MozillaZine

Mozilla First Release? "Mozilla 1.0"

Thursday June 29th, 2000

There has been some question as to what the first release of Mozilla will be called. But now, in a post to the n.p.m.seamonkey newsgroup, Mitchell Baker states that the name of Mozilla's first release will officially be "Mozilla 1.0". They decided to use the "1.0" appellation because, "this is the first release developed through the open source process, and much of the code and the architecture is new". The user-agent will still begin with the "Mozilla/5.0" substring.


#1 as for netscape...

by ywwg

Thursday June 29th, 2000 6:55 AM

Reply to this message

I assume the Netscape Branded version will still be 6.0 in order to compete with IE's 5.5?

#3 Re: as for netscape...

by doron

Thursday June 29th, 2000 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

calling it netscape 1.0...has a nice touch :)

#16 That, and 5.0 was stillborn

by jesusX <jesus_x@mozillanews.org>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 6:10 PM

Reply to this message

The MozClassic tree, which was what was released on March 31 1998 never made it to release before they decided to kill it and start from scratch. It's half marketing and half reality.

#17 Re: That, and 5.0 was stillborn

by isaacg

Thursday June 29th, 2000 8:28 PM

Reply to this message

Does anybody know where I could get the classic build(s). I had one once and liked it.

#19 Re: Re: That, and 5.0 was stillborn

by wolfseyn

Thursday June 29th, 2000 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

From <http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=1290> There are two Win32 builds here. <http://mozilla.hypermart.net/>

Bookmarks and toolbars are neat... a lot of hard work for nothing (?)

#9 Re: as for netscape...yes

by thelem

Thursday June 29th, 2000 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

yes

#2 Yesh!

by jonde <joona.nuutinen@pp.inet.fi>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 6:57 AM

Reply to this message

All right! This is what I've been waiting for. It's the right thing, after all there haven't been any mozilla.org's browsers before this? I think it's great, but it doesn't really change anything...just makes me happy! :)

#4 This will also truely seperate Mozilla.org from Ne

by SomeSmartAss

Thursday June 29th, 2000 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

.. At least in the eyes of end users & such

#5 Confusion Lurks

by tswan

Thursday June 29th, 2000 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

When Mozilla 2.0 comes out, there might be confusion. Most likely, it will have a Mozilla/7.0 identifier string.

A lot of scripts out there hunt for a Mozilla/2.0 identifier to send a different set of information.

I agree with your reasoning that this is the first release, hence a "1.0" version.

I see your point as I am stumped on what I'm trying to suggest...

#13 please do not use appName in your scripts !

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 1:54 PM

Reply to this message

use object detection !

it's much cleaner and ensures that all W3C DOM compliant browsers will cope with your future scripts...

see webcoder.com's Howto section :

<http://webcoder.com/howto/index.html>

#14 time to forget about appName and use object detect

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 1:57 PM

Reply to this message

use object detection rather than appName parsing in your scripts !

it's much cleaner and ensures that all W3C DOM compliant browsers will cope with your future scripts...

see webcoder.com's Howto section :

<http://webcoder.com/howto/index.html>

#6 Confusion Lurks

by tswan

Thursday June 29th, 2000 8:42 AM

Reply to this message

When Mozilla 2.0 comes out, there might be confusion. Most likely, it will have a Mozilla/7.0 identifier string.

A lot of scripts out there hunt for a Mozilla/2.0 identifier to send a different set of information.

I agree with your reasoning that this is the first release, hence a "1.0" version.

I see your point as I am stumped on what I'm trying to suggest...

#7 user-agent

by cristiana <cristiana@cloud13.com>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 10:11 AM

Reply to this message

Why not change the user-agent to Mozilla.org/1.0. So that there will be no confusion and all this wierd mapping between version numbers and the netscape browser.

cristiana

#8 Re: user-agent

by dave532

Thursday June 29th, 2000 10:50 AM

Reply to this message

Well the Mozilla/5.0 bit is mainly to ensure compatibility for people who browser sniff on user agent string. Netscape will append their name to the end e.g.: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0 i686; m17) Gecko/0000000 Netscape/6.0 so Mozilla could be: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0 i686; m17) Gecko/0000000 Mozilla.org/1.0

the mozilla.org identifier could be useful so we don't have both Mozilla/5.0 at the beginning and Mozilla/1.0 at the end of the string.

#12 User Agent Isnt That Important...

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 1:25 PM

Reply to this message

don't forget that MSIE returns Mozilla in its user agent string. The key differentiator is the additional info appended afterwards... Mozilla.org sounds cool.

MSIE 3 had a user agent of Mozilla 2 and it was a pain so the sensible thing to do is continue as stated with the UA version number matching the Browser version number.

#10 Re: user-agent

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 11:38 AM

Reply to this message

You also have to consider the fact that netscape 4.0 had the user agent mozilla/4.0 and netscape 3.0 had the agent mozilla/3.0. I don't know for certain but I would bet that netscape 1.0 had the user agent mozilla/1.0 so most webservers see mozilla/1.0 and think that to mean netscape 1.0. Now we don't want them serving the new mozilla 1.0 with netscape 1.0 compatible pages do we?

Though personally I think while naming the first mozilla as mozilla 1.0 seems logical. There chance is definatly there for confusion with Netscape 1.0. Seems logical to keep the user agent and the version number the same, or your just asking for trouble.

#11 Re: Re: user-agent

by cristiana <cristiana@cloud13.com>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 12:43 PM

Reply to this message

Im sorry, maybe you didn't see the complete user-agent string in my message. I was suggesting a completely NEW user-agent Mozilla.org/1.0. Notice the .org? I thought this just so we would have a distinction between the netscape Mozilla/X user-agent and the mozilla user agent.

cristiana

#18 mozilla.org/1.0

by pohl <pohl@screaming.org>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 9:34 PM

Reply to this message

I think it's an excellent idea. It shouldn't break browser-sniffing code, because it isn't mozilla/*, and it doesn't have the misfeature of having a different number than the version on the browser distribution. It's a simple change, and it underscores the open-source lineage.

#21 mozilla.org is a site, not a browser

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday June 30th, 2000 5:28 AM

Reply to this message

I think it's a misnomer. That's like naming your kid "toilet". I think it's a horrible idea.

#25 No not really

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:53 AM

Reply to this message

No as we are naming what the Mozilla.org created, it would be like naming your kids excrement, "Jonny"

#26 mozilla.org/1.0 is an agent string, not a site

by pohl <pohl@screaming.org>

Friday June 30th, 2000 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

Try thinking of mozilla.org as a source instead of a sink...then it would be more like naming your child after specific angiosperm reproductive organs, except you're not naming a kid so it would be more like identifying a browser by its home in the internet domain namespace. Or, if you really must think of it as a sink, think of it as a sink for something other than bio-waste...something positive, like source code maybe. Hope that helps.

#15 time to forget about appName and use object detect

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday June 29th, 2000 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

use object detection rather than appName parsing in your scripts !

it's much cleaner and ensures that all W3C DOM compliant browsers will cope with your future scripts...

see webcoder.com's Howto section :

<http://webcoder.com/howto/index.html>

#20 Are they really using that ugly skin?

by samfish

Thursday June 29th, 2000 11:54 PM

Reply to this message

One of the worst things about the whole Mozilla project is that ugly default skin. As was mentioned in an earlier discussion, changing the skin to the classic skin made manny people feel like Mozilla was running better, including myself. Anyone who's done any work in interface design will tell you that the default skin is too dark, the big ugly icons make the interface look like it was designed for a child, and the large difference in look will probably scare a lot of people off. I think Mozilla and Netscape should seriously think about using a more classic lookin skin and allowing the user to decide if they want to use the ugly one or one of the other ones.

On the other hand, Mozilla can't possibly run any worse than the latest versions of Netscape have been running. My frind and I have both been having tons of JavaScript errors and crashes, but that's a different story.

#22 Re: Are they really using that ugly skin?

by thales

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:08 AM

Reply to this message

I Started a thread on N.P.M.UI on June 21 called "Should Mozilla have it's own skin". Allmost everyone agrees that Mozilla should have a different skin than Netscape's Modern skin as it's default skin. The problem is deciding what it will be. The latest builds have skin switching and a choice of 2 skins. The default Modern skin or the Classic skin, which is based on Netscape 4.x. As for the Modern skin Netscape is detremined to use it, even though nobody outside of Netcenter really likes it.

#23 Re: Re: Are they really using that ugly skin?

by Ben_Goodger

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:11 AM

Reply to this message

correction: classic is based on Mozilla Classic (hence the name)

#24 Re: Re: Re: Are they really using that ugly skin?

by thales

Friday June 30th, 2000 6:27 AM

Reply to this message

Yes it is based on Mozilla Classic, but a lot of the people who got involved in Mozilla in the last year never saw Mozilla Classic, so I said 4.x so they can get an idea of what the skin looks like if they haven't tried a recent nightly.

#27 Re: Re: Are they really using that ugly skin?

by drfickle

Friday June 30th, 2000 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

It really saddens me to see Netscape that determined to use the Modern skin. I have yet to talk to one person, rangin g from *BSD geeks to my sister-in-law who is the typical "uninformed Yahoo user" and everyone hates it. I actually don't mind the Netcenter look on the webpage, but it does something horribly nasty for a web browser. Netscape, please quit trying to force everyone to Netcenter...please get a clue.

#28 Try Aphrodite / Sullivan (n/t)

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday June 30th, 2000 2:47 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#32 Sullivan

by nicku

Tuesday July 11th, 2000 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

I sure hope the open source Mozilla switches to the Sullivan skin for its release.

Its super clean and less likely to clash with your window manager theme. :)

#29 Newsreader

by simifilm

Monday July 3rd, 2000 4:15 AM

Reply to this message

Ok, this is a bit off topic, but has anyone of you ever used the Mozilla newsreader? I just wanted to use it, and I think it's the worst one I'v ever seen. Netscape 4.x was already bad, but Mozilla beats it even in the current state. There is'nt even a search function.

#31 Re: Newsreader

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday July 7th, 2000 6:21 PM

Reply to this message

If NS 4 is a bad news reader, give me a clue as to what consist of a good newsreader. I'm serious here, as far as newsreaders are concern, I'm clueless. What is your favorite newsreader? Another thing, if you find stuff missing in Moz, check out the Mozilla.org and bugzilla.mozila.org websites. Search through them and see if they are being or will be implemented. If not, file a feature request. Which part of the Moz as a newsreader you hate most? And as for current state, which current state are you talking about? Mozilla changes at every build.

I'm using Mozilla's newsreader. Sure it is slow and buggy, search is still not working properly, but to say that it is worst than NS4? Give me a break. If NS6 was released in this state I'll criticize NS6 as much as you do, but Mozilla isn't 1.0 yet. Hey! We are not even talking about beta here.

#30 Mozilla Toolkit 1.0

by ryuzi

Tuesday July 4th, 2000 5:18 AM

Reply to this message

'Mozilla 1.0' will be misunderstood as browser.

if it would be called 'Mozilla Toolkit' everyone will know what mozilla is.