Mozilla 0.8.1 Released!
Monday March 26th, 2001
mozilla.org today shipped Mozilla 0.8.1. Builds are available on the ftp server and release notes are also available.
#1 Downloading it right now...
Monday March 26th, 2001 9:18 PM
I wonder will it beat the build I've been using for about a month now... oh, what am I thinking? Of course 0.8.1 will kick some ie6 ass!
#6 Re: Downloading it right now...
Monday March 26th, 2001 11:37 PM
Hhahaha, that was ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh man. Of COURSE 0.8.1 doesn't kick IE6's ass! It doesn't even kick IE4's ass, or even Netscape Communicator 4.0's ass. When Mozilla reaches 1.0 and all the thousand small bugs that makes it look and feel like a toy are fixed, then maybe it will be on par with IE5.5 or IE6. At 0.8.1, you've got to be dreaming or then you're SERIOUSLY kidding yourself. Or maybe you have never used IE5.5? It's stable, VERY fast but most of all, which Mozilla is not, it's POLISHED. What I mean is that buttons aren't mis-aligned, SSL isn't 50 times slower than normal HTTP, bookmarks actually work, there aren't extra emtpy statusbars in address books that someone just forgot there, there aren't 10 different kinds of tree widgets that all look and work differently etc. Wake up man! Mozilla has potential and may some day be a good browser. Right now, it's *NOT* and most *DEFINITELY* is not kicking IE6's ass!
#7 Re: Re: Downloading it right now...
Monday March 26th, 2001 11:49 PM
When Mozilla reaches 1.0 and all the thousand small bugs that makes it look and feel like a toy are fixed, then maybe it will be on par with IE5.5 or IE6.
very true.. i use mozilla as my primary browser, but it does indeed still have some major issues to solve (cache, performance, etc -- which are being worked on feverishly!). the reason i use it is because it already has a lot of great usability features, and fantastic rendering ability and standards support. it will not be long before the little bugs are smoothed out! until then, it affords yet a glimpse -- however increasing in clarity -- at this future.
#13 We don't need your comments
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 1:35 AM
Hi mister macpeep Let me say, that we don't care about your IE comments. We are mozilla enthusiasts, we do not give a damn whether this or that browser is better, specially at this stage in the development of the software. Please refrain from spamming this forum with your useless caps words and trolling, thank you. Little note : using mozilla0.8 on win95, it didn't crash in over week (shutting down the comp from time to time of course).
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 2:58 AM
"Hi mister macpeep Let me say, that we don't care about your IE comments. We are mozilla enthusiasts, we do not give a damn whether this or that browser is better, specially at this stage in the development of the software"
That's the problem! You *should* care about other browsers and you should care about quality and you should care about gettings Mozilla to be as good as anything else out there. Why would you bother making another browser then, if it will be no better than anything already out there? If I don't want to use a Microsoft product, I could just use Opera! It's WAY better than Mozilla at this point!
I care about Mozilla and I want it to be good. I report bugs and I'm involved in discussion about it. I don't have time to *code* on Mozilla because I have another day job. And you know, "at this stage of the development" would have flown a year ago, but Netscape released 6.0 ages ago and there are only a couple of months left to 1.0 of Mozilla. "At this stage", we are actually quite late in the game and things should be much more polished than they are. Closing your eyes to the facts and asking people to shut up just because you don't agree with them is not the way to go.
#23 It's not too late
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 5:01 AM
Even if it took 3 years to produce a good browser, it's just worth waiting. Mozilla had a very rocky beginning, but I've seen it become a very good browser, and I will see it beat every other browser on the market. Maybe I'm blind, but happy with it!
#45 Re: heh
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:57 AM
Do you actually think being relentlessly negative, as you were helps matters? You say you care, but you laud Opera instead of Moz; you say you care, but you post screeds that tout Microsoft and the closed-source movement; you say Opera is way better when Opera can't do HALF the things Moz can; you say you care, but...you get the idea. It is absolutely true that we don't need that kind of "help".
#49 I'll just wait for mozilla
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:51 AM
Maybe it won't be as good as IE6, I really don't know since what I've seen of IE5 on other people's computers has been enough to keep me away from it. And that still doesn't make it standards compliant - which is what i REALLY want.
Some of us want a browser that doesn't take over your whole computer, and doesn't have virtually nil security. Opera is a really good browser, but with the glaring advertizement problem, or paying for it (I'm really broke here). Besides which some people like me look foreward to being able to do some tweaking such as removing things from the mouse menu.
#57 Please ignore him
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 3:22 PM
...as long as he continues to apply this sort of "constructive" criticism consisted of "heh" and "Do you have any idea how much negative PR Netscape got with version 6 and 6.01? It's a dissaster for them! Mozilla 0.8.1 is barely any better at all". He is a troll, otherwise he would filing bugs etc rather than grinning this way.
#63 macpeep is missing the point!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:20 PM
Of course on MS Windows machines IE5.5 is more stable, more responsive and more polished than moz 0.8.1. I *expect* that from a mature Microsoft program running on a Microsoft OS. Yet it does not escape me that when I click the back button in IE that I am still using a mozilla concept. When I type in the location bar, file a bookmark, download a plug-in, ? , regardless of the browser?s name, I am still, in essence, using mozilla. Year after year it has been mozilla, first under netscape.com and now under mozilla.org, that has brought most substantial innovations to web browsing. Yes, Microsoft has done a fantastic job of stabilizing, optimizing, and polishing each of their successive implementation of mozilla but I never felt that sense of anticipation for an upcoming release of IE that I feel for each new version on moz. A peek at IE6 shows little will change ? mozilla innovates and IE imitates.
I download IE to stabilize my windows machine. I download mozilla because I?m excited about the potential of the web. I only wish that Microsoft would stop reinventing the wheel and bring their expertise on the windows platform to the mozilla project. For that matter, I wish more of the developers of *all* the popular OS?s would do the same.
#64 back button and url bar
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:04 PM
The back button and URL bar aren't Mozilla concepts. They were in Mosaic back before Netscape Communications was ever founded and before JWZ coined the name "Mozilla" in 1994. Netscape ripped them off just as much as Microsoft did - but I don't see why that would be any issue. They are both good (and obvious) ideas and I'm sure 1000 other software used similar things before that (file managers for example).
#81 Re: back button and url bar
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 5:44 PM
But remember Mosaic was coded as a university project by a group of people one of them went on to be the founder of Netscape Communications so Netscape wasn't really stealing someone elses innovation, just building upon one it's founder helped create.
#2 it's libpr0n!
Monday March 26th, 2001 9:19 PM
what's imglib2? P.C sucks. Long live libpr0n!
#21 Re: it's libpr0n!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 4:34 AM
> what's imglib2? P.C sucks. Long live libpr0n!
libimg2 is the better name for libpr0n.
#47 libpr0n name question
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:44 AM
could someone please explain what the "pr0n" in libpr0n means, and how it is supposed to be pronounced?
I have seen some debate over the name and been puzzled by it.
#51 Re: libpr0n name question
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:32 PM
pr0n == porn. Spelled the 'skript kiddie' way...
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:47 PM
"Welcome to libpron.com, home of the Mozilla porn rendering library!"
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:48 PM
#74 Oh! I get it now
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 10:55 AM
<SARCASM type="cheerful">That explains why all of the images on my homepage are broken in the new Mozilla builds with libpr0n. none of them are pornographic</SARCASM> ... or it could just be bug 73328 and bug 73195 :)
#59 Re: libpr0n name question
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:20 PM
someone spelled porn as \\\\\\\"pr0n\\\\\\\" in an irc channel many years ago. People laughed at the person, and made fun of them.. and now it is part of the internet culture. Odd, huh?
#3 Possible other uses?
Monday March 26th, 2001 9:21 PM
Back when I found that 0.8.1 wouldn't have all the latest and greatest outliner, cache nor imglib2, I was a little bit dismayed, but after about three days of using a nightly, I'll be using Mozilla 0.8.1 for a while now :)
By the way, April 20th for 0.9? Sounds a little bit early to me (about three and a half weeks), but what do I know.
#4 Re: Possible other uses?
Monday March 26th, 2001 9:22 PM
gah, Mozilla and it's auto-fill of the subject line, I didn't notice it until it was too late.
#14 Re: Possible other uses?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 1:52 AM
Well stuff like the Outliner were MAJOR changes that temporarily destabilized the trunk. They wouldn't such major changes dropped in so late into the development of 0.8.1 and risk delaying 0.8.1 much further.
April 20 sounds about right, since work on Mozilla 0.9 started when the 0.8.1 was separated into its own branch, which was last week, which would put about a month of work before the next milestone, and so far they've been doing a fair job in keeping about a month between milestones.
#27 Re: Possible other uses?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:19 AM
Yes, the latest nightlies are quite usable. Aninated gifs shows as black pictures, to view the changed page I must press shift-reload (even I visited the page a day ago), crashes very often (every 30-40 min), mem usage is awful up to 100Mb! etc.
It will take a while to resolve all issues.
But the positive is: now it is way faster it was!
#28 Re: Re: Possible other uses?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:38 AM
Hopefully (though I don't know), these will be the last major architecture changes before 1.0. The moz team can now concentrate on fixing the regressions and adding the final polish.
#5 0.8.1 Win32 is definitely worth it
Monday March 26th, 2001 10:27 PM
Kicks serious IE5.5 tail! If mail can do the "insert sig file" feature, then Moz will replace Netscape on my machine! Heh, when it's stable enough, its file/ftp will be a good enough replacement for Explorer. Hey, Moz can be my shell! Bye bye buggy Windows/Internet Explorer!
Nice to dream tho. And this is just more inspiration.
#10 Re: 0.8.1 Win32 is definitely worth it
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:38 AM
Kicks IE5.5 tail in your dreams! I mean PLEASE!!! Enthusiasm is good but what you really need is some realism! No matter how much I'd like for Mozilla to be the #1 browser, it most certainly isn't at the moment. Currently, I would rate even Netscape 4 above Mozilla and most definitely, IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and soon IE6 *AND* the latest Opera versions. I don't know what your system is like but IE crahses about once a month or something on my machines, both at work and at home on a laptop and a desktop (Win NT4 at work, Windows 2000 on the laptop and Win 98 on the desktop). Mozilla crashes about 10 times per hour on all of those. And yes, I have the latest builds and milestones and yada yada. Until Mozilla stays up for more than a day at a time and until SSL becomes usable for anything other than testing and until all the UI glitches are worked out and until key features like bookmarks actually WORK, I'll be using IE5.5 thank you very much. Time to wake up and smell reality!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:53 AM
key features like bookmarks work just fine. mozilla stays up for days at a time for me on '98, 2000 and linux (where is run it daily) ... whereas IE 5.5 crashes 3 times a day. Feature for feature, mozilla kicks ie's ass for me.
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 2:54 AM
"shutup"? The truth hurts? For your information, there's a reason why I'm following the Mozilla project. The reason is that I'm hoping that there would - once again - be a world class Netscape web browser. I don't like the fact that Microsoft is the only manufacturer with a good web browser. Unfortunatley though, that's the truth right now and trying to brain wash people to think that Mozilla is "good" and "ready" does nobody any good. Do you have any idea how much negative PR Netscape got with version 6 and 6.01? It's a dissaster for them! Mozilla 0.8.1 is barely any better at all. I have confidence in Mozilla.org and that 1.0 will be good and usable, but to say that 0.8.1 kicks IE5.5 or IE6.0 is just a plain lie.
#35 I stand by my "unrealisticaly optimistic" comments
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 7:55 AM
That was a bit rash.
> The truth hurts?
Doesn't hurt me at all. I see IE and Moz being buggy all the time. The difference is that I'm watching the two products move in completely different directions: Moz Project is rapidly evolving the bugs out, while Micro-soft keeps loading IE up with feature-ridden bugs.
> For your information, there's a reason why I'm following the Mozilla project. The reason is that I'm hoping that there would - once again - be a world class Netscape web browser.
Sir, you have just spoken for the entire Project. That's why we're ALL here.
> I don't like the fact that Microsoft is the only manufacturer with a good web browser.
Some of us have options and alternatives besides the Big Two. To call IE a good web browser is a purely subjective testimonial; what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. In areas where Nutscrape isn't better than IE, it is certainly safer and more stable: if NS crashes, only NS goes bye bye; but if IE crashes, you may or may not be able to recover any of your computer's data.
> Unfortunately though, that's the truth right now and trying to brain wash people to think that Mozilla is "good" or "ready" does nobody any good.
I'm sorry if my "unrealistically optimistic" comments led you to believe that I was calling Moz ready. It clearly is not; that's why there's going to be a 0.9 and maybe 0.9.1 milestones. Besides, people seem to be too easily brainwashed (or people tend to see brainwashing) by reading praising testimonials of beta projects.
> Do you have any idea how much negative PR Netscape got with version 6 and 6.01? It's a disaster for them!
One has only to look at C|Net.com's home page http://www.cnet.com/ to find out. That's also why I made the comment that Moz is doomed if NSCP calls Mozilla 1.0 "Netscape Communicator version 6 point" anything.
> Mozilla 0.8.1 is barely any better at all.
My experience differs, but then that's just one experience.
> I have confidence in Mozilla.org and that 1.0 will be good and usable, but to say that 0.8.1 kicks IE5.5 or IE6.0 is just a plain lie.
I share your confidence (clearly), and again, my comments are based on my experience. Your mileage may vary. BTW: I never made any comments about IE6. I've never seen it in action or attempted to use it. (Can anyone else compare Moz0.8.1 and IE6Beta?)
Your negativism does have its uses, if applied critically to actual problems. Your system is different, so your experience is different. But please don't levy charges of "brainwashing" for any praise you see as unfounded, and please don't accuse people of making comparisons that they haven't.
And please DO keep supporting the Project.
#80 moz runs better for me
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 4:07 PM
I can't get IE to run at all on my machine. But that may just be the OS I use. <p> Jokes aside I think mozilla is becoming an excelent browser. It is now my standard browser and runs fine on this Celeron 400. At home I am only using 0.6 but it seriously kicks arse on my PIII 800.
#12 What I'm using... And a hint to Netscape
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:54 AM
IE crashes often enough, and even though each window's in a separate process it takes my desktop with it every time.
I successfully used Moz0.8.1 for banking on my bank's SSL site.
BTW, yes it's still got some serious bugs and still a long way to go. But it's still complete enough at this point to at least DEMONSTRATE more than just the potential to lap IE. Yes, it isn't NEAR ready enough to seriously compete with IE, but this milestone release is showing that it most certainly will be by 1.0.
My enthusiasm does have a dash of realism. Now the REAL reality check is whether Netscape dooms the 1.0 release by calling it "Netscape version 6.anything". The name "Netscape 6" has just been destroyed by their unstable fork.
That's where I'm still crossing my fingers.
#18 SSL & bookmarks
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 3:15 AM
SSL *works*. The problem is that it's painfully slow. If you try an SSL site with IE and then with Mozilla, you'll notice that it's about 30 times slower with Mozilla. There's a bug filed on this but I don't remember it's number. It's one that has a lot of votes too, but it still remains unfixed... I'm sure people are working on it, that's not what I meant. I'm just saying that SSL is more or less broken for serious use (like if you need SSL in your daily work).
Bookmarks.. Well, once you get them there, they work. The problem is that bookmark management is seriously broken. Drag & Drop works sporadically. The tree widget doesn't update every time so you have to resize windows. Scrollbars dissapear. Copy paste loses data. Paste sometimes misses it's target.. Should I go on? And you know, bugs are filed on all of these, so they are known. They just aren't FIXED yet.
This is why I find it so ridiculous that people can sit there and claim that IE5.5 is getting it's ass kicked by Mozilla. Not by a long shot! Not for another six months!
#111 Re: Re: 0.8.1 Win32 is definitely worth it
Sunday April 1st, 2001 12:51 AM
Normally I don't talk to &*(& tr...
However I see that you need some good advice.
If your PC is as unstable as to have Mozilla crashing "10 times an hour". Then I suggest that you get somebody that knows what they are doing to have a look at it. Could be that you needs to reinstall a SP or maybe its time you re-installed the OS especially if you have been installing an uninstalling lots of applications. In the mean time until you have you own PC under control DON'T assume that your experience will be exactly the same as everyone else's.
I say this as most people I know using Mozilla (No not all are PC techniicians or the like), do not have the number of crashes that you report. (I am aware that the like of you would inflate them anyway). Although I would agree that they all still do have crashes from time to time. (However not just when using Mozilla).
#44 Re: 0.8.1 Win32 is definitely worth it
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:48 AM
Dude, you seriously need to reevaluate what "kicks ass", 'cause Moz doesn't (at least right now). It's speed is sluggish, and it has a sluggish feel.
And it definetely doesn't kick IE 5.5 ass.
Let's be realistic and avoid being a mindless cheerleader.
Give me an M.
#50 Re: Re: 0.8.1 Win32 is definitely worth it
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:10 PM
Another macpeep? Another troll? What's up with that? In case you didn't know, the choice of a browser is subjective. Why do many people still use Netscape 4 on windows? Simply because they like it better. So right you like IE better, and then? Does everybody have to think like you? Oh, and something else.. what's up with all these "realistic" comments in here? How about you help us to make it happen?
#56 Is that your response to everything...
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 2:29 PM
Troll? Is that how you handle a problem - cover your eyes and call people trolls? First of all there can be an objective comparison between browsers (startup speed, rendering speed, rendering quality, crash rate, etc...). Unfortunately, at the moment Moz doesn't stand up to IE 5.x or even IE6 beta. As far as people using NS4.x - I think that was a great snappy product - usability was top notch, unfortunately it didn't keep up with the times. Obviously, for some people the functionality in NS4 is enough. That is why they keep using this great product. Mozilla right now is too rough around the edges. Fixing a handful of really annoying bugs would make the product so much better.
I use Moz everyday for webmail (it fills username & password for me automatically thus saving typing), so I know what I am talking about.
As far as helping with Moz, I am not too good with C++. However, I did write a Moz preloader.
#58 Re: Is that your response to everything...
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 4:52 PM
> As far as people using NS4.x - I think that was a great snappy product
Personally, I think the opposite. Until the rewrite of Netscape into Mozilla came along, the "snappiest product" Netscape actually had was NS 3.04 ! It had good ergonomics, was lightweight and generally didn't crash too much.
For me, NS 4.X was actually a step backwards from 3.X - it became bloated, rendered nested tables *appallingly slowly* and ergonomically was a dog's dinner (e.g. they dropped the mail composition window, so you either have to use a fully blown Messenger session or, if you have the Nav standalone of 4.X, mailto: does nothing ! And don't get me started on the fact that there's no way to close the view source or view document info windows without using your window manager's kill function !).
Mozilla came along in the nick of time, IMHO. NS 4.X was, to be blunt, an embarrassing product that never properly tracked the W3C standards (HTML 4, CSS etc.) and was extremely crash-prone.
Now if only Mozilla would finally support automatic proxy config URLs via the preferences panel then I might be able to install it on our intranet :-) Oh, and hopefully the Modern Mozillium theme will be re-done after recent XUL changes to Mozilla - it's my fave skin (you have to download it from NS Theme Park page at http://home.netscape.com/themes/index.html?cp=djuc7 and not from the themes.org site) and it doesn't work properly with the latest nightly builds...
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:16 PM
I didn't really like NS3 - it had a dated Win3.1 look. NS 4.5+ was really good software - it felt right to me. I was sorry to see it abandoned.
#8 Crashes on Linux
Monday March 26th, 2001 11:55 PM
It crashes before the first window even loads on Linux.
#9 Re: Crashes on Linux
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 12:02 AM
Try deleting your old .mozilla folder. You were probably using a nightly before that had newer info in the prefs, etc. That fixed it for me.
#15 MozillaMail on Win32/WinMe
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 2:07 AM
What's going on with MozillaMail on Win32? Many MenuItems are not displayed, can't see any mails ... short: doesn't work. But I found nothing at the release notes. Is this just a windows-problem (got no Linux at the moment...), just a WindowsMe problem or just a boring faq? Sorry, found no bugdescription to this problem ...
#73 Re: MozillaMail on Win32/WinMe
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 10:23 AM
I get this same problem when trying to view the main IMAP directory of my mail.
#75 Re: Re: MozillaMail on Win32/WinMe
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 11:39 AM
I reported it as bug #73770. These is also a screenshot of my MailWindow at http://www.multrus.com/mozilla.gif
#91 Blank mail messages area
Thursday March 29th, 2001 4:36 AM
I seem to remember getting this. Fixed it by removing the reg file in the windows directory.
#110 Re: Blank mail messages area
Saturday March 31st, 2001 5:35 AM
Tried it, no improvement on my System ... by the way: Do I really have to register (means: write in the registry) mozilla on my System (== to use the installer)? There is no comment about it in the release notes. One more question: My ProfileManager from Nestcape 4.xx is disappeared (doesn't launch at the start) since installing Netscape6 months ago. Is this a similiar Problem as the blank messageArea?
#19 it's Mozilla kicking IE's ass...
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 3:28 AM
#20 crashes on MacOS 9.1
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 4:26 AM
loads the componments then bombs with error 2 - back to 0.8 :-(
#107 Re: crashes on MacOS 9.1
Friday March 30th, 2001 4:55 PM
0.8.1 works fine for me under MacOS 9.1 - "Pismo" 400mhz Powerbook. Definitely better than 0.8.0.
#22 My little wish list
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 4:46 AM
Here's what I want seen done for .9 or .9.1(yeah looks like there's going to be one now, too much work to do still). I think a 1.0 build should focus on stability and optimizing only with no new features added. So that's why I'm asking for this stuff to be done in the next two milestones.
1. Being able to permanently delete the Import I.E. Favorites folder! Can someone give me the bug # for this one so I can check up on the progress of it? And of course vote for it as a high priority bug! :P
2. Checked radio buttons "black dot" edge misaligned (off to the left a little) and text boxes are way too fucking big compared to I.E. 5.5. Is this even a bug? Don't these need to **exactly** the same size or is being "standards complaint" forcing you guys to have to implement it this way?
3. Auto scroll down the web page (bug #?). Sure we got mouse wheel support but it would be so nice if we scroll down a page a bit quicker. K-Meleon has it working already under his version of Mozilla. I think I should bug him to submit an official patch to Mozilla. They already got it working, now it's just a matter of like what, changing a few lines of code to make it work with the newer builds?
4. Speed, speed, and more speed! Checked last nights build out and holy hell is it a lot better than it used to be. Reloading up Mozilla takes 3 seconds instead of four. Still needs more work though. Mail/News needs to load up a bit better. The new disk cache is a damn great feature that's well over due and makes downloading web pages much more zippier. :) However what I've been seeing lately is that Mozilla doesn't like to "finish the job" in that it'll always say that it is still downloading something when it's really not doing anything at all.
5. Small complaint. Using Netscape's Classic skin is cool looking, but shouldn't the scroll bars be the same size as in other programs? Looks way too big, and I'm the kind of person who likes as much real estate on my screen as possible. :)
6. Give the poor people what they want. LDAP. :)
SMALL REQUEST http://www.shacknews.com Can someone help Steve Gibson out? The kid needs help in getting that sidebar thingy fix, obviously and other little formatting errors like that. Plus he swears that Mozilla can't do iFrames properly like he uses them in I.E. 5.5. I've mentioned this before, but you guys got confused on what I was saying. He has this ultra cool option thing Flat mode where you can click the "replies: xxx" link and it'll refresh that small section and put it into thread mode for all comments underneath the first comment. Try it in I.E. to see what I mean. In DThread mode you can click on any of the replies to a main comment and it'll refresh that tiny section to have the reply comment that you want to read at the top of the thread. All this is done very quick and convenient for the user to use and I like it. :) Also, try using the Shackpoll and see how long it takes you to get you to the results screen (if ever). Why does it take sooooooooo long? Is it a Mozilla bug? So can someone help him out here on this one? Please? :)
#25 Re: My little wish list
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 5:24 AM
Okay that delete Imported IE favorites bug has 41 votes. Won't that get somebody's attention to get it fixed? :)
#54 Re: My little wish list
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 1:27 PM
1. You've responded to this yourself
2. The text fields are only different sizes if you're using a variable-width font. The issue is very simple -- if you have a <input size="10"> and you type 10 'W's in it in IE, you will only see about 6 of the 'W's. In Mozilla you'll see 10. Since there is no "correct" way to size input boxes with variable-width font, we picked one that works. rods has been working on figuring out the crazy way IE determines the sizing so we can emulate it if we wish, but he has had little success so far. (See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44467 and http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43847)
As for your comments on Steve Gibson's site I seem to recall the bug you filed on that. The JS he uses for that cool effect is using IE-only DOM. If he just used the W3C DOM it would work in both Mozilla and IE.
#84 Re: My little wish list
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 10:00 PM
First you say no new features only stabalization, then you say ldap support. Everybody is probably thinking, of something similar like no new features, except css2, etc... No new features should mean no new stinking features.
#93 That's not what I meant!
Thursday March 29th, 2001 7:27 AM
You got something mixed up. I meant to say that 0.9 and 0.9.1 can have new features added to it, but the big 1.0 version should focus on only stability and optimization. Sorry for the confusion. :)
Come to think of it, I think Mozilla needs a few more .9x builds in order to get everything a 1.0 browser should have like, Delete IE Folder. Back and forward buttons fixed. Layout of preferences and other pop-ups need to be cleaned up and more.professional looking. Text boxs the same size in IE. Autoscrolling. LDAP.
All this is what I feel would either not take too long to implement or fix(except LDAP). It would be cool if their was a new Milestone added(.9.2) that dealt with these issues. Shouldn't take more than a week to get this stuff in but as of now most of the new features I want implemented are assigned to a build way past a 1.2 release. :(
Am I asking too much here to get fixed? That god damn Delete IE favorites bug has close to 50 votes now. SOMEBBODY FIX IT PLEASE? PLEASE?
#24 Why I use Mozilla
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 5:12 AM
Don't mean to fuel the flames but...
macpeep: Just because you say Mozilla sucks compared to IE doesn't mean I agree. IE6 *still* doesn't support the alpha channel in PNG images or position: fixed. Those alone are reasons to use Mozilla (or K-Meleon if you want an ultrafast browsing experience).
#33 Re: Why I use Mozilla
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 7:23 AM
No alpha channel in PNG or position: fixed means nothing for the end user. It means a lot for web site developers that would want to use those features but can't. For the end user, all that matters is a fast and painless web surfing experience where all sites just simply work. IE gives you that now, Mozilla doesn't - yet. *YET* is important. One day, hopefully soon, it will. Right now, it doesn't and saying that Mozilla is on par / has surpassed IE is just not true. On a piece of paper where you count percentages of supported CSS3, yeah, maybe Mozilla is ahead. In the real world where UI responsivenes, speed and general polish is more important, Mozilla doesn't cut it - yet.
This is why I use IE 5.5 as my primary browser but follow the Mozilla project closely. I'm hoping to one day have an open source browser that is world class. Unfortunately Mozilla is not world class yet - no matter how hard you want it to be and how much you try to "shutup" (a direct quote) people who think different than you.
#43 Mozilla IS world class.
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:38 AM
Just try to look beyond your borders. Mozilla is not only great, it's also free (well, sort of). Just try K-Meleon. It's not good enough? Oh well, try Galeon. You don't own a freenix System? I feel sorry for you. IE is not even close to an alternative, if you do NOT own a Windows System. And I won't PAY for that, just to use IE. Never. I have Galeon, the freaking best Browser GUI I ever used and it's sitting on top of the most complete renderengine (gecko of course). Yes there are faster ones (Opera) and yes, there are small bugs. But that's why it is called 0.8 and not 8.0. And yes, I recently installed a Windows system again (Win2k) and I tried IE. It sucked big time. I didn't like the feel, I didn't like the look. Yes, I'm biased. And so are you. Not everybody is happy with the IE GUI. I tried Mozilla on Windows and it was great. I didn't notice any GUI difference to native Windows programs and that's outstanding (cause it is a plattform independent GUI. Can you imagine how easy it would have been to make a native win32 GUI?). Yes, startup time is slower than IE, but we all know the reasons. Explorer _is_ Windows. Some people like to have a choice. Even if it's not _that_ integrated into the system. And besides of all those facts, Mozilla is not only a browser, it's much more. And it's doing great. And it really doesn't matter if it is better than IE or not. It is DIFFERENT. And for a lot of people Mozilla is already the better CHOICE. You should accept that. If it is not the better choice for YOU, than you have to continue your Mozilla support, until it does. Demoralizing (I don't think, that this word exists ;)) it's fans, is not a good way to support a project.
#46 Demoralization (hello macpeep)
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:03 AM
EXACTLY!!!! Demoralizing is the perfect word (and yes, it is one!) Those who support a product don\\\'t go around publically, vituperatively, and indiscriminately attacking what they support. Begone, troll!
#77 Re: Mozilla IS world class.
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 2:07 PM
"I feel sorry for you. IE is not even close to an alternative, if you do NOT own a Windows System."
You forget the Macintosh. You know that other OS. IE5 works great on MACS.
"Yes, startup time is slower than IE, but we all know the reasons. Explorer _is_ Windows. "
Oh right. Check out your startup times on Macs. Guess what IE 5 loads up fast, runs smooth and renders pretty well. Can Moz beat it on some features? Sure? But fast, well rendered browsing? Nope.
Demoralizing (I don't think, that this word exists ;)) it's fans, is not a good way to support a project.
Eh, but sometimes Fans need a healthy dose of reality. Everyone who's reading this would love Moz to succeed, to become a light, fast, well featured, standard complaint browser. Sure it hurts a bit to hear IE 5 is better at most aspects, but so is life. Just say you're working on it. Here's an alternative and release it when it's ready. WHat most of us worry about is that Moz should have been a fantastical leap in front of IE 6.0. Rewriting from scratch is hard, sure, but with all the knowledge of how people write HTML, and how the web is used it should have had an advantage (but possibly still working on stability). It's not there. What I constantly see at Mozillazine is talk from developers addressing developer related problems. As a user ALL i want is a light browser that loads itself and a page fast. It should do all the basics (Mail, Browse, Print Preview) and HTML. It should also instantly move forward and back. This was IE 5's best feature. Sure it's easy to SAY, but when people address these issues they are often met with resistance. You ask me to contribute, well I've contributed a bug or two, but more than that isn't going to happen. I'm simply not qualified and don't have the time between school, work, and life.
#26 $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:04 AM
I followed the imglib2 link which brought up the libpr0n site. In the FAQ is states that a $34.95 registration fee would be required for unrestricted access to the library. Is this an attempt at a joke?
#30 Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:46 AM
It\'s certainly no joke. But only pixels from pornographic images are counted.
#32 Re: Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 7:00 AM
How does the library know if an image is pornographic?
#102 Libpr0n uses ai
Thursday March 29th, 2001 10:52 PM
Basically, libpr0n requires a neural net card to tell if an image is pornographic :-)
#104 Re: Re: Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Thursday March 29th, 2001 11:05 PM
By deductive reasoning. The logic behind it is pure simplicity...
If it's on the internet then it must be pr0n.
This is what our fearless leaders have said and so it must be true.
#39 Re: Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 9:47 AM
Yes, it's a joke! In fact, the whole libpr0n webpage is a joke.
#55 Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 1:55 PM
no. it's not a joke. not at all. *cough*
..anyhow... I'm collecting money for pav, please send cash c/o Ben Goodger, Netscape Communications, 466 Ellis St., Mountain View CA 94043. Thanks!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:40 AM
tried accessing corporate web based email (those MS Exchange web based page). and it couldn't pop-up the email in the new window. this seems a pretty common problem even with nightly builds. some work and some don't. but I would have expect the release version to be better.... btw, I'm using it on Linux
#31 $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 6:58 AM
I followed the imglib2 link which brought up the libpr0n site. In the FAQ is states that a $34.95 registration fee would be required for unrestricted access to the library. Is this an attempt at a joke?
#34 Re: $34.95 for libpron?
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 7:35 AM
Whahah, that's not an attempt at a joke. It is a GREAT joke even! LOL. "The intention is to restrict the version of libpr0n shipped with Mozilla to a fixed number of pixels per session"
Now that is called coders humour...!
#36 Can anyone explain me libpron anyways? n/t
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 8:19 AM
#40 Re: Can anyone explain me libpron anyways? n/t
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 9:49 AM
libpr0n is the code-name for this replacement of the old image-rendererer "imglib". the name ``libpr0n'' is a joke - it is an attempt to render pornographic material faster. :)
It is also known as imglib2.
#41 thanks ha/okon!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:16 AM
That's the clear answer I always wanted to hear! ;-)
#37 Back and forward buttons disapeared!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 8:57 AM
Did I miss something or did the forward and back buttons really disappeared form the default installation settings???
Furthurmore, I can't find where to make them reappear in the Preferences panel...HELP!
#38 Re: Back and forward buttons disapeared!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 9:28 AM
you must be using a non-default skin - they must be updated to work with the newest builds. Try switching to the classic skin.
#42 Re: Re: Back and forward buttons disapeared!
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 10:36 AM
You are right! It worked.
Thanks a lot!
#48 crashes on win32
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:51 AM
crashes quite often after usage of Netscape 6.01 ... error in xpcom.dll. otherwise o.k.
#76 Re: crashes on win32
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 12:48 PM
bug #73513 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73513
#60 Linux Build 2001032614 aka Mozilla 0.8.1
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 7:00 PM
---> Nice <---- >>>> Thanks to all who contributed. <<<<
After using nightlys, this is a welcome change which I am going to have to use for a while. :) The last, 2001032608, was _very_ broken(bookmark manager). I am sooo glad this release is out!
Great job folks; thanks again.
#61 All kinds of problems with 0.8.1
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 8:23 PM
I'm having two major problems with 0.8.1.
First, even if I delete ~/.mozilla, start up, convert (or dont) my 4.x profile, after quitting and starting again, its asking me to convert my profile again.
Second, following the instructions in the release notes exactly for encrypting information, if the first password I try to encrypt is my IMAP password mozilla crashes. The sequence is
-asks for IMAP password, I give and check "remember" box. -asks for PSM password, I give, moz crashes.
This too is after deleting ~/.mozilla.
I've never had anywhere this much trouble with a daily build.
Any ideas? Anyone else seeing this?
#65 Why I say that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's ass
Tuesday March 27th, 2001 11:26 PM
Judging from the responses I've received here, I feel that I should explain myself and my point of view a little.
I've been using Mosaic before Netscape was founded. I've been using every single Netscape browser from the 0.9x betas up to 6.01 and I'm a big fan of Netscape (the company) and their company culture, the way it was back in the "early days" with coders pulling all nighters etc. Those of you who have read JWZ's stories know what I talk about. I've also used Mozilla nightlies and milestones since the project was started, and I follow the project closely. In short, I'm *VERY* biased towards Mozilla.. Still.. I use Internet Explorer 5.5 as my primary browser, both at home and at work. The reason for this is that I can't bring myself to accept the quality of Mozilla / Netscape 6 - yet. It's just not there yet, which is very evident just from browsing BugZilla a while or even by reading some of the responses to this article.
"It crashes before the first window even loads on Linux." - khankin
"What's going on with MozillaMail on Win32? Many MenuItems are not displayed, can't see any mails ... short: doesn't work." - turrican
"crashes on MacOS 9.1" - maxsec
"Back and forward buttons disapeared!" - fstmaurice
"crashes on win32" - turrican
"All kinds of problems with 0.8.1" - vondo
This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. This is why I don't think Mozilla is kicking IE's ass - YET. This is why I responded the way I did to jondes post and later to others. Please, stop kidding yourself and saying that Mozilla is kicking IE's ass. It's not! Not yet. It will one day, I'm sure, and I'm hoping to see that day as early as this summer and I'm reporting bugs and discussing issues in newsgroups to help this happen. What I can't do, however, is to close my eyes and lie that Mozilla would be better because it's not! It's not even in the same league yet.
Someone replied to me with "shutup!". Others with "ignore him" etc. While I'm not personally offended by stuff like this, I think it's sad that the Mozilla community responds to critisism / realism in this way. Some people responded with "yeah, you're right.. but one day we'll get there" or similar. This isn't turning your back against Mozilla. It's not demoralizing like someone said. It's being a realist. We have to be able to look at the project critically instead of accepting poor quality and just kidding ourselves by saying that "it rocks!".
I can't organize my bookmarks without copy-paste losing information or pasting (half of) the bookmarks in the wrong folders. Drag and drop is broken every other day, scrollbars don't appear in many places where they should (like the preferences tree), textfields are 1-2 pixels too tall in web pages, SSL is about 30 times slower than normal HTTP, until last week, Mail & News was unusable for anyone who really relies on email for work because emails were lost in folders and / or unreliably delivered and scrolling was so slow that it was practically impossible to search for emails by just scroll-looking for it. These things have to be fixed and they will be. But they aren't yet and that's why I'm saying that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's ass - YET. That doesn't make me a troll and it's not flaimbait. Unfortunately, it's just the truth.
#66 Re: Why I say that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's ass
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 3:01 AM
Right! Can't understand the discussion at all: It's a little bit childish ... Mozilla's just a beta at the moment and it will certainly *not* be the answer to *all* questions (but I like it!!!). Wait, and we'll see...
#67 What was your problem again?
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 4:08 AM
So what? If IE is the better browser for you: what is your problem? Just use it. Some people like Mozilla more than IE. They use Mozilla. Mozilla is already doing great and even far better than I thought it would do, some month ago. I'm happy with it, others are too. Not everybody of course. But why do you want to tell everybody, that really they _don't_ like Mozilla? Your are wrong. they do. Maybe IE is better for you, but others may have other points they consider as "important" features. At the moment, Mozilla is not the best choice for everyone, no doubts. Why can't you just accept, that you are one of those, who don't like Mozilla. You can say IE is faster, you can say IE has less GUI bugs, but you can definetly NOT say, "IE is better than Mozilla". Ok? It's just your opinion and it's our's, that Mozilla is far more interesting, powerfull, complete than IE. Also it still has bugs and flaws it's perfectly usable. Especially if you doesn't use the Mozilla UI, as I said before. The render engine is already VERY complete. And best of all, it's quite open so not only Netscape or Microsoft does profit from it, but also the users. And if I now say "Mozilla ROCKS for me", I don't feel like getting told by you, that in fact IE rocks much more for me. It's not.
#68 s/also/although/ (n.t.)
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 4:10 AM
#69 let me get it straight..
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 4:39 AM
So you're basically saying that you can say that "Mozilla ROCKS for me" but I can't say that "IE is better than Mozilla [for the time being]"?
Well, that's what you said:
"but you can definetly NOT say, 'IE is better than Mozilla'"
And you wonder what my problem is? Geez..
#70 I don't see any contradiction
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 6:43 AM
'Mozilla ROCKS for me' is a personal opinion.
'IE is better than Mozilla' is a personal opinion masquerading as an absolute.
If you want to compare like with like, you would say 'IE is better than Mozilla FOR ME'.
Why do you fail to understand the distinction ?
#71 Re: I don't see any contradiction
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 7:21 AM
"Why do you fail to understand the distinction?"
I'm not arguing about fricking semantics here. The whole thing started when someone said "Mozilla will kick IE's ass" (for the record, not including "for me") and I replied to it and said I disagree. That sparked a load of comments like "shut up, we don't care what YOU THINK" and now I'm saying that I don't like the attitude that people are being silenced just because they don't agree with an opinion.
In reply to that, I get a post where the writer says that "you can't say X" and then asks what my problem is. My problem is EXACTLY THAT; being told what I can and can't say and can and can't think. I think Mozilla is not on par with IE yet, but I hope it will be one day soon. This isn't about semantics regarding "for me" vs. stating things as absolute facts. Jesus Christ! What a bunch of kids!
I'm not commenting on this thread (or any in this article) anymore because any time spent on this is simply wasted.
#72 Your are right...
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 9:32 AM
... of course. But why shouldn't someone - who likes Mozilla - say, that it will kick IE's ass. You will see those comments on any larger project page. Those people are enthusiastic, they like what they see and they express their opinions. So, I wouldn't care if you would say "well, personally I don't think Mozilla will kick IE's ass soon, it has too many bugs, [...]". The problem is, that you CARE what others say. Someone says "Mozilla kicks IE's ass!" and you say something like "Bullshit, Mozilla isn't kicking IE's ass, you are stupid!". Do you see the difference? Different people, different opinions. You should accept, that some people REALLY like Mozilla and they REALLY think, that it is kicking IE's ass. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe you are wrong? Who knows. Feel free to express your opinions. Feel free to argue with others why Mozilla isn't there for you yet and what needs to be improved. But don't call others opinions "wrong". I would agree, if the developers would say "Well, Mozilla is already the best browser out there, let's stop development on it". But it's just a fan who wants to say "hey, you rock, your product rocks, I love it". There is really no need to argue about taste.
#78 The Problem here.
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 2:21 PM
The problem here is that I and Macpeep probably see Mozillazine as a representative of Mozilla. Sure if you\'re Mozilla USER and that\'s IT, well say what you like about Mozilla and what you don\'t. The problem is that I feel when I write \"Mozilla still has these problems\" I get refuted by developers. If I we\'re to write to Microsoft, I wouldn\'t get a letter back explaining how I was WRONG. I would likely get a letter saying thank you for you opinions. Why do many get so angry when IE5.5 is declared worse than Moz? It\'s because we don\'t think so and if the Moz biggest fans and developers DON\'T acknowledge MY problems with the browser, *I* will never see the Moz *I* want. Sure it\'s open source, I could go get myself into some programming courses, start programming and examining the code, but I don\'t want to develop code. I just want this browser. Saying Moz is better than IE seems ludicrous to me (you can disagree) but listen to my critiques. The only reason someone who critiques should be told to shut up is if I write.
\"MOZ SUCKZ IE 5.5 RULZ!!!!\"
At the end of this let me just mention something else. A ways back (around the Netscape 6 release) I stopped reading Mozillazine. I had checked it 2-3 days a week, now it\'s more 1 time a month. Why? Because the community\'s problems with moz were never listed. Mozillazine began to strive towards a place only for fans. Critiques from Netscape 6.0 articles were banished. Even now, as IE 6 is released, nothing announces it. Nobody says hey take a look at IE 6.0, check it out. What are they up to. What\'s improved. Do they have any good ideas. How\'s it render ETC. It\'s just dumb. Now MZine doesn\'t contribute to the project as I\'m sure it once did. The reason, people who aren\'t fans--who haven\'t gotten the browser they want have been told YOU ARE NOT WELCOME. It sucks and it\'s NOT how you build a better browser.
#82 Re: The Problem here.
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 6:16 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. There need to be more constructive responds instead of childish arguments over something really pointless.
#83 Re: The Problem here.
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 6:28 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. There need to be more constructive responds instead of childish arguments over something really pointless.
#87 Yes, but...
Thursday March 29th, 2001 1:09 AM
I absolutely agree was you. BUT... I never told macpeep to shut up and to not express his feeling, that he likes IE better than mozilla (with reasons of course). All I told macpeep was to NOT say that anyone elses opinion is WRONG. Someone said "Mozilla is better than IE!" and he got outraged, telling him how wrong he would be and that IE is far ahead. So we basically agree, that noone should be told that his opinion would be wrong. Everyone can express his problems with mozilla and everyone can express his enthusiasm for mozilla. Right? If someone thinks, that Mozilla is better than IE, than this is the truth for him. Don't tell him, he would be wrong. Just say "I don't think so, because..."
#94 Re: Yes, but...
Thursday March 29th, 2001 8:26 AM
Sorry I was ranting a bit. You didn't, but someone did:
#98 Re: Your are right...
Thursday March 29th, 2001 10:30 AM
Sparkster, your response was an excellent one, for everyone who can read more than the first line of a message. Unfortunately, some people can't. You better don't waste your time. I was intending to write up a whole article about the definition of trolling behaviour. But I don't like to be flammed. Anyway, this man is a perfect troll example. He managed to increase the responses of 0.8.1 anouncement to (currently) 97. Most of these responses are related to him, what a happiness to make the world turn around you! Sorry for being a bit rough but I would prefer to read more important stuff in Mozillazine.
#88 MSIE is unusable because of many security flaws
Thursday March 29th, 2001 1:37 AM
This is my reason, why I don't use it (as well as Outlook (express). This is a reason that is more important than speed. I've been using Mozilla e-mail since August 2000 and I haven't actually lost data. My only problem has been the deleted e-mails reappearing. So mcpeep you can see that for some people, there _are_ reasons to say Mozilla ROCKS!
#85 Why most Mozilla critics suck
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 11:21 PM
If you make an anouncement on Slashdot or a similar site about a new mozilla release and you will get a flood of people who do nothing but bitch and whinge about mozilla. "It's slow!" "It crashes too much!" "It will never be a good browser!" And they try to justify it with their limited knowledge by saying it's because it has a bad design etc etc
To those people: This is not surprising! Mozilla hasn't even reached version 1 yet, it is still considered beta. The mozilla website still says that you should not use mozilla as your primary web browser, even though a lot of people are, including myself. Those people seem to believe that software, especially open source, should be fast and stable all throughout their development and I don't understand why. No one seems to complain that the preview release of IE6 is unstable and likely to crash your entire system, or that it has been about 2 years since their last major release.
To clarify things for the critics development works like this: Design the software. Make it a good design. Code accourding to this design. You now have a product that works, but this version will always be slow and unstable. Improve this version. Optimise the code, make it stable and fast. Mozilla is in this last stage now. I believe Mozilla is becoming visably faster with each new release.
I also believe, against many comments and articles to the contrary, that mozilla is going to become an example of a great open source success story. But Macpeep is right when he says mozilla is not ready yet because there are problems with it, but I personally believe that it is competition for IE.
One last comment to the uninformed. Wait until version 1 is released. If it is still slow, buggy, and crap, then you can complain, until then 'shut up'. And even then, you can only complain if you are running a decent machine. Stop complaining that it doesn't run on your old pentium 133.
#95 Re: Why I say that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's ass
Thursday March 29th, 2001 9:10 AM
There's a lot of denial going on. All indications are the Mozilla is a horribly buggy browser and that it is getting more buggy rather than less. The anecdotal evidence you cite is fairly convergent, but have you seen the defect curve from bugzilla? It provides more quantitative data:
Note that the number of bugs is not going down; it is going up. Also notice that the slope of outstanding bug reports is increasing rather than decreasing. That's bad news no matter how you cut it, and excuses like "we don't get to see IE's bug reports" just don't speak to the basic facts of the case.
#97 Re: Re: Why I say that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's
Thursday March 29th, 2001 9:33 AM
"Also notice that the slope of outstanding bug reports is increasing rather than decreasing. "
I realize what you're trying to say, but have you ever sat there and gone over all those "NEW" bugs. A good percentage are "delete your mozreg" or "try a new build" then they're invalidated. How many of those bugs in that graph are "Mozilla should make my coffee" kind of requests? We've all seen them. While giving any joe-schmoe the ability to report a bug is great, there is no guarantee that the reported bug is actually a bug until it gets assigned,verified etc. etc.
What would be interesting to see would be a table that tracked the ratio of REAL bugs fixed to REAL bugs reported. But then what defines a real bug from a trivial bug? Is a bug I consider trivial important to someone? We can all sit there and scrub bugzilla for stats, but most of the reports are subjective, so you can't bring those numbers into the game.
Bottom line is that it keeps getting better with every milestone. /me now encourages everyone to get back to work and help out. :)
#116 Re: Re: Why I say that Mozilla isn't kicking IE's
Tuesday April 3rd, 2001 12:06 PM
In my experience, most bug reports that are added never even make it into the NEW state. They are entered as UNCONFIRMED, and then most often resolved as WORKSFORME, DUPLICATE, INVALID, WONTFIX. Bugs that are NEW are most often real bugs, although many of them are trivial or enhancement requests.
#79 Debugging cruft in win32 builds?
Wednesday March 28th, 2001 2:39 PM
Is it just me or do the Win32 builds have the debugging stuff built in? Is this normal for what should be a release?
I usually use Chris Blizzard's rpm packaged builds for Linux, which are built as separate mozilla / mozilla-mail / mozilla-psm / mozilla-chat, all stripped down without the debugging stuff compiled in. It makes everything a little faster, and the builds a little smaller.
#86 HEY! This is COOL!
Thursday March 29th, 2001 12:26 AM
This may not be 0.8.1-related, but I just noticed something that Mozilla does that IE does not: When you have a long table that runs for more than a single page, Mozilla uses css "thead" to print the column headers on every page - IE 5.5 doesn't!
#92 Re: HEY! This is COOL!
Thursday March 29th, 2001 4:43 AM
"thead" I don't know about, but whatever you put in "th" is printed at the top of the table on every page on IE too..
#89 this should be forwarded to Red Hat..
Thursday March 29th, 2001 2:38 AM
lmake says: "To those people: This is not surprising! Mozilla hasn't even reached version 1 yet, it is still considered beta. The mozilla website still says that you should not use mozilla as your primary web browser.."
Red Hat plans to put Mozilla into their 7.1 release, see this link:
Is it going too far? including a browser that will lost form data when you hit 'reload'...
#90 Re: this should be forwarded to Red Hat..
Thursday March 29th, 2001 2:45 AM
As said on the RedHat Page: "This is a beta release of Red Hat Linux. It is not intended for mission critical applications. It`s not even intended for non-mission critical applications. Important data should not be entrusted to Wolverine, as it may eat it and make loud belching noises." JustForFun!
#96 Re: this should be forwarded to Red Hat..
Thursday March 29th, 2001 9:33 AM
Well, of course you will still have the option of using the old Netscape 4.x.
I think it's great that Redhat is supporting and contributing to Mozilla, and it's great that Mozilla is finally going to be included in the Redhat distribution.
I've been using the daily rpm builds of Mozilla from Chris Blizzard, who works for Redhat. From what I've seen, Mozilla on Linux has become the most stable and powerful browser anywhere.
#99 Where are the builds?
Thursday March 29th, 2001 11:24 AM
Has there been no builds since Mar 23, other than 0.8.1.
Anything after that?
#100 Re: Where are the builds?
Thursday March 29th, 2001 12:05 PM
There has been plenty of builds since March 23, Asa just hasn't been updating the Build Comments lately.
#101 Re: Where are the builds?
Thursday March 29th, 2001 1:44 PM
As usual, use at your own risk :)
#103 Mozilla on Mac OS
Thursday March 29th, 2001 10:56 PM
I've been using Mozilla 0.8 and now 0.8.1 under Mac OS 9.1 and it's been good, much improved over the previous releases. I'd concur with those saying "it's getting there" lots of nice features. I'm more impressed now than I was 6 months ago.
#105 forward and backward buttons
Friday March 30th, 2001 1:34 AM
Can anyone tell me how to make the forward and backward buttons reappear without changing back to default skin? Thank you.
#112 Re: forward and backward buttons
Sunday April 1st, 2001 7:42 AM
Get the author of your skin to update it. That's the only way.
Friday March 30th, 2001 1:59 PM
This is sort of off topic, but how do you change the color of a HR? Now I know that M$IE has support for including color=##### within the HR tag. Although I posed the question that Moz should perhaps support this in a newsgroup, and it was shot down since it was not a part of the "HTML standard". That's okay and all, but as far as I can tell there is no CSS support for this either. I was just wondering since everything I've tried on Moz doesn't work, and I'm not sure if this is "impossible" according to html standards, or if it's just a bug in Mozilla.
#113 Re: HR
Sunday April 1st, 2001 7:45 AM
If I remember, an <hr> in mozilla is just a block element with no content and a border. So setting the border-color on <hr> should do what you want.
Does this setup make sense? <shrug>
#114 got it
Sunday April 1st, 2001 11:53 PM
actually it seems to be background-color. This must have been fixed since I last messed with it, since I'm SURE I tried that. I still find it odd that when you set size=1 the thing is still fairly fat. Setting the border to 0px in css takes care of that though =) I'm I the only one left that cares about HR's anymore? LOL. Thanks for the help =)
#108 Memory usage!!!
Friday March 30th, 2001 6:32 PM
I\\\\\\\'ve been happily using Mozilla as my primary browser for months now, and I really like it. I\\\\\\\'ve had it open for days at a time without crashing.
Of course I\\\\\\\'m hoping it will speed up, but mostly I\\\\\\\'m hoping it\\\\\\\'s memory usage will decrease. It\\\\\\\'s memory consumption just grows and grows. Right now, Moz 8.1 has been open most of the day (6 hours), has 2 windows open, and is consuming 75MB on w2k.
Other that that, I thinks it\\\\\\\'s the cheese!!
#109 Re: Memory usage!!!
Friday March 30th, 2001 6:33 PM
Gee, Im so sorry to have used apostrophes... That looks horrible!
#115 Works fine for me (Win2K, NT 4)
Monday April 2nd, 2001 8:53 AM
For me, this has been the best release yet.
#117 Win32 - browser locks when net connection is lost
Friday April 6th, 2001 2:31 PM
If my Internet connection dies for any reason the browser locks up and I have to kill the program via Cntrl+Alt+Delete. I can't close it normally after it realizes there is no Internet connection and the error message has popped up.