MozillaZine

Name of Netscape Browser?

Friday February 11th, 2000

I've gotten a number of submissions to a news article that supposedly gives the name of Netscape's next branded browser as Netscape 6.0. However, from talking to some folks at Netscape, I have found out that they have not yet settled on a name, so this news is premature (as, apparently, was our mention of the name Netscape 2001). We will let you know when we have a concrete answer.


#1 Netscape 6.0

by jmissig <x-virge@shafe.com>

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:24 PM

Reply to this message

I personally think Mozilla is generation 6, not 5, so Netscape 6.0 makes sense for me.

#41 Re: Netscape 6.0

by Adnan <a.selimovic@qssbh.com>

Monday February 14th, 2000 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape 2001 reflects better changes that have been made. It has less or nothing in common with Navigator.

#2 BeZilla

by grappler <thegrappler@usa.net>

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:36 PM

Reply to this message

What happened to BeZilla????

Is it dead? It's last build is M8! Anyone know if that project is still going, but just delayed?

#7 Re: BeZilla

by spacecow <spacecow@mis.net>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 12:01 AM

Reply to this message

I don't mean to be flaming, but come on, if you're going to post something, why post something about BeZilla on a discussion for the news of a name? Really, that's stupid. Why don't you check the newsgroup out? Or ask on npm.general? You're much more likely to get an answer from them than from people expecting to discuss mozilla's name.

#19 Re: Re: BeZilla

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 9:50 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe he felt that it was necessary to post here because there are almost never any MozillaZine topics focusing on "BeZilla," and therefore, no chances to ask about it.

#22 The last I heard

by Tekhir

Saturday February 12th, 2000 10:34 AM

Reply to this message

There was an internal error in BeOS's compiler for R4.5.x so they couldn't buildbeZilla on the codebase. But the engineer Be donated said that the compiler in R5 fixes that problem. R5 should come out within the next 2 weeks if the rumors are true.

#21 The status

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

I have talked to a couple of the guys on the project a while back, and what they do is spurts of development as the main code base matures.

It would be a waste of time for them to come up with every M release for testing. I was suprised that they have not posted an alpha build, however.

Anyways, these guys have proven that they do a good job working in spurts on the project, so I have faith that they are going to keep up.

#31 Re: BeZilla

by just

Saturday February 12th, 2000 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

According to a post on n.p.m.beos: "We have development versions in the works based off M13. We keep fixing bugs."

As far as I can tell, the BeZilla team has been playing a catch-up job from the start. They were getting really close until Necko stopped things a bit. My guess is that 'BONE', the new Networking Environment for R5 would make things much easier in this area (as it finally allows things like sockets as file descriptors which makes porting unix based networking functions much easier... finally we can expect a *real* port of Perl!). I suppose the BeZilla team are using R5 betas now (at least I'm certain Duncan Wilcox would be, working for Be and all, but I don't know if he's got much time for BeZilla at this stage, he's probably working on R5 himself).

Once the BeZilla team catches-up completely I'm sure we can expectBeOS releases for all further milestones and I'm certain that with R5 freely available for download (and able to be run from Windows) more developers will have access to BeOS. So perhaps we can also expect nightly BeZilla builds too in the near future. I think this is one area where Be's decision to release R5 freely will really have some benefits.

#3 How can AOL release a browser that's not complete?

by Quelish

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:36 PM

Reply to this message

Check out this article at news.com: <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1548169.html>

My question is how can AOL release Netscape 6.0 when Mozilla is not even complete? I understand that Gecko is 99% complete but it's still got some minor bug fixes, right?

Either news.com has jumped the gun here or AOL is hiding something from us Mozilla folk.

#4 Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not compl

by mozineAdmin

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:42 PM

Reply to this message

"Either news.com has jumped the gun here or AOL is hiding something from us Mozilla folk."

Uh, I'll give you one guess...

#5 Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not compl

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:43 PM

Reply to this message

Gecko is more or less complete, it just need some tweaks. The components that use Gecko (main browser, mail, etc) still needs most of the work.

I am guessing that AOL might be hiding something, but with no real reliable info for me to speculate further 8P

<:3)~~

#6 They are hiding that Shop@aol button. n/t

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday February 11th, 2000 9:53 PM

Reply to this message

Die AOL.

#10 you and that Shop button, LOL <:3)~~ (n/t)

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 12:36 AM

Reply to this message

(n/t)

<:3)~~

#9 Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not compl

by spacecow <spacecow@mis.net>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 12:12 AM

Reply to this message

Quite cool, actually. Enough of my brain is not dominated by binary operations that I know that PR is/was going to have a tough time spinning the browser. Standards compliance is a checkmark on businesspeople's list, only web developers care about it. Intergration with the OS (like IE) is a big ass deal to them, and they think it's important. Real geeks know it's not (or at least, IE's implementation isn't). Every standard that programmers have worked hard to support is going to look like this to business people: "Mozilla is compliant with W3C standards." That's it. No mention of the sweat that the developers went through. So I wanted to know what ways marketing would show off the browser that would make it look like it was something cool, and worth looking at and switching to. I don't, however, think that we should be making that large of an issue out of the fact that it can be easily customized. Who the hell cares? Real features should be touted. I think that Moz 7 (err whatever) will have a lot of geewiz type stuff like that.

#13 Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not compl

by thelem

Saturday February 12th, 2000 6:51 AM

Reply to this message

It is a bit early, but maybe they are talking about a beta, but then I saw this:

"The new browser looks similar to Communicator 4.7, with some noticeable differences, according to Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget, who attended the AOL briefing. " Would noticable differances include things like round buttons, a totally differant layout, new icons and not forgetting the new colours?

"Netscape 6.0's technology also will support AOL's moves onto non-PC devices, according to Bentley. AOL is trying to push its service onto PDAs, cell phones, TV set-top boxes and other remote products as a way to keep its customers on its services." Sounds like Mozilla to me, there has been loads of talk about putting Mozilla in set top boxes etc, and I guess it would work on a PDA.

Lemming

#35 Re: Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not c

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday February 13th, 2000 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

> Would noticable differances include >things like round buttons, a > totally differant layout, new icons >and not forgetting the new colours? Could be, or they might have just change the GIF's for the buttons and icons to look just like NS4. And speaking of GIF's when will Moz use PNG for the default UI?

Basic

#36 Re: Re: How can AOL release a browser that's not c

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday February 13th, 2000 5:57 PM

Reply to this message

> Would noticable differances include

>things like round buttons, a

> totally differant layout, new icons

>and not forgetting the new colours?

Could be, or they might have just change the GIF's for the buttons and icons to look just like NS4. And speaking of GIF's when will Moz use PNG for the default UI?

Basic

#25 It's hardly "not done"

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

They said they weren't going to release it until spring/summer, and that's when final is scheduled for Mozilla, no? I mean, the beta's only a month or a bit more away. Once feature freeze comes about it's just bug squashing from there.

#38 If M14 is beta, It will reach beta in about a week

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday February 13th, 2000 6:10 PM

Reply to this message

If M14 is beta. It will reach beta in about a week or so.

#39 Re: If M14 is beta, It will reach beta in about a

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday February 13th, 2000 9:04 PM

Reply to this message

How is that possible? They still have more M14 bugs than Bugzilla's little mind can count.

#40 They may have lots of M14 bugs, but...

by mozineAdmin

Sunday February 13th, 2000 9:25 PM

Reply to this message

...here are only a portion of those that are deemed "beta" blockers. Those are being dealt with, and the # has been coming down steadily.

#42 :-) beta-blockers=drugs to slow heart rate!

by fat_cow

Monday February 14th, 2000 8:14 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#44 Re: They may have lots of M14 bugs, but...

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Monday February 14th, 2000 12:43 PM

Reply to this message

So will every other bug be moved to M15?

#8 Its version number should go back to 1

by mat

Saturday February 12th, 2000 12:05 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know about the name but i think the version number should go back to 1.0

#11 Netscape 1.0

by uksi

Saturday February 12th, 2000 2:03 AM

Reply to this message

People keep asking, "Why not start from Netscape 1.0? since Mozilla is so radically rewritten.

Well, one very good reason for not doing that is once Netscape 2, then 3, then 4 come out, it's going to create confusion between really old versions of Netscape (e.g. current versions of Netscape 4) and really new versions of Netscape.

It may also break scripts that depend on the major version to be above 3 or 4.

If you start from 5 or 6, then you avoid this confusion.

#15 Re: Netscape 1.0

by BlueGecko8

Saturday February 12th, 2000 8:11 AM

Reply to this message

I agree, Netscape 1.0 would be very odd. However, Mozilla 1.0 (or Gecko 1.0 or FansySuperBrowser 1.0) wouldn't be. This reflects even better than Netscape 1.0 the fact that Mozilla is a truly new technology.

Your argument about scripts is sort of weak, though. All you'd have to do is what IE does, and report yourself as a 5.0 browser. (Though user agent request reading "Mozilla 5.0 (Compatible); Mozilla 1.0" would be a little odd...) or something to that extent. (Windows 95 identifies itself to programs as 4.0, for example, and IIRC 98 identifies itself as 4.1, so it's not like this is a new or untried idea.)

#17 Re: Re: Netscape 1.0

by FrodoB

Saturday February 12th, 2000 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

But this isn't Mozilla 1.0. Netscape versions 1.0 (actually, the beta cycle thereof) through 4.7(2) are all Mozilla underneath the hood. They're just not THIS Mozilla. This IS Mozilla 5.0 (or 6.0, but I won't enter that debate).

#12 Netscape Me!!!!!

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 6:03 AM

Reply to this message

Yess, let's follow MSFT's lead and call it something totally stupid-sounding (TM) like Netscape Me! Or Netscape Millennium.

Joking, people. Quick, don't let AOL see this post ...

#14 Windows ME?

by brobinson

Saturday February 12th, 2000 7:52 AM

Reply to this message

Why not just Windows Millenium? ME sounds retarded. Microsoft can be very retarded. It should be 6.0 cause the scrapped MozillaClassic was supposed to be 5.0.

#23 It will grow at people

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 11:26 AM

Reply to this message

By the time the darn thing is released (by then I hope to be using Linux somewhat regularily) people will get used that retarded name and think it's the best and only operating system on the face of the Earth 8P

<:3)~~

#24 Re: Windows ME?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 1:06 PM

Reply to this message

I think names like Windows ME have the same purpose as names like My Netscape, My AOL, My Yahoo and Yourware. I guess they are supposed to make people feel like they have a personal tie to whatever the service is. How could I not use AOL if it is mine? How could I not use Windows if it is "Me"?

#26 Re: Re: Windows ME?

by brobinson

Saturday February 12th, 2000 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

ME=Millenium Edition

I don't think they wanted to call it 98 Third Edition because it would be Windows 98 TE and that makes it sound even more like a $100 bug fix than Windows Millenium Edition (ME).

#28 Re: Re: Re: Windows ME?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

I did not know that was an acronym. in that case, it is not like the other names. Instead, it is much more pathetic. You are quite right about their choice of a name.

#30 Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows ME?

by brobinson

Saturday February 12th, 2000 3:55 PM

Reply to this message

Here's the article from BetaNews.com:

<-------> Microsoft has officially announced that the next version of Windows will officially be named Millennium Edition, or Windows Me. Microsoft was quick to end embarrassing rumors that this latest consumer version of Windows, currently code-named Millennium, would be dubbed Windows 98 Third Edition. To clarify that this version of Windows is specifically targeted towards home use, Microsoft made the decision to promote Windows Me as an upgrade for Windows 98. Keep checking back for more details as they arise. <------->

It was short so I posted the whole thing. Link is<http://betanews.efront.co…rticle.php3?sid=949481373>

#45 Windows ME? Windows YOU!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Monday February 14th, 2000 2:15 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe this will be a future joke/insult: Windows YOU!

Hey, if there was 'Plug and Pray' (as oppose to 'Plug and Play'), then there can be 'Windows YOU!'

<:3)~~

#16 How about...

by BlueGecko8

Saturday February 12th, 2000 8:14 AM

Reply to this message

"Netscaope Navigator Anti-Microsoft Edition 1.0"? You'd be sure to get immediate and full support of both Linux and Mac communities! ;)

#18 Sound great! Just kidding... (n/t)

by url <urlradio@yahoo.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

(n/t)

#20 I think they already have that... n/t

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

Die Microsoft

#27 NN 6.0 makes sense

by PhiSch

Saturday February 12th, 2000 2:55 PM

Reply to this message

I think NN6 makes sense, because when it will be out, IE 6 will be out, too.

Otherwise people will think NN is behind.

#29 The Microsoft Way

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday February 12th, 2000 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

They could just release the new Netscape tonight as Netscape 5. Then, when it is finished, they can release it again as Netscape Second Edition. It has worked before.

#32 Another News.com article

by kc7gza

Saturday February 12th, 2000 7:37 PM

Reply to this message

It seems that the news.com reporters are very good at getting their facts wrong. The article at <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1534876.html> reports that "In addition, [mozilla] uses Extensible User Interface Language (XUL)..."

Extensible? Where did that come from?

#33 Re: Another News.com article

by zontar

Sunday February 13th, 2000 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

Not to nitpick, but I believe that news.com was right about that point. The article said, "Communicator 5.0 is based on Gecko, the Communicator browsing engine responsible for rendering graphics and text. In addition, it uses Extensible User Interface Language (XUL), a new technology for creating the user interface with Web programming languages rather than computer coding languages."

See Dave Hyatt's <A href="<http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulrdf.htm>">XUL and RDF: The Implementation of the Application Object Model</A>, 3rd paragraph.

BTW, I don't have a problem with MozClassic being designated stand-in for Netscape 5 and calling this spring's release 6.0 -- just get the sucker out there before IE 6 comes out.

#34 IE 6.0.

by FrodoB

Sunday February 13th, 2000 11:45 AM

Reply to this message

Given the fact that 5.5 has been in beta 1 for a fairly lengthy amount of time (as beta cycles go), I'm inclined to think that the window of opportunity before IE 6.0 is still pretty large. :)

#37 who cares?

by tkc

Sunday February 13th, 2000 5:57 PM

Reply to this message

Frankly, I don't care what AOL calls the next v. of Netscape. So far, each build gets better and better, and Navigator/Communicator is definitely 'killer app' material. They can call it version 10 for all I care. It rocks.

#43 Odyssey

by Hard_Code

Monday February 14th, 2000 12:17 PM

Reply to this message

One word - Odyssey

#46 Netscape 6

by sdm

Tuesday February 15th, 2000 5:11 AM

Reply to this message