firstnevyn (97192) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481334)

Mozilla beta will still be released b4 christmas? please tell me yes

mozilla (1)

prijks (9686) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481337)

mozilla rules! all it needs is stability and filters for cookies... so i don't have to hit cancle a dozen times when i go to stupid websites...

but the article at one point mentions netscape 5.5 ... is netscape inflating version numbers already? or is that a typo?

Also, has anyone else noticed that the stability of netscape is kinda non-deterministic? I install it once, it works fairly well (fairly well meaning it only crashes once or twice a day), but I install the same version a different time, and it crashes regularly... I can't figure it out...

I was just wondering.. (2)

JohnG (93975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481338)

I was just yesterday wondering when if ever the new Netscape was going to come out. I guess I have my answer now, and although it is a disappointment I guess for those of you that were expecting it sooner I am glad to see it will be out in two months.
Does anybody know if the official netscape version is using GTK for its widgets like mozilla is doing? I really really hate motif. I think that is one of the biggest things I dislike about Netscape under linux is that it is real ugly.
Also one more bit of speculation about the delay, what are the chances that they are taking so long so that AOL 6.0 can use Netscape? How long is AOL's contract with MS to use IE? It would be really a great trump card for linux if we had AOL support, which AOL using the Netscape code could give us. Not that I like AOL mind you, in fact I hate it, but I know lots of people who worship it and it would still be a great "big app" to have in the community.

Genko? (1)

koax (8699) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481342)

What new features is 5.0 supposed to have? The last few releases have been pretty much the same. When is a browser based on "Genko" supposed to come out? It would be good if they beat Opera to the punch by getting a full-featured browser out that doesnt take 30M of memory.

Re:mozilla (1)

prijks (9686) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481402)

doh, i can't read... the 5.5 mentioned in the article was in reference to IE. stupid IE. I hate IE for the sole fact that you can't middle-mouse button paste a url into the IE window under unix. that is the winning factor of netscape...

also, i mispelled cancel. cuz i suck. =)

Beat them at their own game? not likely (1)

lunatik17 (91135) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481404)

Windows is not where Netscape is going to shine. I think M$ has pretty much demonstrated that no matter how cool your stuff is, they own the turf--and they control it depending on their own interests.

Where Netscape is going to shine is in the Linux/*nix market, where there is a definate void for a decent browser. Communicator's nice and all, but I want Mozilla! Didn't I switch to Linux to avoid instability?

Copy Protection: A clever method of preventing incompetent pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it.

Mozilla vs. Navigator (1)

JamesKPolk (13313) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481406)

My impression was that Navigator 5 was to be based on Mozilla...

I'm surprised so many posts here seem to imply otherwise.

The difference will be in branding, default homepage, ssl/java/whatever modules, and technical support.

After all, netscape does, in theory, have all that SSL, Java, and other stuff sitting around, that was stripped from the original source release.

Oh yeah, and they have to add the shop button!

Don't let the web site control the interface! (3)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481408)

XUL seems cool and all but just think what harm it can cause in the hands of AOL. I would hate to have five or so ad buttons on the button bars when I visit so-and-so site. The less control the web site has the better.

Mozilla team, please don't do this to us.

Re:mozilla (3)

JohnG (93975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481410)

Actually I think they might have been talking about IE? That part confused me too, but it seems as thought that might have meant IE 5.0 to IE 5.5, because IE 5.5 is supposed to be coming out and the article said that there wasn't going to be a big difference between 4.7 and 5.5, but netscape was totally rewriting the code and the look of the browser. That doesn't really make sense if they are referring to Netscape both times. It would make sense to say IE 5.0 won't be that big of a difference from IE 5.5, but netscape 5.0 is a total rewrite. So both browser should be on level playing ground again. Of course I could be horribly wrong.
BTW: Does anybody know what the "big" features of the 5th generation browsers are. It seems like the 2nd generation brought in frames and stuff, and the 3rd generation brought in javascript or whatever, then the 4th generation were big into dynamic html and css and stuff. What is the "must have" feature in 5th generation browsers?
*Disclaimer* The above history of browsers is very likely to be very wrong, I just meant that each new browser has introduced something big.

If the number is so important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481414)

why not call it Netscape 2000?

Shane Sturrock

Whoops! (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481417)

Just when it seems IE is running away with the browser war...Netscape start running in the opposite direction.
Communicator 5.0 is unlikely to come out before Microsoft have the entire browser market sewn up. This is scary and Not Good for the WWW.
We're not looking at any real competition to IE until the Spring probably.

Some quotes. (3)

Utter (4264) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481420)

For you who didn't bother to read the article!
A Mozilla alpha version will be released Dec 15 and the first beta will be released somewhere in the middle of February. This is not the same as a branded Netscape Beta, which will take place some time after the Mozilla Beta.

The article mainly complaints about Mozilla lateness and worries that corporate users are moving towards IE. They also partly blaim XUL for some of this lateness.

fifth generation (1)

prijks (9686) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481422)

perhaps the big must-have feature for fifth-generation browsers will be stability...

heh, heh. who am i kidding?

but yeah, rereading the article helped, but still, they should be more explicit when they throw out version numbers... i suck at math!

Absurd -- Thank you AOL (1)

lanner (107308) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481424)

This is absurd. AOL has completely screwed up Netscape, as many of us know.

All of the same, I would much much rather them release a late product then a lame product. Reference what is going to happen to Win2K -- late and bad.

Now I'm sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481430)

So, Mozilla won't have 128 bit encryption, right? Also too bad that /. polls don't seem to work under lynx (not that they're worth answering).

Re:Mozilla vs. Navigator (2)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481431)

According to the Mozilla [mozilla.org] page, Navigator and Mozilla are essentially distinct projects. They say that Navigator will most likely be based on submitted Mozilla code, however, and that it will be marketed as "good" and branded under the Netscape name, as well as contain proprietary stuff that can't be part of Mozilla for obvious reasons.

Maybe it is time to re-read some of jwz's rants... (1)

Olivier Galibert (774) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481432)

Specifically nomo zilla [jwz.org] and ncsp/aol [jwz.org] .

OG.

on a seriouser note: componentilization! (1)

prijks (9686) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481433)

just found this:

Mozilla on its first birthday has yet to provide its parent Netscape with a final release product, and rival Microsoft's newly released Internet Explorer browser, version 5.0, is way ahead of Netscape in standards support and componentization.

so apparently the big thing for 5.0 browsers is standards support, but more importantly (since i saw it in other portions of articles) componentization.

i found the above quote at the JWZ article linked off of the netscape article: http://news.cnet.c om/news/0-1005-201-340684-1.html?tag=st.ne.1005. [cnet.com]

Why mozilla is crucial (2)

lunatik17 (91135) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481434)

Mozilla's biggest advantage is standards. It will be completely based on standards, which is exactly why it is vitally important to the future of the Internet.

How many have read through the halloween documents? M$ Wants the Internet. Bad. How would they do that, though? decommoditization of protocols as the author of that email put it. In other words, close-sourcing the Internet. That would sure put a crimp in the *nix marketshare, wouldn't it? But how would they do this? Simple:

Basing their dominant browser on standards, but adding in their own proprietary "plug-ins" that add extra features that we would eventually become dependant on, despite the fact that it would be just as easy (easier, even) to write a java applet. I know java ain't that stable on Communicator, but that's besides the point--it's open. So, rally behind Netscape! Even when you have to use Winblows, use Communicator! We'll be stuck with it for now, but we'll be rewarded with Mozilla later on. Forgoe downloading Shockwave or Flash plugins, boycott sites that use them! If we all go along with it, it won't go away.

Copy Protection: A clever method of preventing incompetent pirates from stealing software and legitimate customers from using it.

One word: slow. (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481435)

If Mozilla ever gets to a beta release (I'm guessing it'll be some time before my grandkids are of legal drinking age), it'll probably be useable, speed-wise. I'm not holding out hope though...

- A.P.
--


"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:on a seriouser note: componentilization! (2)

JohnG (93975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481436)

Oh yeah, I think I remember reading somewhere that Mozilla/Netscape 5.0 will be able to be "themed" sorta like the lycos browser or the neoplanet browser on IE. Or can Netscape for Windows already do that?

Re:I was just wondering.. (1)

DarkToast (18370) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481437)

"The X heads at Netscape decided that now would be the best time to move away from Motif. They choose GTK+ as the target toolkit for development under the X Windows System". Currently, though Mozilla is still somehow based on GTK+ widgets, they're trying to get away from it with project Seamonkey. For example, the input boxes are no longer GTK+ widgets but Mozilla's own code, as they have to support formating and style sheets.

Those .Xdefaults should make Motif nicer, atleast for me:

Netscape*XmPushButton*shadowThickness: 1
Netscape*XmPushButtonGadget*shadowThickness: 1
*drawingArea*XmList.highlightThickness: 1

Gives you little less of those sucky 3D effects.
Still haven't figure out a way to make buttons have only one border... Suggestions, anyone?

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481438)

yea, you suck

High Hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481439)

Having to wait two more months lets me wonder if
they finally will support Style-Sheets and HTML4
correctly.

Has anyone noticed, that currently CSS is only
supported when JavaScript is *activated* ???

Regardless of what one thinks about Micros~1 - at
least their IE does it as it is supposed to be.

The article author is Anti-Mozilla, simply put. (5)

caferace (442) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481440)

Paul Festa has yet to write anything positive about Mozilla or Netscape in the past. If one runs a search on the C|Net Website you might find a smattering of relatively neutral articles, but the fact of the matter is that the guy is being paid to downplay the significance of a very cool, soon to be released Alpha base we can all "dogfood" with.

AND, I guarantee he reads /. But will he respond here? Doubtful. He won't even respond to polite email.

Feh. Just keep coding and bug fixing. He'll fade into oblivion with the rest of the naysayers.

Re:Genko? (2)

moonboy (2512) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481441)

FYI...it's "Gecko." Just so you know.

----------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

I'm going to get hated but... I kinda like IE (4)

cdensch (81585) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481442)

I mean, how long's it been since IE 5.0 came out? And a real "new" version of Netscape anything?

I like IE because it has a more mature DOM that (in my opinion) you can do more with using less code. I like the fact that it has an XML component that's actually useable. I like the more complete adherance to CSS specifications (again, in my opinion). I like the open ended object/active x/ole/whatever they're calling it this week/ structure (this is more MS strategy stuff, but what they hey).

I don't like the security holes (found in other software), the lack of input into design decisions, and occasional stability problems. Those are pretty big "don't likes" actually. On the other hand though, Netscape doesn't really have anything I like (as a developer), and some of the same dislikes. Makes it an easy decision doesn't it?

All that said, I think that Mozilla's only chance is to become the consumer browser, because I would choose IE as a development platform in a hot minute. I've read several articles mentioning the fact that IE is eclipsing NN/C in the intranet/internal development marketplace (some posted here) and I agree totally. If I had to support netscape right now it'd double my work. I'd have to write everything twice, AND some things I couldn't do at all. The long and short of this long message is (and here's the flamey bit): I don't think netscape/mozilla, given many delays before producing a useable product, being so far behind what MS has accomplished with the technology curve, I don't think they'll be a viable competitor in the marketspace. If they pull off a miracle and make it better, I'd use that in a second instead too. I'm a traiterous pragmatist.

Off Topic FUD and crap following
vvvvvvvvvv

Just as a side note, I've been vett'ing slashdot for quite a while now and have drawn some interesting conclusions. It seems that Big automatically == BAD and Small/independent automatically == GOOD. I think in some part it goes to a hearkening back to the grassroots origin of the internet. Is there a "good" "big" company that fits into the narrow slashdot canon? And not just because they're the next great white hope against microsoft, but because they make good stuff that people can use and like?

I remember how the knives came out after the Red Hat IPO once they became BIG and therefore BAD. If a Big(bad) company actually puts out a good product, will anyone actually notice for all the knees jerking?

End FUD and crap ^^^^^

cdensch doesn't do signatures

Re:Absurd -- Thank you AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481443)

Talking out your ass, of course. Win2K is late, but not bad. RC2 is solid, and RC3 shows me that MS is finally delivering an OS worth using.

Re: cookie filter (1)

saska (13691) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481444)

Do you know if this is a feature someone is working on? Exactly what I want, but never thought of!

If no one is working on it it better be sumbitted as a "Request for Enhancement" so it doesn't get forgotten! It's a good idea.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

Markus
--

Umm.. (1)

Fuhrer (111424) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481445)

Excuse my language, but what the fvck is Netscape/AOL thinking? There cannot be any explaination for this than sheer stupidity.

One of the things that Netscape does not have is time. Yet they seem to be wasting all the time that they have. They had a working version of Mozilla months ago. How long can it take to convert that to release quality code? While Netscape/AOL is twiddling their fingers, Microsoft is putting out new versions of what I think is the best browser out there.

Way to go Netscape/AOL, compete with a better competitor by ... delaying your own browser yet again.

Re:Why mozilla is crucial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481446)

Realistically (not taking MS's side here), if MS captures 90% browser share, standards won't matter nearly as much. Java applets = crap. Java applets tend to be slow and buggy. I would much rather see Shockwave, DHTML, and (gasp) use of well-known, trusted ActiveX components (like MS's tree views, etc). If you use Windows, your best bet is IE. If you use Unix, use Communicator. Simple as that.

Re:Don't let the web site control the interface! (1)

OnlyNou (90455) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481447)

good luck putting banner ads on my Open Source browser.

i'm happy my OS comes with a compiler.

well, it'll be my browser when it's out.
for now, communicator 4.7 isn't bad.

Re:mozilla (1)

Fuhrer (111424) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481448)

mozilla rules! all it needs is stability

In other words, all it needs is for it to work. What is the point of having something that works, but crashes all the time?

Oh yeah, I just bought a new car, it only crashes twice a day. How useless is that?

Re:It's 12:40, PST (1)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481449)

No one cares.
- c o w

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481450)

No you suck you cock smoker!

Re:High Hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481451)

I'm not at all surprised to see this post get a "0". Any post that defends MS in any way gets a "0". This is unfortunate, because the reality is that IE has a lot of compelling features and doesn't deserve to be written off just because it's written by Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't always make good software, but this does not mean all MS software is bad. Claiming otherwise just discredits you.

Re:mozilla (1)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481452)

You mean that IE's fourth generation brought in dynamic HTML, CSS and stuff. Netscape has yet to do it (in truth).

As for an even playing ground... riiight. If it ever happens, it won't be the case for long. Some day you people will remove the bugs from thy asses, fess up and admit that IE has been better than Netscape since 4.0.
- c o w

Re:I was just wondering.. (4)

tialaramex (61643) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481453)

Basically, Netscape (for it is they!) have thrown away their old code, then used GTK+, and thrown that away (didn't have customisable look and feel, which is essential when none of the actual FEATURES work) and re-written everything again. The result doesn't work, and probably needs more work than just fixing GTK+, Xlib or even Motif, but it gave everyone something to do while pointing the blame desperately at each other. What a catastrophe.

A typical bug report in Bugzilla has commentry like this:

Bob: Mozilla breaks horribly when I do this. I do it a lot, and so does every other Mozilla user, someone should fix it.

Fred: Agreed. Marking this as M9, we need a fix soon

Pete: M9 is too close. Users can live without until M11

Dave: Put this down for D19 and FU2, I have two bodies on it now

Dave: Wait. Not our problem, this is Fred's.

Fred: I can't reproduce this. Marked Works for Me

Bob: Why isn't this fixed yet? It is easily reproducible, follow my URL

Dave: Nope. Can't reproduce

Bob: Did you click on the URL?

Dave: Oh, wait, now it does. I think this will be fixed when FlyingPig lands next week. Marking FP

FPTeam: Flying Pig is delayed, because it turns out we have to implement abstract classes not just pray. We didn't know that.

Bob: I don't understand, I have waited four months for this..?

Dave: This is now first priority for M15. We will definitely have this.

Fred: I can't commit to that. Call it M16 and we'll squeeze it in later

Harold: Just doing some admin. Nothing to see here, move along. (now M17)

FPTeam: Marked as fixed because FlyingPig landed today. FlyingPig is still pretty buggy. Please don't open more than one window or breathe near the computer. Sorry.

Bob: Nope, still not fixed as of M17, where is everyone? Why can't a simple bug be fixed in under twelve months?

---

Why is it so hard? I have lots of ideas, but none of them is very complementary toward the Mozilla team. I think an equally valid question is, "Why did Microsoft take nearly five years to complete NT 5?" and many of the answers are probably the same. Let this be a lesson to you, do not work on products which are supposed to solve everyones problems all at once.

Nick.

Re:Now I'm sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481454)

No 128-bit encryption? Damn, I can't bank online with it, then.

Re:Beat them at their own game? not likely (1)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481455)

You're right except for the fact that Communicator isn't nice.

If I were a big time Linux spaz, I'd switch to Windows for more than gaming. I'd also switch to Windows for browsing, because doing it in Linux is a nightmare. Looks like shit (hey! Netscape looks like shit in Windows too! Oh, wait... different story), runs like shit (crash. crash. CRASH.), and has poor support.
- c o w

Re:Don't let the web site control the interface! (0)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481456)

Yes it is.
- c o w

Re:If the number is so important (1)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481457)

Because that'd be:

1) Too Microsoft-ish

and

2) Gay?
- c o w

Are you people stupid? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481458)

I don't wanna be too offensive here, but I am astounded by the fuckin' guppies that are posting basically "me too" to these discussions. Slashdot goes back and forth. Every two weeks the headlines are either:

"Mozilla doing well!" - usually a milestone release

and

"Mozilla's eating it!" - usually a *totally* uninformed editorial on ZDNet

And the replies are always basically "Yeah, mozilla sucks/rocks" depending on what the spin-of-the-day happens to be. I mean, go back and do a search of "mozilla" stories and you'll see what I'm talking about.

People who are following the mozilla story (via mozillazine.org and mozilla.org) seem to have a clue, but most of these comments are just like so uninformed and following the spin, it's makin' me sick.

"Genko" engine indeed. Feel free to moderate this down. I just had to vent.

A big-ass Coward

Re:mozilla (1)

jdub! (24149) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481459)

Surely the "must have feature" of the 5th generation browsers is standards compliance...

Oh, so IE5 isn't standards compliant? How surprising...

Surely the "must have feature" of the 6th generation browsers is standards compliance...

Seriously though, Mozilla will be very nice, and it *will* be standards compliant. Check out the pre-M12 ("are we alpha?" being the big question...) nightly builds for a kick - they really, really rock.

If I gotta wait for my 100% standards compliant browser, two months aren't going to phase me. Especially in the face of such good work from the Mozilla team.

Just for some fun, check out the IE4.5 promotional flash animations on the MS-for-Macs site... Featuring ZipIE and zOE - crusading against the most pathetic impersonations of Internet kludge. Laugh at MS desperately trying to appeal to with-it Maccers...

Re:mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481460)

I agree. In large software projects, implementation is 10% of the work. Testing and debugging is 90% of the work. If Mozilla isn't solid by now, then things are very bleak for Netscape.

Zero rated post (0)

joeler (45203) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481461)

I think ALL posts from "Anonymous Coward" are given a "0". If you believe your information is of more value, why not use your name? It's easy to register, gives you the more choices of how to view things and will allow you to get those special moderation points you are seeking.

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481462)

yea, well you suck so much you suck! cock knocker

Re:Whoops! (0)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481463)

I can see it now.

You fucking morons will be using Netscape 4.7 years from now. Us people with a fucking clue will be using our IE 20.0 in 3D and you poor bastards will be saying, "Damn. When is Netscape 5.0 coming out? IE SUCKS! IE SUCKS! IE SUCKS! MS SUCKS! Linux and Netscape are the best! And some day they'll rule everyone!"

Bwuahahahhaha.

Wait, that's already how it is, minus the "3D" and "20.0" part.
- c o w

Re:Absurd -- Thank you AOL (1)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481464)

Unlike Linux.
- c o w

and the horse you rode in on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481465)

I suck? Well, I don't think so! The popular opinion around here is that you suck. So I must agree with everyone in saying that you suck! Foreskin fondler!

Re:High Hopes (0)

-C-O-W- (121874) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481466)

Hahahaha.

Just another piece of proof that you Netscape/Linux advocates are living in a dream world that's long gone.
- c o w

Netscape vs. Explorer (2)

Driph (7107) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481467)

God I am looking forward to a nice final from Mozilla....using html for the window layout is going to be interesting..assuming the source will be easy to get at, it'll be a cinch to customize the browser to your own liking..

On the PC side of things, I really have no major browser complaints.. with Linux(installing SuSe tonite on a box I just built, this is my first major use of Linux, as opposed to minor admin stuff, so wish me luck!) I havent used the browser enough to build a list of what it's lacking.. so this is coming from a Mac OS point of view..

I would love to see a browser that merges the best of IE and Netscape.. each of them has strengths, and each has weaknesses..

I love the History on IE, I abhor the netscape history. PLEASE let me go to where I've gone before, even if I have already closed the damn window.

I like that I can click and drag an image in Netscape to see its dimensions..great from a design point of view..

IE seems to bog down quite a bit when loading long pages with a lot of text.. Netscape, for my uses, is all around the quicker browser in day to day surfing..

Rare is the day that Netscape doesnt crash.


What about you guys? Since we are on the topic of new browser releases, what features in the current crop of browsers do you love and hate? Be interesting to see what has driven various people to a particular browser...



________________________________________________ _____________

Netscape stability (1)

MikeDw (80345) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481468)

I don't have any problem with Netscape stabilty at present (version 4.61 under Linux). All you have to do is turn Java off.

Re:Don't let the web site control the interface! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481469)

No it's not!!

Re:mozilla (1)

kip3f (1210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481470)

XML, for one. IE5 also supports webDAV [webdav.org] . Unfortunately, webDAV probably won't be Netscape 5.
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.

Sad, but its not going to beat IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481471)

The point is, Mozilla won't be a competitor to IE. IE has many other cutsey functions that, well, basically slow it down and add cruft.

Mozilla's browser, as such, will not contain all these pansy functions, but will focus on speed, reliability, standards compliance, and cross-platform availability. I think it'd be too hard to add those cutsey functions to all OSes... Microsoft only has to develop mainly for Windoze (maybe MacOS if you count that... winCE, etc.).

However, for ME personally, I don't want those pansey functions. Running IE drains my resources already, and I'd rather have a sleek, faster browser that JUST browses, rather than gives me all the other cruft IE does, (eg. Microsoft "Animation" stuff) and all the other MS proprietory stuff that goes in.

And I don't think they are loosing the browser war. Browsers are easily switched. And as long as Netscape provides an easy upgrade path for those people already running 4.x browsers, then they can retain their current loyal clients.

Btw... I don't consider AOL bad by any means. They bailed out Netscape IMHO when it was starting to sink. They can now focus on coding and worry less about the finances.

Oh well... such is life.

Cyberpunks.org [cyberpunks.org] .

Re:mozilla (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481472)

To heck with new graphical eyesores. A good cookie filter to filter the hosers like doubleclick.net and imgis.com is a must. Also, having the ability to have some sites unable to exec certain javascript commands (like tossing up popups about stuff I will never buy anyway) on your machine.

Sigh... I miss good ol' Mosaic sometimes, for sites full of javascript crap where good ol' Lynx or the web browser on the VM box won't do.

Re:Is that beta or final? (2)

rappybaby (53126) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481473)

Did you read the article?

"Netscape Communications has yet to
produce its fifth-generation browser, and it doesn't expect to release a trial version
for another two months."

I guess "trial" is c|net's word for "beta".

Re:High Hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481474)

How do you type with Bil Gates'cock in your mouth allthe time, bitch!

Last Post! (1)

kip3f (1210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481475)

Time to crash.
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.

Re:mozilla (3)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481476)

I agree. Ever use IE? Windows?

Ever stop to think that Mozilla is alpha-level software, and therefore should be about as consistent as a bad random number generator, until the beta release?

(which is, by the way, why they can't release it as Netscape 5.0 anytime soon...)

Now let's look through, and see who marks their software correctly:

Wine: alpha level. Yep, lots of stuff doesn't work.

Dosemu: beta level. Ok, it's impressive how much they got to work. About as good as a DOS box in NT, but certainly not perfect.

Windows 3.0,3.1,'95,'98: gold. Not even close! Let me know when you implement *libraries* properly. (waiting for Windows 2000, I suppose)

IE 4.0 or 5.0 for UNIX: gold. Oh god, it's worse than alpha! It doesn't usually load on Solaris, in my experience. Microsoft's web site claims that *Solaris* needs random kernel patches, and that it's not MS's fault. Heh. Heh. Really, we couldn't code around this. Frickin' bad Windows-emulating porting software. IE runs more reliably under SoftWindows--or even Wine, where possible.

Netscape 4.7 for Unix: gold. Not really. It still crashes sometimes, can leak memory, and table rendering needs some work. But it's pretty solid. Definitely better than your average beta.

Anyhow, the point *is* having something that works. That's why they're still working on it, pushed back the date, and don't claim that it's anything it isn't advertised as... It's fast, nifty looking, and not yet stable. But compare this with claiming it has features it lacks, and it looks much nicer.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Interesting point.. (1)

Driph (7107) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481477)

Good points. See my post below for my personal likes and dislikes.. You've got to wonder if some third party is going to pop out of the woodwork with a browser one of these days.. I've heard a lot of good things about icab..Opera had a buzz for a while.. we'll see..


Now on to the tasty slightly offtopic part of your post..

I agree with your opinion on how companies seem to be viewed on Slashdot... a lot of the mentality, in my opinion, stems from the basis of what Linux stands for for a lot of people...The underdog rising above the megacorporation.. and often, I agree with these sentiments..many companies just "go bad" once they are huge..or they are forced to deal with a much larger consumer base, and instead of serving a niche very well, they now serve a mass consumer market decently... so each one of us is going to find small companies that seem to fit our particular needs to a greater degree...

As far as large companies I personally really like.. first offhand is Cisco... and I guess Adobe would be considered a large company, in its market.. and a slight nod to Apple..they waiver, but usually come out positive in my opinion..(I'm really looking forward to OSX)..

Looking forward to what others have to say here..


________________________________________________ _____________

Re:One word: slow. (1)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481478)

What do you find to be slow about it?

Its rendering seems pretty snappy, to me. Other stuff is less reliable. But table-intensive stuff in slashdot is a lot sweeter in Mozilla than it is in Netscape.

I'm not sure if I like the new progressive rendering feature, though. I'd like to have more meaningful options in my web browser. Being able to set different levels of HTML standard compliance would be nice, or being able to pick and choose tags (and JavaScript stuff, too, I hate stupid popups, and would love to filter some of them out...) to allow or deny would be way cool.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Re:Netscape stability (1)

Carnage4Life (106069) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481479)

Why U don't see anything wrong with disabling part of the functionality of your browser to make it stable? Isn't stability while retaining functionality the reason most people switch from Windows to Linux?

Just wondering...

Bad Command Or File Name

Re:I'm going to get hated but... I kinda like IE (5)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481480)

Netscape hasn't really released anything new. I haven't played with the CSS/XML stuff, because I fear my web programming is still stuck in '94 or '95. (I'm glad tables are standardized now. :)

Microsoft tends to ignore security holes whenever possible. That scares the crap out of me.

Remember that traitor streak, because most of us have it when it comes to free (beer) software. Heck, that's why I switched to Netscape in the first place, it was far cooler than Mosaic.

(stupid title bar and background color flashing tricks, the blink tag, and the invention of background pictures aside, allowing inline JPEGs was a beautiful thing, so I forgive them. :) )

However, when I tried IE... well, it sucked, and it annoyed the crap out of me. But I haven't tried it in a while, and the only new feature I *really* like from it is the fullscreen option. But that's just because Word and PowerPoint annoys the crap out of me more, so I'm happy to write papers and presentations in HTML if I have to.

(at least web browsers support using JPEG files without converting them to binary bitmap-looking crap and wasting 20 times the disk space, and my text editor doesn't highlight random words because it thinks they look funny, and then try to talk to me about it...)

Hmm. Interesting FUD.

I, personally, abandon a company when they break trust. Therefore, on that scale:

Microsoft & Apple: both bad, by betraying their customers and backstabbing their partners.

IBM: generally pretty good. Lumbering and clueless, but not really mean, AFAICT.

RedHat: much better. They flirted with proprietary software until they realized how much it sucked, and now they've done a good job of promoting open source, and not really screwing up (like Caldera did, or now Corel).

Caldera: I don't trust them, and I never have. They seem to have an axe to grind, and I have a feeling that given the chance, they'd try to be another Microsoft. But, we'll see. I've heard good things about their Linux distribution. (except for the commercial (closed source?) add-ons)

Corel: Either they mean well, or their strategy coincides with 'ours' briefly. It's great to see them funnelling development into Wine, I can't believe how much it's advanced lately. I just wish I used Windows enough to test it better. :)

These are, as always, my opinions, and if you have any facts to challenge my assumptions with, present them. I am, especially on this topic, rather interested to hear it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Did you know the internet was world wide, lamer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481481)

It popped up in the morning for me. Time is not a constant around the world.

How many Americans does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one: he holds the light bulb and stands still and the world revolves around him.

Thats the attitude I hate and that you seem to have.

Last Post! (0)

Last Post! (121290) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481482)

Well, I may not know much about this stuff, but here's my Log(2.7732) + Exp(Pi/2*Sqrt(-1))^2 cents.

Hmm. It's amazing what people are doing these days. Good stuff.

P.S. Last Post?

P.P.S 151 and Jaegermeister rule!

_.......................__
||.....__...._._||_..||-\\..._...._._||_
||......_\\.(/_'..||....||-//.//.\\.(/_'..||
||__((_||_,_/).||_..||....\\_//.,_/).\\_
The final word; anything following is redundant.

Re:mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481483)

from an asthetic point of view, mozilla seems to be getting uglier and uglier. i liked it better when it was purple and even more so when it looked like navigator 4.x. personally, i think they should go with the gtk/gnome look but the people at netscape have their own ideas.

Re:Netscape stability (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481484)

I stated this earlier. I use 4.7 on Linux with java on I have yet to have it crash. Maybe you DOODS should lay off the PR0N0 sitez.

Re:Absurd -- Thank you AOL (1)

tialaramex (61643) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481485)

Oh, I agree. Windows NT 5 is the best and most fully featured PC operating
system to be launched in 1997, but unfortunately all the features which
were "ground breaking" when all Bill had to do was _talk_ about them, are
now well-understood, commonly implemented, and pretty much expected.

When an OS arrives over two years late it had better have every single
damn feature specified, and all of them had better work very well. The
FACT that W2K is still losing "out of box" features at this late stage
(witness the removal of OGL and D3D drivers from the shipping target)
is not an indication of improved quality but of endless deadline slips.

Of course, if Microsoft had specified their PC OS for the Millenium,
instead of for 1997, they would have included 64-bit support, and maybe
done a good job of 3D, low latency multimedia, IPv6, and everything
else which will now have to be retro-fitted to W2K, but if I'd asked
for that then, they'd still be working on it in 2005 :)

Nick.

Of course it is not dead. Just close to death... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481486)

Blame the programmers, blame whoever hired these programmer. If you managed to be as ineffecient as Big companies like MS, you got a problem.
Apparently, mozilla team is less efficient than the IE team. It is obviously they have big problems on the management. If mozilla team is less effecient than IE team and they have not those 'buddle my M$ OS behind it' power behind it, then the mozilla is surelly close to death.
Fire the management team and get a new crew!

Re:Genko? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481487)

No major improvements you say ? What about the "Shop" button in version 4.7 then ? :)

Re:Is M12 Alpha? (2)

finkployd (12902) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481488)

So we can very well build custom versions of Mozilla without any AIM or other annoyances.

Oh, and we will :)
You think it's small and fast now? Wait until I get done with it. After ripping out the "cram every internet client we can think of" code, it will be one fast, small, WEB BROWSER. Nothing else, just a web browser.

Finkployd

Re:Of course it is not dead. Just close to death.. (2)

legoboy (39651) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481489)

Your post was more of a troll than anything else, but I'll answer it anyways.

Mozilla's team is more inefficient than IE's, you say.

Oh, definately. After all, it's not as though Mozilla's team has nearly completed the amazing task of creating a modern, full featured browser from scratch in a little more than a year, when IE5 took about 6 years to reach its current state. Very little of what is in Mozilla is recycled code. All the engines have been entirely redesigned, and the engineers working on the project seem to have dropped the philosophy that worse is better.

IE5.5, on the other hand, I don't really care about. I'm not too excited about what I hear is a 70+ MB download for a Print Preview feature, and a couple modifications to the GUI of Windows. I'll probably download the thing, but I don't imagine that people connected by modem will.

I mean, come off it. "IE is efficient! They had a couple dozen people work hard for a week for the next generation browser that will finally kill Netscape for good!" (Not a quote, but a mindset. Read comments on ZDNet and BetaNews)

I'm not impressed. That's the bottom line, so far as I am concerned.

------

Re:I'm going to get hated but... I kinda like IE (2)

RottenApple (10663) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481490)

Hmm..

Well, I agree with you in many ways.
I think the Netscape Communicator needs
to be more stable. ( But at least crash
of the Netscape browser usually doesn't
cause the crash of the explorer of Windows,
unlike the IE. )

According to the standard...
First, XML.. even the IE doesn't seem
to handle well. I opened a 3MB CIM-related
XML document file with the IE. But it made
my computer freezed.
Second, language supporting.
the default Korean encoding/decoding of the IE
is ISO22-something. It's not a standard.
( Unlike the ISO implies. )
The euc-kr of the Netscape is standard.
Windows itself use it in bad way.
You can't open files with Korean even with
english version of Windows.
( If it is written in KS5601 ( korean standard )
or in EUC-KR ( unicode ), it can be read. )
It means that your directories and other
resources can't be guaranteed to be opened by
other machines. ( But the Linux can open them! )

If you make something work with Netscape, it is okay for you to feel safe. But with the IE.. NO.

Although the Netscape is behind the IE, I don't think the new Gecko based one is late.
At least we could get smaller browser.
Look! Even the MS caught up with the Apple!
Why can't the Netscape catch up with the MS?

Re:I'm going to get hated but... I kinda like IE (2)

finkployd (12902) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481491)

I've read several articles mentioning the fact that IE is eclipsing NN/C in the intranet/internal development marketplace (some posted here) and I agree totally. If I had to support netscape right now it'd double my work. I'd have to write everything twice, AND some things I couldn't do at all.

You made some good points, but this one bothers me. Why not just adhere to the industry standards you mentioned above? No supporting specific browsers, just working within the guidelines of the established standards. W3C HTML 4.0 code works in both browsers. If you need database access (I'm assuming you do for an intranet) PHP3 works on all browsers.

Finkployd

Re:Mozilla (2)

finkployd (12902) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481492)

Mozilla beta will still be released b4 christmas? please tell me yes

Well, if it's pushed back two months, and it's December now....I'm going to have to go with no.

There probably should be another milestone around that time though.

Finkployd

Re:Is that beta or final? (3)

jilles (20976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481493)

There is a difference between mozilla and communicator. Mozilla is currently alpha (at least that's being discussed at mozillazine). It will likely hit beta some time after that (late januari?). After mozilla goes final, netscape will add its stuff and start testing it which will take another few months. I don't expect a communicator 5 release before spring 2000 and that is assuming that there will be no more major setbacks.

Mozilla is a fine project from a software engineering perspective, I'm really excited about its probabilities but from a management perspective its a classical example of how not to manage a poject. It is taking up lots of resources (netscape engineers) and it is suffering from excessive feature creap which has caused the deadlines to shift enourmously (like half a year).

I think the people at netscape will have a really hard time convincing the rest of the world to run communicator 5. From an engineering perspective it certainly is an interesting product but engineers are only a minority of the target audience.

If mozilla is going to survive it will be on its technical merits. The mozilla project is promising a lot and judging from the nightly builds, it is delivering on those promises.

If on the other hand it will fail it will be because it came to late and missed its window of opportunity, which in my opinion will be nearly closed by spring 2000. Microsoft has been in the luxurious position that it had a great GUI for their browser for nearly two years. All this time they have been able to focus on producing a better rendering engine. I have a hard time believing that they won't release a better one before communicator ships. And they just got a few extra months to perfect their stuff.

Re: cookie filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481495)

(-1, Redundant)

but i really do like that idea!

just think, big brother cookies and shopping info stuff can be weeded out (or given premature expiration dates!), but all those important ones (like slashdot, hotmail, etc..) get preserved...

hey, not just a history listing, but a cookie listing... why not? I'm sure a snappy UI could be designed to intuitively control those cookies too...

OT: XML support in IE 5.0 (2)

harmonica (29841) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481496)

From playing with a simple DTD and XML example I came to the conclusion that IE 5 doesn't really care about verifying an XML document against its DTD - as long as the syntax of both DTD and XML are OK, the XML document will be displayed. Try adding an element like <argh> somewhere (don't forget the closing tag!), it displayed just fine for me although it sure wasn't part of the DTD.

Are there any options that you can switch on I didn't find?

Re:Umm.. (1)

Cironian (9526) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481497)

Well, if you think IE is the best browser then use that.

I for one like the fact that Mozilla isnt being rushed out of the door just to win the game of version numbers.

And when you speak of how "They had a working version of Mozilla months ago." I would really love to have the milestone number for that as I think we have been trying out different stuff then. Sure, they are hard at work, but creating such a huge thing as Mozilla will take its time. Especially if you dont want it to crash all the time.

Re:Absurd -- Thank you AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481498)

Dunno about anyone else, but I picked up W2k Pro RC2 at Comdex. Here's my experience:

3 -HOUR- install process on a K6-2 300 with 64MB of RAM.

Far fewer drivers than Win98 included.

Crashed within 10 minutes of first non-install reliated boot (there were 3 or 4 reboots during the install process).

Crash took my Start menu with it.

Booted from my new Slackware 7 CD (bought at Comdex), installed in 20 minutes, and haven't had a crash since.

Works fine here (1)

xpurple (1227) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481499)

I use lynx (it's the only web browser I like), and slashdot polls seem to work fine for me. I may not be able to see all the pretty graphs, and dodads, but I get the information all right.

Course, this all comes from a guy who still thinks that a text mode is much more efficent. It lets you use your ram for something inportant like chrunching numbers, and other inportant things...not displaying pretty pictures (not that pretty pictures are bad, just pretty pointless)(and in case your curious, I use emacs, not vi'le')

Re:Why mozilla is crucial (1)

annekat (122328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481500)

IE is not a good product. M$ doesn't care a fig whether any of their products are high quality. After reading the Halloween documents, I realize that ANY product from M$ should be avoided. They have an agenda, and they have the most amazingly gorked up set of ethics. Their implicit and well-understood mission boils down to: If M$ wins, the customer loses. If the customer wins, they lose. And I suddenly am desperate to get real well acquainted with Linux.

"a more stable and faster Netscape" !?!?!? (1)

kels (9845) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481501)

When is the last time a new major version release ever led to "a more stable and faster Netscape"? It just gets slower and more bloated with every upgrade. I kept using 3.0 for as long as possible before upgrading to the 4.x series. But nowadays, too many things require version 4 browsers.

Perhaps Mozilla is the only hope for a non-Microsoft broswer, I don't know. But I don't plan to upgrade until there is a browser actually working that is in fact both faster and more stable. I have little expectation that this will be Netscape Navigator 5.0.

Is M12 Alpha? (3)

robinjo (15698) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481504)

That's what MozillaZine [mozillazine.org] asks us. There is a survey [mozillazine.org] where they ask about readers' feelings regarding the current builds.

I have been trying Mozilla for months already. It has improved steadily but they are still making big changes there. For example they started doing incremental reflow. While it's nice, it caused some pages to load very slowly. IMO, that's still one thing to fix before Alpha.

I guess it's good to delay Mozilla until it's ready and free of bugs. Mozilla is designed from ground up, small, fast and supports standards beautifully. It'll be a pleasure to use it.

But I couldn't but notice some fear. Some people are scared that AOL will fill Mozilla with ads and make it unusable. While AOL might do it, remember that the source code of Mozilla is free. It's right there at ftp.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] and you're free to get it any day. So we can very well build custom versions of Mozilla without any AIM or other annoyances.

Re:"a more stable and faster Netscape" !?!?!? (1)

blinko (97812) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481505)

>It just gets slower and more bloated with every upgrade.

The point of mozilla, or the result rather is totally new code. All the old bits have been chucked. But yeah, new releases are no sure thing.

--

W3C Compliance would be good. (2)

BigTed (78942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481508)

As a site builder I have a variety of different browsers that i use to check my code (I use real HTML, none of this WYSIWYG for me :-). And one of the biggest problems is the varying amount tags that any one browser understands.

I am now trying to strictly use style sheets and none of the deprecated tags, but with IE and Communicator still not accepting all of them it is hard, and these are the browsers that most of the public are using.

eg.a problems with Communicator - obscure method of embedding tags (non-W3C) and a problem with IE - still doesn't understand blink.

So thats first on my wishlist, certainly would make my job easier.

Impressive (3)

legoboy (39651) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481515)

Almost a hundred comments posted, and not even a single person has uttered the words 'Mozilla is dead'. Congratulations, Slashdot readers.

Anyway, before anyone decides to reply with that to my post, I figure I'll offer a link to Mozilla's Tinderboxen [mozilla.org] . This page shows whether the up to the minute builds are compiling successfully or not, as well as showing all checkins to SeaMonkey (Mozilla) in the last 12 hours. (Although you can go back as far as you want to, actually.)

I figure that looking at this page on any weekday while the tree is open can prove to any skeptic that Mozilla is just flying along. Even on weekends and at 4:00 am, there are usually a few people checking in this and that. After all... Between midnight (pacific) and now on Friday night, two people have been checking in periodically.

------

Re:Are you people stupid? (1)

blinko (97812) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481516)

We are seeing the begining of a massive FUD war. It did need to be mentioned.



--

I'm running last night's build (3)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481517)

And I'm suffering :-) But I don't care, it feels good, and darn it, I'm going to be really bummed if mozilla finally comes out without a single line of code in it from me. So...

Does anybody know if the official netscape version is using GTK for its widgets like mozilla is doing? I really really hate motif. I think that is one of the biggest things I dislike about Netscape under linux is that it is real ugly.

There's no chance that motif will be used - the choice is between MFC or some such and GTK. I guess I have to drill down into the code to know for sure whether native widget sets are supported, but it sure looks to me like GTK is going to be completely cross-platform. Themed GTK is absolutely gorgeous and I can't think of a single thing about native windows widgets that GTK doesn't do as well or better. Obviously, mozilla's use of GTK is a big boost for it and we're going to see a lot more cross-platform packages done that way.

Also one more bit of speculation about the delay, what are the chances that they are taking so long so that AOL 6.0 can use Netscape?

They're taking so long so that it will be done :-) I'd think that the timing of AOL 6 would depend more on the availability of mozilla that vice versa. It's a no-brainer that AOL will switch to mozilla when the time is right - and that together with the increasing Linux user base, will put netscape/mozilla back on top in the browser wars more or less immediately. We haven't even considered the slashdot effect yet - what happens when several thousand well-connected and highly motivated geeks hit the cyber-highway to promote the Lizard and email it, DCC it, icq it, whatever, to everybody they know? This will make the mellisa virus look benign :-)

How long is AOL's contract with MS to use IE?

ISTR it was extended to 2002 - however if the contract is found to be illegal it will vanish instantly. I don't think AOL will have a lot of trouble with that - they just have to be sure BillG won't kick them out of the oneline service promotion deal in Windows.

...Not that I like AOL mind you, in fact I hate it, but I know lots of people who worship it and it would still be a great "big app" to have in the community.

Yup, AOL is key, however much they suck, Microsoft sucks MUCH MUCH more. IMHO, having mozilla on Linux is the biggest app of all.

At this stage of the game, a lot more non-netscape developers (like me :-) (and you ;-) are joining the mozilla effort. Think about it, this is about the last chance you get to scratch that itch before every feature gets frozen - and how many chances did you get before to work on a massive, professional project like this?

Wrong. (5)

mykmelez (6506) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481518)

Mozilla has been planning since the summer to release a public alpha in December, followed by a beta a few months later. In some cases these two releases were called "mozilla beta" and "netscape beta", admittedly a confusing way of describing the releases, and one which was rectified a while ago.

A few months ago some reporter misunderstood the release schedule and reported Netscape would release a beta in December. Since then this inaccuracy has propagated into all subsequent news articles through the common journalistic practice of re-using previously published work instead of doing original research.

Now suddenly some reporter discovers what's actually going on, but instead of printing a retraction of earlier stories they say the Netscape beta has been "delayed". It isn't true, and while I expect it from the news sites I've been reading it from for months, I figured Slashdot would be able to figure it out. I guess not.

Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself:

The Milestone Chart [mozilla.org]

Quoting from the article "[ Fwd: The Plan] [deja.com] " (1999 September 24) in the newsgroup "netscape.public.mozilla.porkjockeys":

"When: Mozilla beta-milestone 12/15. Netscape beta later, first things first."

IE 5.5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481519)

Just by way of comparison, can anyone say what new features IE 5.5 will have? In truth, I had not even heard of it before this article and had been wondering when the next IE would be released.

for mac users iCab is better than ie or nc (1)

browser_war_pow (100778) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481520)

I am using iCab right now on my powerbook and it truly is a joy to use as web browsers go. It is even more light weight than opera and it has a really nice gui. I also like how it desplays sites even better than ie and nc at times. Once it supports JavaScript (already supports Java cuz Mac browsers can use apple's runtime instead of having to use their own) it will definitely become the main browser among Mac users. As for Linux, opera will do very nicely.

Re:Is that beta or final? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481521)

CNET know what beta means. It's AOL's marketers that probably like calling beta trial.

One word, fortify! (1)

ffatTony (63354) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481523)

I forsee very soon after the final release of mozilla (or perhaps the alpha/beta if we're lucky) a patch from the fortify people to make it 128 bit the way they patch netscape. It seems as though it would be even easier to patch mozilla for higher encryption as they have the source code.

Re:Beat them at their own game? not likely (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 14 years ago | (#1481525)

I use netscape in NT 4 sp4 and Linux 2.2.13 and I have used it for years. I have never had a crashing problem. So WTF is wrong with you people, do you have shitty systems or are you just clueless.

Re:Absurd -- Thank you AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1481528)

No way, i think you are doing something terribly wrong. My install took about 45 minutes on a laptop. And most of the setup time goes to determining devices, so can't really compare with linux.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>