Tree Closed for M13

Wednesday January 19th, 2000

The tree has closed for M13 stabilization, so we can expect to see an M13 build show up sometime within the next week or so. There has been a lot of work done over the past few weeks, and I think a lot of people will be happy with the progress they see in the final M13 binaries. Keep an eye out here for news and more of what to expect in M13.

#1 There are a lot of M13 bugs

by Tekhir

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 12:41 PM

I hope they take the extra time to fix most of them instead of moving them to new milestones. Iw ould rather have them fix all of the regressions now beforeit gets harder to later.

#6 There are about 30 now. (n/t)

by mozineAdmin

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 6:47 PM

#9 Bugs? I even cannot install M12

by allard

Thursday January 20th, 2000 5:40 AM

Dear Mozilla developers,

why talking about bugs on the running M12 app? We even cannot install the M12 on a clean German NT4 SP5. During setup Profile selection, the whole install crashes... Sure, mozregistry.dat etc. have been deleted before later retrials with no effects.

Unless I've overseen something, I don't think it would be wise to put this kind of builds to a world wide public!

Allard Mees

#10 Re: Bugs? I even cannot install M12

by asa

Thursday January 20th, 2000 6:30 AM

You have either overlooked something or you have something very non-standard in your environment. Thousands of users have installed and tested with great success builds from the last couple of months.

I have spoken to a couple of people with start-up problems and in one case they were able get mozilla up by running the installer version which updates a windows dll. In another case they were able to get mozilla running by starting with the -installer or -mail flag. If you have tried the installer.exe and the zip version both, please post back with more specifics. Or join us on #mozillazine in for help.


(posted with mozilla build 1/19/00)

#25 Re: Re: Bugs? I even cannot install M12

by allard

Friday January 21st, 2000 1:13 AM

We have tested it on *several* different environments, mostly NT, but also Win98. The NT boxes have Asus P3, EIDE or SCSI, 256RAM etc., rather standard indeed. I did manage to get the M7 running on a German NT machine at that time when it came out (not on a machine were these M12 are tried upon, so it can't be old traces of M7 which are blocking off), but reenterng the arena with M12 thus failed completely. If it is said that there are thousends who succeeded, from my experience, there also should be thousands who didn't and gave up. But I'll go for a try to report the whole thing. Thanks for the stimulation.


#26 Bugs? I even cannot report bugs?

by allard

Friday January 21st, 2000 2:47 AM


on 2 machines (German NT4, SP5), I did try the M12 with Fullcircle install. Both crashes after selecting a default folder for the profile. Then Dr.Watson turns up + Fullcircle. When trying to send the report, Dr.Watson turns up again, this time for FullCircle. The same Dr. Watson when I try to see the details of what FullCircle is going to report. No wonder that the Mozilla project people mainly see the positive results, since one starts thinking that one cannot report negative results.... Really, I like the project and product idea, but this is too much for a forthcoming alpha!!!

Allard Mees Mainz Germany

#27 Re: Bugs? I even cannot report bugs?

by Tanyel

Friday January 21st, 2000 5:00 AM

I agree. I've never been able to get that fullcircle thing working on this computer. However, the web browser has not crashed on my computer since 18 January, so I think maybe it is slowly getting better.

#46 Positive reports, only.

by Martyr

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 9:29 PM

In that case there would be no bug reports, right? I do seem to recall seeing quite a bit of user feedback on various problems across the life cycle of moz. But if you're just going to complain and not try to fix anything...Far too many people are stuck in the old commercial software mentality. "It must work perfect the first time I see it or I will complain until the sysadmin takes care of it." That paradigm is void when you have the ability to at least contribute, if not fix the thing yourself....

#48 Re: Positive reports, only.

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 6:26 AM

I think his point was, although there are some people who can run Mozilla and provide feedback, those people who cannot run Mozilla are unable to provide feedback, and they may be underrepresented. This may lead people to believe Mozilla is more stable than it actually is because they only hear comments from the people who have had success with it. I think it would be better to consider the possibility of this being true than to attack the person who brought it to your attention.

#50 Feedback

by Martyr

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 8:30 AM

My point is this -- even those that can't run it can provide feedback. Bugzilla is open to all. If it crashes upon startup, that's feedback. If it dies between opening the first page and startup, that's feedback. If it won't install, that's feedback. To say, "I can't run it so I can't provide feedback" is faulty argumentation.

#64 where to go with feedback

by allard

Monday January 24th, 2000 1:02 PM


but if one provides a package with FullCircle, and even that crashes, any normal person would suggest an alternative, such as a dumped protocol to be send to xy@z. But no hints, nothing can be found. This fatal install crash could also have been avoided by offering an alternativ checkbox "no profile needed" or something similar. Think about all these people who only need a browser for viewing a CDROM or other documentation, not for online surfing with all the fancy network options.


#18 I have the same problem

by foamy

Thursday January 20th, 2000 2:45 PM

on our 'standard' Dell machines. One is running NT and the other 98. Since I don't work on the PCs much I can't compare the builds with the Mac builds, which I use on a regular basis.

I think Allard has a point that it should install on 'standard' machines, even at this stage of the game.


#61 Re: Bugs? I even cannot install M12

by arpa

Monday January 24th, 2000 1:54 AM

I also have had problems with my other NT machine. Cras after profile creation/selection. Crash appeared last november. I tried everything, even installer package didn't work.

Last week (jan 19:th?) suddenly started to work. In tinderbox was a mention of a bugfix which corrected that wrong dll crash. I suppose that helped also my problem with startup crash.


#63 Re: Re: Bugs? I even cannot install M12

by allard

Monday January 24th, 2000 12:56 PM

Thanks arpa, this does give me the feeling that I haven't been the only one who gave up trying to get M12 running. I'll go for a build after January 19th.


#2 guten tag

by megaloB

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 12:46 PM

I think that's great but in the past couple of nightly builds there's been a bug in the refresh or something (try going to / / or something with a similar layout with 2000-01-18-09-win 32 build. (if not 09 it's 08, I'm on a mac at school right now and my short term memory is faltering.

I don't know if this is a known bug, but I assumed it was and didn't file a report. Feel free to damn me :)

Besides that, I have all confidence the final product (M13 (will Netscape release a Netscape branded alpha?)) will be more stable than m12, but I would like to point this out.


#3 Proxy

by rgelb

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 4:29 PM

Will the proxy be finally working in m13???

#4 Re: Proxy

by gerbilpower

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 4:36 PM

I know this has been discussed a zillion times before and I don't remember much about it, but hasn't proxies been working for a while? I don't remember ... okay this is where one of you guys jump in before I make a further fool of myself ...


#5 Re: Proxy (password proxy)

by hodeleri

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 5:58 PM

Its the password proxy that is not working properly. I noticed on bug 22405 has been marked resolved, and basic proxy auth is in, but apparently they are not persistent (24329)

#16 This is what I know.

by rgelb

Thursday January 20th, 2000 11:32 AM

Basically speaking, I download mozilla, assign it the same proxy settings that are working fine in ns4.7 and ie5. Mozilla still can't access anything. To me that means that proxy isn't working.

#23 Re: This is what I know.

by Jake

Thursday January 20th, 2000 9:28 PM

There are basically two different ways to determain who can access a Proxy server. One is everybody who knows it's IP address/machine name and one is restricted to people with a valid username/password combination. I would guess that yours falls into the second catagory. In that catagory, there are different ways to authenticate. The easiest and most strait forward is basic/plain text. This is where a browser send your user name and password to the proxy server with absolutly no encryption. This method is currently supported by Mozilla. Another way is a challenge/responce. The only one of this type I know of for sure is NTLM (M$'s proticol). This method is currently not supported by Mozilla. Although, based on you're statement that it work it NS 4.7, I'd say this particular type of Authentication isn't used on your proxy server (NTLM only works with IE). It would really help if you could tell us more specifics on your setup (if you even know them) as there are many different makers of Proxy's (I know Novell has one based on NDS and am sure there are others).

#28 NTLM Authentication?

by SomeGuy

Friday January 21st, 2000 8:42 AM

Is there any chance NTLM Authentication will ever get hacked in to Mozilla or Netscape 5? The network people where I work just set up a Microsoft Proxy that exclusively uses NTLM, killing several thousand Netscape users. They refuse to change the server and I don't want to be stuck with IE here forever!

#29 NTLM Authentication?

by SomeGuy

Friday January 21st, 2000 8:42 AM

Is there any chance NTLM Authentication will ever get hacked in to Mozilla or Netscape 5? The network people where I work just set up a Microsoft Proxy that exclusively uses NTLM, killing several thousand Netscape users. They refuse to change the server and I don't want to be stuck with IE here forever!

#31 Only if....

by FrodoB

Friday January 21st, 2000 9:17 AM

Someone reverse-engineers it, a non-trivial task (to say the least), or MS releases the specifications for it (unlikely at best).

#33 Re: Only if....

by Tanyel

Friday January 21st, 2000 12:20 PM

If that is the case then maybe people at Netscape should hope somebody brings that up in the antitrust trial.

#30 Re: This is what I know.

by texasaggie

Friday January 21st, 2000 8:46 AM

We have a proxy autoconfig here at my office and I have had mixed success. I have set the auto proxy config URL (and verified it in the prefs file) and cannot get it to work. I can manually set the proxy settings for our firewall and then get to everything externally, but nothing internally. I can remove the proxy settings and get to everything internally, but nothing externally. It's annoying, but liveable for now.

#17 Re: Proxy, how it works for me

by maphew

Thursday January 20th, 2000 1:11 PM

I've managed to get (and keep) the proxy working for the last couple of months (win32). Look for this file:


Beginning near line#210 look for the section between these two lines:

pref("network.proxy.autoconfig_url", ""); ... pref("network.proxy.no_proxies_on", "");

For our firewall, which is a passive everything thru port 80 proxy, all I had to change was:

pref("network.proxy.http", ""); pref("network.proxy.http_port", 80);

good luck,


#7 Mac Builds?

by foamy

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 7:48 PM

I was really happy with M12 mac builds and the early M13 builds, but the latest mac builds have benn 'peculiar'. I can't place my finger on it, but they just feel slower, the startup feels slower, it feels like it is crashing more often. Like I said, I can't nail anything down, but it just 'feels' like th mac build have taken a step backwards.

Anyone else notice this???


#8 Regressions

by gerbilpower

Wednesday January 19th, 2000 10:16 PM

There were some nasty regressions the last week or so, so that might be it. On win32 the more recent builds seem faster and pretty rock solid (I had one secession where Mozilla outlasted both Netscape and IE, WHOOHOO)


#15 Re: Uptime

by WillyWonka

Thursday January 20th, 2000 11:05 AM

Just the other day, I had Mozilla up and running for 5 hours straight (Mind you I didn't drag any of the menus and I didn't go into search the internet as those crash frequently). The reason I had to shut it down was, I ran out of ram. The memory leaks are still pretty bad.

On the other hand, I could open as many windows as I needed and it didn't crash (Like v4.7 does). While running mozilla both explorer and nav 4.7 crashed at least once (And I wasn't even using explorer other than looking at files on my hd)

Keep up the great work!

#11 Needs a better initial setup!

by Quelish

Thursday January 20th, 2000 7:32 AM

I hope that the initial setup goes into more detail in future milestones. It sure would be nice to configure my proxy and mail settings (among other things) when I create a profile!

Along that same note, I DO like the direction that the setup util has taken. It looks a lot better than the early releases.

#13 Re: Needs a better initial setup!

by asa

Thursday January 20th, 2000 9:05 AM

if you're using the zipped version you can run mozilla -installer the first time and it will migrate 4.x profiles. The setup version installer.exe is getting better too. I've got a pretty well set up profile with all my mail and news settings as well as proxy settings and bookmarks so I don't delete it when I get a new build (almost daily).


(posted with mozilla)

#12 Skins

by Mazen

Thursday January 20th, 2000 7:35 AM

Now that M13 is almost out of the door, how do I change skins? I downloaded the PNG skin from "chromeZone", but I couldn't get it to work and I'm not even sure if it works with M13.

Shukran, Thanks, Danke, Merci, Gracias, Zixliwav.

#14 Re: Skins

by asa

Thursday January 20th, 2000 9:08 AM

This is not yet implimented. You can make some skin changes manually if the skin package is up to date but the preference for skin swapping is not hooked up yet.

#19 1582

by Tanyel

Thursday January 20th, 2000 3:03 PM

Are they planning to fix bug 1582 any time soon? Is it really that difficult?

#20 Re: 1582

by gerbilpower

Thursday January 20th, 2000 4:16 PM

The bug report says that it's set for Milestone 15, so most likely it won't be fixed soon.

There are countless bugs that many people want fixed ASAP but because all the bugs cannot be fixed at once, they have to prioritize them. So some bugs will be fixed soon, others will have to wait because the distribution of the limited human resources.

Also, you or I can judge how easy or hard it is to fix a bug when we don't have the programming experience. We have to leave it with the people who have the knowledge and experience.


#21 Re: Re: 1582

by Tanyel

Thursday January 20th, 2000 4:29 PM

Are you sure I do not have the necessary programming experience?

#22 Re: Re: Re: 1582

by gerbilpower

Thursday January 20th, 2000 8:21 PM

I originally meant that part of my post to be ambigious, but I don't know, do you :)


#24 Re: Re: Re: Re: 1582

by Tanyel

Thursday January 20th, 2000 10:19 PM

Yes, dear.

#32 If you do, then fix it n/t

by Kovu

Friday January 21st, 2000 10:09 AM


#38 I work for money n/t

by Tanyel

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 6:24 AM

I assumed somebody would type such a statement.

#37 1582

by men

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 6:06 AM

Bug 1582 already was marked for M3, M8, M9, M10, M13 and finally it is for M15...

It will be never fixed!!!

#34 Moz is trash!

by Ugg

Friday January 21st, 2000 4:26 PM

I'd like to know what people are getting so excited about; milestone after milestone gets released and I rarely, if ever, see any improvement from a user/web developer standpoint.

People talk about stability; my copy of M12 dies at the slightest wrong touch. People talk about "dogfood"; the Netscape people must have iron dog stomachs to use a product for any length of time that doesn't do anything right EXCEPT render pages. Form menus, contextual menus, prefs; all of these open useless blank windows. It doesn't remember window placement, bookmarks, toolbar settings, etc., thereby forcing me to reset them with every relaunch and pray it doesn't go down when I do. Every time I try to write some neat high-tech content, I run into style bugs, or JS bugs, or display bugs, or gods know what else.

(Ugg rants at some length. Moz still has a LOT of problems.)

I'm well aware that Moz is still at pre-alpha status, and that it's expected to be buggy and feature-incomplete. But to hear people talk about "possible alpha" and "dogfood" and "branded public release" and "a lot of improvement" makes me laugh; showing this to the public would drive people to MSIE as surely as if a cattle prod were used, and I'm certainly not impressed.

I have always been a Moz supporter, and for the forseeable future I will continue to be a Moz supporter, but personally, I'd like to see a lot less back-patting and meaningless milestone releases and a lot more getting the bloody thing to work halfway right.

#35 Re: Moz is trash!

by asa

Friday January 21st, 2000 7:04 PM

>People talk about stability;

Yep. I talk about stability. I talk about it nearly every day. I talk with users, serious testers and developers about where it is getting better, where it is not. I use mozilla every day for several hours at a time without crashes or freezes. I use it as my exclusive mail and news reader. I browse the same couple dozen sites that I would browse in Navigator or in Explorer without major hinderence. I'm very happy with the stability gains that mozilla has made in the last 6 weeks especially. Yes. People do talk about stability. I'm one of them.

>Form menus, contextual menus, prefs; all of these open useless blank windows. It doesn't remember window placement, bookmarks, toolbar settings, etc

This all works prety well for me. Maybe you need some help getting Mozilla set up. I'd be glad to help.

>I have always been a Moz supporter

And like most mozilla supporters you title your post "Mos is trash!" What ever dude.

>meaningless milestone releases

umm, a milestone release is a checkpoint. It's a chance to stop for a couple of days and see what you've got. You complain about stability but call a milestone checkpoint meaningless. I'm losing faith in your reasoning.

>getting the bloody thing to work halfway right.

Getting it to work all the way right is my goal. I give some of my time daily helping Mozilla toward this objective. If it really matters to you and you are more than this troll of a post leads me to believe then maybe you'll offer to help out too.


#39 Re: Re: Moz is trash!

by Tanyel

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 6:46 AM

Where do I begin? When it says "number of webshells being leaked: 10", is that as bad as I think it is?

I think the reason Ugg has not seen the improvement others have seen is because he is using the M12 milestone instead of one of the more recent nightly builds. I downloaded the file in the "latest" folder yesterday, and it was working quite nicely. It only failed at, and did not crash at all.

#68 Re: Re: Moz is trash!

by Ugg

Saturday January 29th, 2000 1:56 PM

> I use mozilla every day for several > hours at a time without crashes or > freezes.

On what planet? Surely not Earth. Do you think I'm making this stuff up? M12 crashes like the bad guy's car in an action movie. I know, I sit here while it does it.

> Maybe you need some help getting > Mozilla set up.

Yes, if I were incompetent - which I'm not - that would be very helpful.

> most mozilla supporters you > title your post "Mos is trash!"

"Supporter" doesn't mean "ass-kisser". I'm all for what Mozilla purports to provide. This doesn't alter the fact that it does not, as yet, provide this.

#36 Re: Moz is trash!

by DTHML_Fiend

Friday January 21st, 2000 11:45 PM

Well I won't start off by saying that Mozilla is the best thing out there, etc, etc because if you don't believe then it's not in my power to convince you. What I will say is that maybe you expect too much from the UI. UI is very important but it's not the number one top issue here, other things like XUL, rendering, and DOM far out weight the fact that prefs might not always work. People expect Moz to instantly have all the nicer refinements like IE has and of course that will come but right now the core is more important. As for stability, I'd say they have made improvements. For me personally I can use Moz for a long time and not have it crash. Maybe part of your instabilty problem is the result of a less then stable OS. Win98 and esp Win98SE are two very, nasty and unstable work environments, possibly using Linux or Win2k/NT will help solve that issue. And while Moz does still have quite a few rendering bugs and dom bugs none of the other big browsers out there have CSS or the DOM right. I must agree with you that Moz can be a pain in the ass some times and I admit that I don't and won't use Mozilla as my primary browser for awhile, but I see nothing wrong with people doing a little celebrating and back patting. I know as a developer that being told that your product is shit by people that don't have all the facts in hand really sucks the will to develop right out of ya esp when what youre showing off isn't the finished product.

#40 Moz is no trash!

by Mazen

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 7:55 AM

The importance of the UI and other visible aspects of Mozilla is that they are the first things people see. People want a stable, usable browser. Most people don't care to try the nightly builds twice a week, and they don't bother to forecast that stability is coming. "Mozilla is still unstable", they think.

In my mind, the importance performance of the UI can be summarized as follows:

== We want Mozilla to succeed.

=> We want Mozilla to be used by a large number of people.

=> We need the press and users who bother to download Mozilla to spread the good word.

== The press and most users who are not "committed" to Mozilla are most impressed by UIs and most annoyed by instability.

== The press and most users do not complain as loudly about standards as they do about the UI.

== The press and most users will compare Mozilla with Netscape and IE.

== Magazines like to print screen shots with arrows pointing to "nifty" UI features.

=> The success of Mozilla is sadly more closely tied to "cool" than to "important" features.

>> THEREFORE: Much attention needs to be given to the UI and to stability.

Most users don't know what XML, SSL or CSS are and they don't care. They don't mind waiting four months for Mozilla to support a three letter acronym that they don't understand, but they do want a browser soon. In the mean while, they are getting more comfortable with IE.

Standards are important to developers like myself, but all the standards in the world won't help the user base is tiny.

#42 Re: Moz is no trash!

by Tanyel

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 9:15 AM

I agree. Netscape would probably gain more users by saying Mozilla is IE compliant than talking about XML.

I think the most exciting concepts in Mozilla are the ones that have nothing to do with Web "standards". I have not noticed any of the difficulties of lacking XML or CSS support because the websites I view were designed to work with web browsers that get along fine without the various recomendations. I did notice things about the interface that were good, or seemed quite promising.

I did not switch to Internet Explorer because of its level of W3C "standards" support. I switched because it remembered passwords, I could resize the browser without waiting for the entire page and all of the graphics to load, and I did not have to stare at "starting java..." for several years before a webpage loaded. Mozilla has solved at least two of those problems. If they had not focused on the future "standards" then the browser would probably be ready by now.

#43 Re: Re: Moz is no trash!

by FrodoB

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 10:44 AM

Not to be a nitpicking bastard, but you don't have to stare at "Starting Java..." all the time if you add "-start_java" (minus the quotes) to your shortcut's command line that you use to open Netscape. :)

#45 If Moz had not focussed on standards...

by Martyr

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 9:21 PM

Then it would be pronounced DOA by the developer community once it was released and then fawned over by the shallow popular press magazines. Once people found out that Moz spent (however much time it had spent) and the standards issues STILL hadn't been resolved, then guess what. More of the web goes to IE. Just stop it. Standards are important, and moz is doing things the right way by getting these things built it, rather than shoehorned in after the fact (if that were possible). You have to remember that developers author the content that is the Web. Without them (us), there would be no pages for you to resize your browswer on.

#49 Re: If Moz had not focussed on standards...

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 6:49 AM

I am one of those developers, genius. Of all of the various compliments and complaints from visitors to the various Website visitors, none of them ever said "Why don't you have any cascading style sheets?" I believe the people who use web browsers are significant too. My theory was that if Mozilla did everything Netscape and Internet Explorer can do, along with having better "UI" features and a much smaller system requirement, then it would succeed because it would still be the best web browser and the most practical browser.

I understand that it would be more difficult to add these features later, and I think the user interface has become "technologically superior" because of that XUL whatever, but I have learned (mostly from hate mail) that Internet users appreciate "fast and pretty" things more than "better" things. Can you imagine what would have happened to Microsoft if they had waited until Windows 95 was feature-complete before releasing it? We would all be using OS9 or Linux now while they were finishing up.

I think Mozilla is going to be better because of the way it is being designed, but other than people like me and you, who actually understand why, nobody is going to appreciate this until they see it. I am concerned that it may be too late then.

As for the popular press magazines, anybody who receives money from Microsoft is going to support Microsoft. They criticize Mozilla now, even though things are being done "the right way". Let them burn in hell.

#51 Timing

by Martyr

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 8:44 AM

The better product has a much better chance at prevailing here, where it's easy to switch from one browser to the next. Any investment any user has in a browser is tiny compared to switching OSes, for instance. As for being "too late", AOL will roll out Communicator en masse, and simply bludgeon those with no real preference into submission with its portal and preinstalled software. The designers will end up using Moz anyways because it's more standards-compliant. Micro$oft has already been nailed for trying to integrate the web browser with the OS, so the impact of IE integration is fading on the home user front...All signs point towards an inevitable victory.

#53 Re: Timing

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 9:32 AM

Mozilla will only be "standards-compliant" if the number of "standards-compliant" browser users is higher than the number of Internet Explorer users. Otherwise, Internet Explorer is the standard. Not all of us respect W3C, and supporting W3C does not guarantee acceptance.

I am not certain AOL intends to support Netscape any more than it does already. What has AOL done for ICQ? Why is Netscape claiming it does not have enough printers to test its software? Is AOL unable to fund printers? Has netscape ever been advertised on AOL? I think Netscape should assume it is starting over rather than hope for help from AOL.

#62 about: the "AOL problem"

by RvR

Monday January 24th, 2000 6:21 AM

forget about AOL... personnaly, i have no hope in AOL. i don't even care about Netscape nor AOL. i care about only.

I'm helping this project as much as i can just because 1) I see that is a team of nice and talented people who care about the "Open Source movement" and who are going to release the only complete and modern browser for Linux. 2) There's a lot to learn in this project if you are a C++ or XML or Javascript or HTML developper.

all the rest is cheap talk for the magazines...


#54 Future standards?

by brobinson

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 10:38 AM

I could of swore that the standards Mozilla is working towards are CURRENT standards and not FUTURE standards.

#55 Re: Future standards?

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 1:01 PM

Current standards by whose definition? The W3C?

#56 Re: Re: Future standards?

by brobinson

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 3:06 PM

Yes, the W3C. What is it that you have against the W3C?

#58 Re: Re: Re: Future standards?

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 4:44 PM

It is my understanding that one must pay a large sum of money to become a member of the W3C. If that is the case then the group is closed. Therefore, its claims of creating "open standards" are a hypocrisy. The nature of the W3C puts the standards in the hands of its rich members rather than the general public, which is why we will be stuck with the DIV tag instead of the LAYER tag, and whatever else suits those who dictate the W3C.

To answer your question in a single sentence, "my problem with the W3C is its exclusion of the general public from the development process".

To answer your question in a less choreographed manner, "I just do not like the DIV tag".

#70 Re: Re: Moz is no trash!

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday January 29th, 2000 4:10 PM

what is amusing about this is that IE describes itself as being Mozilla 4.0 compatible. ;)

#47 Re: Moz is no trash!

by DTHML_Fiend

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 1:47 AM

What I was trying to state is that UI in not very important at this point in the development cycle. Yes UI is very important to the casual user or the die hard web developer (thats why I still use IE5 as my primary browser...). But UI is usually one of the last things in the development cycle esp with a limited number of developers. Huge core changes or deciding to include new things can dratically confillt with UI development if it is started to early. Take XUL for instance, it completely changed the way UI is created. So yes UI is extremely important, but not at this point in the game, hell in my opion I think its stupid to weigh Moz's usefulness at this point based off of its UI since it has probably gotten the least amount of attention of any part of the project. Starting UI to early would be like buying all new leather interior and bucket seats for your 1954 Ford when the block is craked, your trany's fucked, and your electrical system is shorted. So I'll stick to my guns and say that bulld the core the right way the first time around and then work on the UI, not the other way around.

#69 Re: Re: Moz is trash!

by Ugg

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:13 PM

"What I will say is that maybe you expect too much from the UI. UI is very important but it's not the number one top issue here, other things like XUL, rendering, and DOM far out weight the fact that prefs might not always work."

Let me tell you a little story about the UI, yes?

When I launch Moz to test some of my page code - CSS being one thing it seems to handle pretty well, which Communicator 4.6 does not - the normal thing to do would be to open the file. Quick keyboard shortcut, a little OS-native file browsing, and voila. Unfortunately, if this works at all, it crashes. Same if I use the menuitem manually. So, I try opening my hard drive as a directory and drilling through it to find what I want. No good; half of my folders don't show up, for some reason. So I have to type the entire damn path into the location bar.. which takes longer than it should, because the location bar doesn't edit cleanly. Once I've done this, if I try to bookmark the file to save myself future hassle - something which I've been able to do in every other browser I've used - it won't bookmark it. In fact, it won't bookmark anything.

This is not a minor UI quibble or glitch, in my mind. When I have to bend over backwards just to open a file on my hard drive, this is a significant problem.

Prefs? It's not a case of "might not work".. it's a case of "doesn't work". In fact, the majority of new windows don't work. This is, again, a serious problem.

"Maybe part of your instabilty problem is the result of a less then stable OS."

My system is plenty stable. It runs for weeks without going down, as long as I'm using apps which I know to be stable themselves.

"I know as a developer that being told that your product is shit by people that don't have all the facts in hand really sucks the will to develop right out of ya..."

...and I know that as a user, being told that a product is great when it clearly isn't really sucks the will to evangelize right out of ya.

#41 PickApp

by termite

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 7:59 AM

When is PickApp going to be implemented? Talking of which, what about plugins? Personally, I do a lot of surfing of high-multimedia sites, and I'm forced (against my will almost) to use NS 4.71 or even IE5, which I despise. Also, URL completion, like the above mentioned browsers, would be a nice thing to see. I am a big Mozilla fan, and have been using it since M6, but for it to become my regular browser, features like that must be implemented. Keep up the great work...I can't wait for an alpha/beta release :)

#44 Re: PickApp

by FrodoB

Saturday January 22nd, 2000 10:46 AM

PickApp? Do you mean the ability to choose a non-Mozilla piece of software to handle something (MIME types, mailto:, whatnot)?

As for plugins, as far as I know they mostly work already. I've gotten Flash to work, and Java partially works through the 1.3 plugin (it's a plugin, and it's Java ;) ). Some work on importing them or whatnot is probably still needed, but I think they mostly work.

#52 Re: Re: PickApp

by termite

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 8:46 AM

How do you get realplayer, flash, etc to work? I haven't been able to as of yet. Also, how on earth do you get java applets to work? Btw, will ad-blockers like AtGuard work with mozilla eventually? (they don't as of now (22.1.00 build).

#57 What can we expect next?

by damian

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 4:14 PM

According to M13 may be the official alpha release. So what can we expect in the near future? What will be fixed for the Beta release?

Does the concept of alpha and beta software have any real meaning in the realm of open source free software anyway?

#59 Re: What can we expect next?

by Tanyel

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 4:54 PM

I think they are going to fix everything except bug 1582 :)

I am certain "alpha" and "beta" have the same meaning in open-source software as closed-source software. The words seem to be more psychological than anything else.

#60 bug curves flat since mid-dec

by feldercarb

Sunday January 23rd, 2000 10:35 PM

One positive note: The bug curves have been relatively flat since mid-December. One hopes this signals an impending downturn. At least the monotonic increase I observed earlier has been on hiatus.

That said, it's very depressing to see that so many responses to bug complaints here are of the "it works on my machine so there must be something wrong with you" variety.

Echinacea Feldercarb

#65 ZDNet

by gerbilpower

Monday January 24th, 2000 1:12 PM

For those of you who have complained about it in the past, you can now view the ZDNet web site with no problems, or at least any that I've seen.

Now you can use Mozilla to get ZDNet news, even though you're better off getting it from some other site.


#66 amen to that (n/t)

by url

Monday January 24th, 2000 7:39 PM


#67 Will frames flicker?

by btbernie01

Wednesday January 26th, 2000 1:24 AM

It was a pleasure to see the browser perform JavaScript, open new windows and generate HTML almost flawlessly!

But what will happen to the white/gray background color previously used on framesetting documents until the child frames are loaded? Will it disappear?

With Navigator 4.7 and MSIE 5 there appears to be no way to eliminate the transient effects. Today I cannot write a smooth application with HTML+frames+JavaScript that uses variable frame geometries.

Theoretically, a framesetting "document" is only a control mechanism without a color. But practically, due to network delays and limited processing power, it exists during that time as an ugly gray/white page. Processing power is currently used to paint it anyway, so will we be able to control its color, possibly with document.bgColor=<colorValue> ?