MozillaZine

Mozilla 0.6 released

Wednesday December 6th, 2000

mozilla.org today released a milestone based on the Netscape 6 branch. Builds are available on the ftp site, and more info on the build and it's purpose is available in the release notes.


#1 Release notes link

by broken

Wednesday December 6th, 2000 11:12 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm... the release notes link is pointing to <http://www.mozillazine.org.> Just thought I'd let you know :)

#2 What's New in Moz0.6??

by phuk32

Wednesday December 6th, 2000 11:47 PM

Reply to this message

I just went through the release notes of Moz0.6, but I could not find the most important info of all - what is new/has changed in comparison to M18 and/or Netscape 6.0??

If I have overlooked this info somewhere, could somebody pls post the link? Thanks.

#3 Re: What's New in Moz0.6??

by dhart

Wednesday December 6th, 2000 11:59 PM

Reply to this message

Good Point. The release notes are at <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.6/>

I think the release notes should explain briefly up front the mozilla0.6 branch and how it's different from the trunk, and to expect mozilla0.8 to be the first "new" milestone from a trunk build.

-dave

#4 Download nightlies!

by jelwell

Thursday December 7th, 2000 12:00 AM

Reply to this message

Congratulations Mozilla. Joseph Elwell.

#5 Download nightlies!

by jelwell

Thursday December 7th, 2000 12:09 AM

Reply to this message

Congratulations Mozilla. Joseph Elwell.

#6 Release Notes

by lard <caugusti@entwickler.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 3:26 AM

Reply to this message

The correct URL of the release notes is: <http://mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.6/>

Claus

#7 So what's the point?

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 8:38 AM

Reply to this message

There could have been a little more information regarding their point for release. I\'m not the most active Mozilla member by any stretch of the imagination, but I wasn\'t aware they would put out a milestone (eg. Moz .6) based on the NS 6 trunk, especially before Moz .8 was released.

/me continues to wait for Moz .8

#10 Re: So what's the point?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 10:33 AM

Reply to this message

It's in the roadmap.

Mozilla 0.6 IS NOT based on the trunk, but is based on the branch used to create Netscape 6.0. Some members of the Mozilla community wanted a Mozilla milestone that was analogous to Netscape 6.0, so this is the niche that that it fills.

This doesn't steal away the importance of the trunk milestones, with Mozilla 0.8 being the next milestone.

#8 good job

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 8:42 AM

Reply to this message

i think that mozilla is doing great. there are all the people complaining about it but we have to remember that this is still beta software and for all you people complaining about netscape 6 it is 1.0 software. jeff

#9 hmmm ... a response?

by fitz

Thursday December 7th, 2000 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla's response to NS6. gives everyone an idea of where they think the mozilla source is... less than a 1.0 release.

#11 Mozilla and Java

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

Did enyone try Mozilla 0.6 on Windows 2000 wtih JRE 1.3 installed? Does it still crash when leaving page such as <http://java.sun.com/>?

#18 Re: Mozilla and Java

by cochonou <cochonou@captured.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 2:23 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I still have this problem.

#26 Re: Re: Mozilla and Java

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

I finally found the solution. Uninstall the current Java 2 Runtime Environment (J2RE) you use (if you have it installed) Go to <http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3.0_01/jre/index.html> and download J2RE 1.3.0_01 you need. Install it and then remove any npjava*.dll files from plugins folder of Mozilla. Then go to JRE\1.3.0_01\bin folder (where you installed J2RE to) and copy NPOJI600.dll to Mozilla plugins folder. That's it Java work, at least for me.

#12 What about Certs!

by alik

Thursday December 7th, 2000 11:45 AM

Reply to this message

Hi There..

Congrats Mozilla.. i just cannot wait for the final release cause my NS 4.x is becoming unbearable!

I am not gonna complain about the poor and unusable quality of NS6... i am sure we all know about it.. I mean it is absolutly mad to release a software like that and then go on promoting it on the website when you know that people who use it will dump netscape for life!

The only thing keeping me from switching over is the lack of Digital Certs Support in Mozilla. I install every release in the hope that it will be stable and support certs so i can switch over.. but no luck!

Can you please tell me how long it would be before we have digital cert support in mozilla?

And.. is there a chance of seeing a user friendly Plug-in manager in mozilla which tells the user that a page requies a plugin and it will automatically be installed if click OK.. that would be a great help to the novice users of the net!

Thanx Ali K

#13 Bloat ?

by movement <moz@compsoc.man.ac.uk>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

This comment is NOT intended to be a flame. I hear that the mozilla people have been doing a lot of work on performance recently. I noticed this my self: in the "teenage" milestones it improved a lot. However the memory requirements are still untenable for my machine - it is roughly 4 times as slow as Netscape 4.6.

My question is: do any of the developers care about this ? Are those of us with older computers ones who will have to live without Mozilla ?

For reference, I'm using a Pentium 200MHz with 40Mb RAM.

#15 Re: Bloat ?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 12:12 PM

Reply to this message

Just because no visible and noticeable progress is seen in the near term does not mean that no work is being done by the developers in this area.

I cannot speak for the developers, but they are definitely working on it. I cannot say "when" and by "how much."

<:3)~~ <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#34 No

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 9:42 PM

Reply to this message

They do not care. That is why their RAM requirement is 64 megabytes.

#37 Tanyel, you're not qualified to make this judgemen

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday December 8th, 2000 12:46 AM

Reply to this message

You obviously don't follow Mozilla develpment very closely. You get it wrong with most of the posts you make. And when you do get it right it's consistently framed as a spiteful and unhelpful jab at a lot of people who are working very hard to make something better.

-Asa

#46 Re: Tanyel, please correct me.

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday December 9th, 2000 9:49 PM

Reply to this message

I am rarely wrong. Usually, when people say I am wrong, they are unable to tell me how I am wrong. They just hope I believe them.

My comments are not intended to hurt people. They are intended to be truth. Maybe that is what hurts.

#49 I'll tell you how you are wrong

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Sunday December 10th, 2000 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

I've watched Moz memory requirements go down at least 5MB since M15. Slow, sure... but go down it does. Give it some time... sheesh.

And flush some ego with it. People that think they are God eventually get the smack they deserve laid down on them. The more you think you know, the less you really know.

#54 Tanyel, here's your chance to stand corrected

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday December 10th, 2000 9:05 PM

Reply to this message

"They don't care"

I'm one of those "they". When I specifically tell you what I care about and don't care aout then I give you permission to relay to others my cares. Until then you are not qualiified to talk about what any of "they" care or don't care about.

You comment here like you have some expertise but you don't. This seems to be your m.o. You join a thread and make some statement like it's fact. I usually give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you're not really following the devlopment process and it's understandable how the uninformed can misjudge things. If you are following this project closely enough to know what "they" care about then you're simply being malicious and misleading in your characterization of a lot of people who are working very hard. By most definitions that makes you a troll.

I usually don't waste my time with trolls (Actually working to make Mozilla better is time better spent) but it really bothers me to see armchair quarterbacks like you trying to smear the efforts of a bunch of people with baseless assumptions and accusations.

For anyone besides Tanyel who might be reading this, we do care about footprint and memory usage. We are working to make it better every day. If you would like to know what we really care about then ask us. Don't waste your time with the backseat drivers and naysaying pundits.

-Asa

#61 Re: Bloat solutions...

by LlelanD <LlelanD@TheSnakePitDev.com>

Monday December 11th, 2000 8:42 PM

Reply to this message

My apologies for the length, but this issue was too important to allow it to be lost to the silly bickering (Of course, any developer who voluntarily works on an open-sourced project cares).

The underlying questions in this thread still remains unanswered: * Specifically, what is being considered or done to reduce the memory and OS resource consumption by the Mozilla browser. * If this information must be gained by following "Mozilla development", then at what sites is this specific information regularly available? * Is there a written history of the consumption numbers per platform for the releases/milestones to which we may refer?

I note that a single instance of build 2000120920 talkback zip the Sun JRE 1.3 plug-in on Win2K sp1 IE5.5 maximized on a 1152x864x32 display opened to <http://www.mozilla.org> has the following memory and OS resource consumption numbers via the Windows Task Manager (these number vary slightly each time): Physical Memory 23,532K Virtual Memory 19,992K Handles 301 USER Objects 49 GDI Objects 179

This looks pretty awful all by itself, but a sequence of operations proves enlightening. The rest of this is done in sequence.

A second identical instance shows these numbers: Physical Memory 26,020K Virtual Memory 22,468K Handles 300 USER Objects 43 GDI Objects 208 When you minimize the second instance (focus not on the first) you get: Physical Memory 4,068K // Slowly creeps up a little bit. Virtual Memory 22,512K Handles 300 USER Objects 60 GDI Objects 227 When you activate the first instance you get; Physical Memory 11,816K Virtual Memory 22,612K Handles 300 USER Objects 60 GDI Objects 227 When you minimize the first instance you get; Physical Memory 1,744K // Slowly creeps up a little bit. Virtual Memory 22,612K Handles 300 USER Objects 60 GDI Objects 227 When you re-maximize the first instance you get: Physical Memory 8,732K Virtual Memory 22,616K Handles 300 USER Objects 60 GDI Objects 227

The conclusion I can draw is that there has been significant work done on memory and OS resource consumption, but that a lot of it is not being activated or properly managed right off the bat. It takes some additional operations and events to fire up the new work. This sounds like a setup and initialization management problem, where things are being built and initialized correctly, but are then not being put into the properly shaved down state.

A comparison with MSIE also proves instructive.

MSIE under the same conditions: Physical Memory 10,724K Virtual Memory 3,340K Handles 268 USER Objects 117 GDI Objects 195 A second identical instance shows these numbers: Physical Memory 11,456K Virtual Memory 3,792K Handles 305 USER Objects 194 GDI Objects 263 When you minimize the second instance (focus not on the first) you get: Physical Memory 1,300K // Slowly creeps up a little bit. Virtual Memory 3,740K Handles 292 USER Objects 194 GDI Objects 265 When you activate the first instance you get; Physical Memory 3,020K Virtual Memory 3,740K Handles 292 USER Objects 194 GDI Objects 265 When you minimize the first instance you get; Physical Memory 796K Virtual Memory 3,740K Handles 292 USER Objects 194 GDI Objects 265 When you re-maximize the first instance you get: Physical Memory 2,548K Virtual Memory 3,740K Handles 292 USER Objects 194 GDI Objects 265

As you can see the OS resource numbers are comparable. The memory numbers may be lower, but this is not a fair comparison as a lot of IE is intrinsic to the OS. The numbers for the OS explorer process, which is heavily used by IE for UI, are as follows: Physical Memory 5,236K Virtual Memory 9,912K Handles 490 USER Objects 199 GDI Objects 408

These are about the same whether IE or Mozilla is up. Since Mozilla mostly uses its own code for the UI it obviously is going to be bigger than just the IE process. But when you combine the numbers for IE and the explorer process you get comparable physical memory numbers. This is only a rough reference since the explorer process is not dedicated to IE and serves the entire OS, but it does show that Mozilla is starting to get realistic numbers when everything is finally kicked in.

Mozilla can, has, and must do much better, especially when the first instance of the application is created since that is when most people will measure the consumption.

Providing findable, understandable, and consistently current information resources that tell us what has been, what is, and what is intended will go a long way in improving how this project is touted publicly and how we developers can help. I'm still burning most of my man-hours trying to learn this package on bad, outdated, overly-terse, and missing or unfindable docs. It's embarrassing.

#62 Re: Bloat solutions (Ignore parent-bad post)...

by LlelanD <LlelanD@TheSnakePitDev.com>

Monday December 11th, 2000 9:19 PM

Reply to this message

WORDS!!!!!! (and they're blue)

This forum does not preserve whitespace format, does not give you a clue in the submission instructions, nor does it allow you to edit or delete a bad posting. How long have forums existed? <fume>

My abject apologies for the unreadable posting. Since it would take WAY too long to try to format the data to look readable on this primitive forum, I've provided the data as a web page at:

<http://www.TheSnakePitDev.com/mozilla/bloat.html>

#51 Re: Bloat ?

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday December 10th, 2000 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

There are efforts to cut down Mozilla's memory footprint. This buglist is just some of them:

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…mp;order=%27Importance%27>

Basic

#14 Bloat ?

by movement <moz@compsoc.man.ac.uk>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

This comment is NOT intended to be a flame. I hear that the mozilla people have been doing a lot of work on performance recently. I noticed this my self: in the "teenage" milestones it improved a lot. However the memory requirements are still untenable for my machine - it is roughly 4 times as slow as Netscape 4.6.

My question is: do any of the developers care about this ? Are those of us with older computers ones who will have to live without Mozilla ?

For reference, I'm using a Pentium 200MHz with 40Mb RAM.

#20 Re: Bloat ?

by mattdm <mattdm@mattdm.org>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 2:31 PM

Reply to this message

My impression is that they care, but that getting something that works fully and correctly is the first priority.

#25 Re: Re: Bloat ?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

Not necessarily so, because Mozilla still have lots of important bugs in issues outside of bloat. There are UI issues, general performance, and components and features that aren't functioning as they are suppose to.

I am not saying that memory use is not an important priority, but I am saying that it is not the only important priority.

<:3)~~

#35 Re: Re: Re: Bloat ?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 9:43 PM

Reply to this message

I think lessening the memory requirement will be a bigger performance increase than anything else they can do.

#16 Opera is Released - And its free...

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

Thursday December 7th, 2000 1:49 PM

Reply to this message

The latest version of Opera has bas been released and its free. Big deal I hear you say and I guess you'd be right. However, one thing I also noticed a few days ago is that Opera is the installed Browser on Psion's latest palmtop. I also saw the latest WAP phone from Sony is running MS Pocket Explorer and the Compaq Ipac ditto.

Until Mozilla gets its footprint right down, I cannot see it getting embedded in any such devices. This has got to be of serious concern.

#22 Re: Opera is Released - And its free...

by lukes

Thursday December 7th, 2000 3:33 PM

Reply to this message

It's free if you allow banner ads built in the the UI to rotate.

#28 Encodings support

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:36 PM

Reply to this message

Abd Opera sux when it comes to encodings support. It only supports english encoding and not the others (central european, korean, chineese, ....) and result of this is that you don't get the right characters on a page that uses non-english encoding. That's why I hate it. If only they fixed that.

#32 Encodings Support

by Mazen <mazen@artmagic.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 8:04 PM

Reply to this message

Funny you should mention that. I've been waiting for BiDi support to read Arabic pages for a long time. As a matter of fact, it is support for Arabic text that convinced me to switch from Netscape 4.7 to IE in the first place.

#36 Re: Re: Opera is Released - And its free...

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 9:49 PM

Reply to this message

I think a slow web browser is more annoying than a fast one with a banner ad.

#39 Re: Re: Re: Opera is Released - And its free...

by rkl

Friday December 8th, 2000 3:17 AM

Reply to this message

Opera is OK, but has some flaws compared to Mozilla:

* Has no source code freely available for it, so suffers from being on far less platforms than Mozilla (e.g. no plans to put it on a commercial UNIX for example [Solaris, etc]).

* Still uses, even with 5.0, the quite frankly obsolete "desktop" concept for tiling your windows. If that was optional (i.e. you could have a desktop or not [latter opens new windows]), it would improve the UI immensely.

* Opera is free if you want bandwidth used on banner ads (maybe Junkbuster can block them, but not everyone runs that) - and many of those banner ads are distractingly animated. Don't like banner ads? Well, it's $39 to switch them off (vs. nothing for Mozilla, which doesn't have banner ads in the first place).

* Isn't as standards compliant as Mozilla/Netscape 6.0.

* Is *extremely* strict on tag parsing (doesn't have the sort of "nav-quirks" mode that Mozilla uses if there isn't a DOCTYPE), so you may find some sites misbehaving badly that "work" on NS 4.X, 6.X, Mozilla and IE 5. Yes, it may be faulty HTML on the Webmaster's part, but they ain't going to change it for Opera 5 and it actually detracts from Opera 5's usability, IMHO.

Having said all that, Opera is still a pretty good browser and it's probably recommendable over Mozilla for lower-end machines (<64 MB RAM or <Pentium II).

#42 Re: Re: Re: Re: Opera is Released - And its free...

by ChuckChunder <paul@operamail.com>

Friday December 8th, 2000 7:28 PM

Reply to this message

* Not being available on every platform under the sun does not make a browser any worse on the platforms it is available on.

* A Solaris port is planned: <http://www.opera.com/linux/faq.html>

* Opera's MDI format works well for me. I typically have a minimum of 6 browser windows open continuously (documentation mostly). If Opera didn't keep these out of my taskbar and alt-tab list I'd be driven insane. I agree that sometimes it would be useful to break a window out of the MDI but hardly critical, at least on Windows. On other platforms with better window management the MDI has less value.

* Opera's DOM does suck somewhat. The rest of the standards support is pretty good.

* When authoring pages I enjoy Opera's strictness as it quickly alerts me to any screwups I make :)

Opera is a good browser, it's quirky for sure, but I use it almost exclusively on Windows as it suits the way I work. When at play though, I use Linux and Mozilla :)

#57 Re: Opera is Released - And its fr

by Jake <jake@bugzilla.org>

Monday December 11th, 2000 11:19 AM

Reply to this message

> When authoring pages I enjoy Opera's strictness as it quickly alerts me to any screwups I make :)

Bug 47108 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47108> is about puting a quality indicactor in the Mozilla status bar (so you can see if your HTML is bad even though it may display correctly due to quirks mode).

#47 Re: Re: Re: Re: Opera is Released - And its free...

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday December 9th, 2000 10:11 PM

Reply to this message

Bullets? I like bullets.

* Having no source code is not a flaw. That is a choice.

* I like having all of the browser windows contained within the Opera main window because I am able to minimize or close them all with one click. Being able to choose between this method and having completely separate windows would be good. When will Mozilla do that?

* I have had webpages that required 120 seconds to load with Mozilla. I do not think the banner ads are that frustrating. I have never seen Opera display a banner ad so I do not know how annoying they are.

* Opera displays my group's webpages better than Mozilla does.

* You complained about Opera not being as "standards compliant" as Mozilla and, immediately afterward, complained about it rendering more strictly than Mozilla. I doubt most people would change their pages for Mozilla either.

I would not recommend Opera to anybody who can use Internet Explorer. I find myself using it often though.

#69 Perf NOW!

by benb <mozilla@bucksch.org>

Thursday December 21st, 2000 1:48 AM

Reply to this message

> Once it's feature complete, then everybody can start working on footprint > and performance. I know I will be.

*Now* is the time to work on footprint and perf. That's what Netscape engineers do, too.

#29 Damn Opera advocates!

by bradfitz <bradfitz@bradfitz.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:44 PM

Reply to this message

This is a Mozilla news site. We don't care to hear Opera or Konqueror advocacy.

The relationship between percentage of functionality implemented and code size is not proportional. It takes a lot of work and infrastructure to finish the last 20% of the browser. Nobody here cares that Opera or Konqueror is smaller or lighter or available now.... we do care about Mozilla, though, because Mozilla will support everything, which is signifigantly more difficult that those other "80% complete" browsers.

There are a large number of developers that are interested in hacking on Mozilla (including myself and a handful of my friends), but are unwilling to do so until the code stabilizes... it's too painful for people to learn the code when things are changing so often ... it's just not worth the time.

Once it's feature complete, then everybody can start working on footprint and performance. I know I will be.

#43 Re: Damn Opera advocates!

by thelem

Saturday December 9th, 2000 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

Oh don't be stupid. Opera is a competitor to Mozilla, and he was pointing out a way in which it was better than Mozilla and therefore a place that Mozilla should be improved. It has been pointed out 1000 times before, but it does not stop it being a valid post.

Ian

#70 Perf NOW!

by benb <mozilla@bucksch.org>

Thursday December 21st, 2000 1:51 AM

Reply to this message

(Last onf went wrong anyhow, so here again.)

> Once it's feature complete, then everybody can start working on footprint > and performance. I know I will be.

*Now* is the time to work on footprint and perf. That's what Netscape engineers do, too.

#17 Links Panel v2.1

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 1:52 PM

Reply to this message

Works with Moz 0.6, all the info is at <http://segment7.net/mozilla/links/links.html>

#30 Re: Links Panel v2.1

by phuk32

Thursday December 7th, 2000 7:35 PM

Reply to this message

Just tried Links Panel 2.1 with Win98SE and Netscape 6.0 and it works fine -- this is actually one application that should be included in the regular Mozilla sidebar (maybe as an opt-in in the Tabs setting).

What I would wish though is that the links would be sortable (alphabetically?) or be grouped (by domain?) and that e-mail addresses would be displayed distinct from the links.

My 2 cents... - jts -

#19 Up the anny

by skeeterow <skeetersrow@netscape.net>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 2:26 PM

Reply to this message

CPU requirements for M 17 was 133MHZ. ON the info page for M 0.6 it's 233 MHZ

Been running the lastes nightlies fine on 200 MHZ with 96 megs ram

What's up ? Buy a new puter?

#41 Nah. Just realistic.

by FrodoB

Friday December 8th, 2000 8:19 AM

Reply to this message

The requirements for Mozilla haven't really gone up since M17 (in fact, they've likely dropped a little bit, with performance work). They're just being slightly more realistic about what should be running Mozilla at this point (to keep the complaints from people with 5 year old hardware to a minimum).

Yes, scary thought, but the P133 is now five years old. :)

#21 WASP applauds N6 -

by lukes

Thursday December 7th, 2000 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

From the WASP Website-> <http://www.webstandards.org/netscape6.html>

"Recently, other browsers have delivered solid support for several key Web standards, but none goes as far as Netscape has now gone," said Web Standards Project group leader Jeffrey Zeldman. "When The Web Standards Project was formed, we asked browser makers to support five key Web standards. Netscape is the first to do exactly what we asked."

It nice to see that the WASP has finally removed their head from their rectum

#23 Mozilla 0.8 is not in the roadmap.

by Byter <jason.eager@trimble.co.nz>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 3:46 PM

Reply to this message

When is it supposed to come out, and what are the criteria used to target bugs to that milestone?

#24 Re: Mozilla 0.8 is not in the roadmap.

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:12 PM

Reply to this message

It was a recently added milestone. From past observation there has never been any solid targets for each milestones, and any tended to be tentative.

Not sure when mozilla 0.8 is scheduled for release.

<:3)~~

#40 Re: Mozilla 0.8 is not in the roadmap.

by KaiRo <KaiRo@KaiRo.at>

Friday December 8th, 2000 8:11 AM

Reply to this message

The only thing I heard (from leaf in #mozilla) was that it's gonna be here soon... I think we can expect 0.8 to happen this year - but that's only my personal opinion :)

#44 Trunk release soon

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday December 9th, 2000 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

I will be working to make a release happen in the next couple of weeks. I'm still not 100% sure what it's going to be called. It'll either be called Mozilla 0.7 or Mozilla 0.8.

My original thinking was that it would be called 0.8 to diferentiate it from the 0.6 branch build (which, btw, was called Mozilla 0.6 because we thought that would help people tie it to Netscape 6.0 and the MN6 branch).

My intent for the next release (0.7 or 0.8) was to get something in the release directory as quickly as possible so that folks who only download Milestones would have something more relevant than this old branch 0.6 build. To this end it is my intent to just pick a good trunk build, update the start page and the little bit of UI change we do for milestones and drop it into the release directory.

This means that developers and QA can't really target work for this release. However, since I created the mozilla0.8 target milestone and keyword in bugzilla a number of developers have started targetting work against them. I think it would be kind of rude for me to pull the rug out from under that triage and tell them that I'm using 0.8 for a build that may or may not include thier work. So now I'm considering just calling the next trunk release Mozilla 0.7. Does this make sense.

Mozilla 0.7 would happen like this. In a couple of weeks (sometime around Christmas) I would look back across all the December daily builds, and pick the best one. Then leaf and I would tag that point on the trunk and make release builds from there.

Mozilla 0.8 would hapen like this: Developers would continue to target and work on bugs for this Milestone. About 5 or 6 weeks after Mozilla 0.7 we would tighten down on the tree and have a few days of stabilization and make a Milestone there (traditional milestone making process).

We will be doing some work on the roadmap.html and Milestone docs to reflect this thinking. What do you all think?

-Asa

#45 OK

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Saturday December 9th, 2000 5:50 PM

Reply to this message

Sounds fine to me.

#27 Grammar Troll

by bradfitz <bradfitz@bradfitz.com>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 5:35 PM

Reply to this message

"and it's purpose is available"

that should be "its", the possessive pronoun, not the contraction "it's".

#64 Re: Grammar Troll

by shigh <steve@iwatt.com>

Tuesday December 12th, 2000 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Have you written a robot that will send this message as needed to its destination...

#31 orbit theme

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Thursday December 7th, 2000 8:04 PM

Reply to this message

hey, does anybody know where the orbit theme went to. i really loved that them but unfortuatly i had to uninstall all of mozilla (bug) and it was deleted. when i went back to the netscape site however it isn't there anymore. does anybody know where i can download it from????? please help jeff

#33 Re: orbit theme

by lukes

Thursday December 7th, 2000 9:35 PM

Reply to this message

#38 Re: Re: orbit theme

by ratman

Friday December 8th, 2000 2:03 AM

Reply to this message

you may find greater ease with this site:

<http://eliot.landrum.cx/mozilla/chromes/>

#48 2 random comments

by broken

Sunday December 10th, 2000 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

- It would be nice if there was some way to measure the improvements that are being made to reduce bloat and memory use. The mail-news group used to add this kind of information to their status report, but I don't think they do anymore. Having those figures each week (browser-wide, not just mail-news) and seeing them become smaller and smaller would be a way to track progress and would provide an assurance that things are getting better.

- Some time ago (right before Necko was introduced, I think), there was talk about improving the status bar, that is, giving more or better information so the user knows what's going on. As far as I can see, the amount of information that is provided now is less than before (for instance, the "barber bar" replaced the progress bar) and it's not terribly useful. Are there any news about this? Was this initiative dropped?

Thanks for the great work, guys!

#50 OFFTOPIC: Build Bar

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday December 10th, 2000 5:48 PM

Reply to this message

The build bar on the front page is not updated again. Has anyone noticed?

#63 Re: OFFTOPIC: Build Bar

by thelem

Tuesday December 12th, 2000 11:00 AM

Reply to this message

The buildbar doesn't update itself. I _think_ what happens is that asa updates the build comments page and then emails chris asking he to update to homepage (copy-paste the buildbar).

#52 any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by slok

Sunday December 10th, 2000 7:31 PM

Reply to this message

just a quick question:

does Mozilla has the 'Go' button that MSIE have. I think that's a neat feature.

Example. I use the mouse to copy and paste a URL into the location. Now I need to press 'Enter'. If there is a 'Go', I can just click on it without having to switch between mouse and keyboard.

#53 Re: any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by Ben_Goodger

Sunday December 10th, 2000 8:18 PM

Reply to this message

Edit->Preferences, on the Navigator panel, scroll through the list of toolbar buttons and check 'Go'.

#55 Re: any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by milovnl

Monday December 11th, 2000 8:21 AM

Reply to this message

Now this is just silly... I should be able to just right click on the toolbar and choose 'Show Go Button', but instead I have to navigate thru several menus, place a checkmark and click ok.

Same thing with the linksbar: why can't I simply right click a link and get a popupmenu to rename or delete it? This is not 1995 anymore...

#58 Re: Re: any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday December 11th, 2000 1:50 PM

Reply to this message

This has been mentioned before in bugzilla: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15144>

The RFE suggest the capability for all toolbar items!

#59 Re: Re: any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by sdm

Monday December 11th, 2000 4:59 PM

Reply to this message

Right, this isn't 1995 anymore. It means that software is a lot easier to develop, and that you shouldn't just sit around wait for someone else to add your favorite feature. To add this capability to mozilla, all you need to do is write a little xml and javascript. Being someone who reads mozillazine and is a web developer, this should be pretty simple. In fact, I bet you already have the skills necessary to do it. Why don't you consider helping out? Believe me, saying that you added *that* feature to a large shipping product is a great source of pride (and resume fodder).

#56 Re: any 'Go' button on Mozilla

by MenaX

Monday December 11th, 2000 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

Next to the location box, there should be a little logo of some sort. (When you put the mouse cursor over it, the cursor will change to a hand.) Drag and drop this onto the display frame and the page will load. (Although you are probably better off getting the "GO" button as described in the other reply.)

#60 mozilla ha ha ha ha ha

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Monday December 11th, 2000 8:11 PM

Reply to this message

its about this much __ better then ns6. and I know there are some that don,t agree WHO CARES.....

#65 Re: mozilla ha ha ha ha ha

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday December 12th, 2000 11:38 PM

Reply to this message

mozilla 0.6 was not intended to be identical to Netscape 6 (minus the proprietary stuff like AIM and spellchecker, etc.) It was not intended to be any better or any worse.

-Asa

#66 Re: Re: mozilla ha ha ha ha ha (PLEASE HELP)

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Wednesday December 13th, 2000 12:08 PM

Reply to this message

I'm using staroffice 5.2 (great OS by the way) Hear me out I also have windows 98 4.10 on my pc which I try to stay away from when ever I use NS6 or Mozilla 0.6 I get the same effect Pow, bang, puff. (to much batman) :<) They both freeze up... This happens no matter which os I'm using P.S. no disrespect intented in my first post I think all involved are doing a great job. I'm just frustrated

#72 Re: mozilla rocket scientist ha ha ha ha ha

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Saturday December 30th, 2000 6:00 PM

Reply to this message

here It is again the same old shit a one person asking another for help and what do you get a tube of KY gell well all you mozilla rocket scientist form a circle (no Pushing) now reach down under your left leg or the right one who gives a fuck apply gel to the one behind you Now here's the important part go fuck yourselfs (i liv+e ive in venice beach you can find me on oceanfront walk and horizon same name bigger pecker

#67 Opera

by xkalibur

Thursday December 14th, 2000 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

I'm posting this using Opera for Linux B4 for the first time. I was previously I devout Galeon/M18 or Mozilla 0.6 user. I have to say that one thing Opera appears to have gotten right that MOZILLA HASN'T is that moving back/forward through previously visited pages is almost instantaneously. (And YES I have my cache turned on with Mozilla. Too bad it doesn't use it as fast as Opera).

#68 LinuxPPC & Mozilla 0.6

by hyph

Monday December 18th, 2000 2:43 PM

Reply to this message

When? 0.6 sounds cool & groovy, but why do non-intel (excluding MacOS) people have to wait so damn long for a build?!?!

is it just that i am the only person using LinuxPPC?

It's getting to the stage when I will be adding another 2Gb HD, downloading the Source & compiling it myself...which i know that i can do - it's just i don't think i should have to....

#71 Re: LinuxPPC & Mozilla 0.6

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday December 24th, 2000 9:50 AM

Reply to this message

You don't have to wait. The source for 0.6 has been tagged for a while now. If you're going to pull the source and build I suggest that you go with the tip though. It's cnsiderably better than 0.6.

mozilla.org has the resources and the time to provide courtesy binaries of Mozilla for testing and development purposes on PC linux, win32 and mac. If you know of someone willing to compile daily builds (or even just milestones) then let me know and I'll see about getting them hosted at <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org.> If you look in the release directory for M18 <<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m18/>>, other than win32, pc linux and mac, most of the other builds are contributed. We can't do it all but we'd appreciate any help.

-Asa