MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Independent Project Status Reports

Tuesday May 15th, 2001

This week's report features updates from K-Meleon, DocZilla, the Links Panel, and the new Link Element Toolbar. Enjoy!


#1 KMeleon comments

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday May 15th, 2001 9:35 PM

Reply to this message

KMeleon is cool. Now with proxy support it is a full-on alternative to moz & ie. One thing I would like to see implemented is the ability to customize the toolbar with such functions as captions under or by side of the image. Ability to easily add/remove buttons that correspond to various functions, particularly those that are not made available by the major browsers (like New Browser window button, Open file). Also, the ability to right-click on an image and email the image right from the menu. That would be great.

#2 go to kmeleon.org

by joschi

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:20 AM

Reply to this message

they have active forums there to report bugs and request features. just posting here may get limited results.

#3 Why so fast?

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 5:40 AM

Reply to this message

How can K-meleon be that fast and the official mozilla version so slow. I dont mean the speed of rendering pages. No Im talking about the browsers menus etc. I think Mozilla should focus on the navigator and make the mail, composer, addresbook etc as tools... especially the composer! And if I had to choose between a fastloaded browser with a fast UI instead of being able to change skins the choice would be simple. Dont you agree?

Im a bigfan of Mozillas built in mail program but at the same time I think it should be optional!

Business before pleasure

#4 Re: Why so fast?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 6:39 AM

Reply to this message

> built in mail program but at the same time I think it should be optional!

it is optional, when you use the installer.

> I think Mozilla should focus on the navigator and make the mail, composer, addresbook etc as tools.

Mozilla is focused on making an internet suite, its the purpose of its existence.

if you wish a quick GUI (mozilla's GUI on fast computers can be just as fast as a native GUI) just use k-meleon.

if you want a good email app, use euroa, netscape messenger (4.x) or even Outlook (ofcourse, with scripting disabled, and file extensions enabled). i'm sure someday someone will come along and write a frontend for mozilla's email app using a native toolkit.

same goes for composer.. just use dreamweaver. there are god knows how many wysiwyg editors for windows.

#9 Re: KMeleon comments

by archen

Monday May 21st, 2001 5:31 PM

Reply to this message

so I'm thinking, "whoo hoo - galeon for windows!", then I poke around the website and look at screen caps and think, "Aw geeze, they f*cked it up". I mean it's an awesome Idea and all, but why would I choose an alternative to IE that looks JUST LIKE IE? Yeah, I know... standards and all that stuff, but seriously, a big part of moz (and derivatives thereof) is that they look cool/better/different. Rather disappointed... but I guess if it's skinnable still it's easy enough to fix (I'm just too lazy).

#10 come on.

by joschi

Monday May 21st, 2001 5:52 PM

Reply to this message

If you want a cool looking, cross platform, skinnable browser, you should use Mozilla. The POINT of K-Meleon is to develop a native gecko-based windows browser, similar enough to IE to make IE users comfortable.

#11 Re: come on.

by archen

Monday May 21st, 2001 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

Um... I use a Pentium 133 for the majority of my web page development at home. So that means I'm screwed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that k-meleon is supposed to be like Galeon - simple, unbloated Mozilla with a simple interface. Looking like IE is just a "feature". I just think it's sort of flawed to strait out make a browser that looks just like IE. I mean it sounds strange to try to play up a browser that's simple and looks just like IE. I think most people are used to ignoring features they don't use on IE anyway, and since IE is already on their computers, and has at least half of its libraries always loaded, I'm not sure most people could see a huge difference in k-meleon performance overall. So I can uninstall IE now? Well not really... since it's integrated (unless you use 98 Lite). IE is sort of always running too since it's integrated. It just seems to me like most of the people that would use k-meleon are those people who for some reason already don't like IE. And some people like me never really cared much for the IE interface to begin with. I'm all for having IE skins, showing what Moz technology can do, but I think many people like me want simplicity but something... a bit cooler with a flavor all its own. Well I donno, that's what I think anyway.

Now if they just had "view just this frame" on the mouse menu...

#15 Re: Re: come on.

by joschi

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

I think you are a little confused. The stated goal of KMeleon is to develope fast light a native win32 open, free, standards compliant browser with an interface similar to that of ie's. It isn't a side feature at all and has nothing to do with skinning. Also, in KMeleon it is drop dead simple to change key bindings and menu order. It is really cool. I urge you to try it out.

#16 Re: come on.

by archen

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 8:00 PM

Reply to this message

My mistake about the skinning thing =)

I have tried it, and I like it a LOT (hell I'm using it now). I admit I like everything about it... except the INTERFACE. Yeah, I still don't like it. Not so say that I wan't some totally wacked out design, but I want a program that makes me feel like I'm using THAT program. I mean you open photoshop, you feel your using photoshop; I just don't like opening a program that sort of mimics another (which I didn't care for in the first place). A little more style in the buttons (bit bigger too for that matter), and a bit of character... that's all I'm getting at.

#17 i hear you.

by joschi

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 8:28 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, i totally hear you. But then again, I bet you anything that as KMeleon approaches 1.0 it will be much more configurable. I *think* i read something in their forums about possibly add icon themes, so at you could optionally get rid of the ugly MS icons :)

#118 icon themes

by Sparkster

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

They are great... :) Galeon supports them too and it makes the look really much more unique. But I would also suggest to NOT use those default IE Icons. They should be an alternate skin perhaps, if someone likes them. They do not add anything to ease of use. Not eve nthe dumbest of all users is confused, if he sees a "back" button with another left-arrow icon...

#12 and...

by archen

Monday May 21st, 2001 10:44 PM

Reply to this message

er, well I guess "skinning" probably isn't the term I'm looking for... maybe configurability? being able to set your own icons and such without having to recompile the code yourself... I'm not sure that qualifies as skinning or not.

#13 Re: come on.

by macpeep

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

Why though? If it looks like IE, why can't I just use IE? IE is faster than Mozilla (the rendering), it practically *never* crashes - at least on any of the machines I use it on (at least much less than Mozilla) and it renders just about every page on the web the way the page was intended to be rendered.

I've also never heard of any person who has had his/her computer hacked because of an Internet Explorer security bug, and there are 100+ million IE users out there so.. So.. I repeat the question.. If the alternative looks identical to IE, why should I switch?

I see several reasons to switch to Mozilla - Mail & News being a major reasons, cool looks being another (finally now that Modern 3 is starting to get finalized).. But to something that looks and acts just like IE?

#14 Re: Re: come on.

by joschi

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 2:59 PM

Reply to this message

Man, what kind of crack are you smoking? Have you ever tried K-Meleon? On my pII-300 KMeleon cold starts in about 6-7 seconds, Mozilla takes about 15-20, IE takes about 12-16. Kmeleon's renders complicated webpages like 400 message long slashdot flamewars about twice as fast as IE.

IE crashes constantly on my win98 box, forcing a reboot. Yes, its a fresh install. IE crashes daily on my girlfriends win2k FRESH INSTALL killing her startbar, desktop icons, file managing, etc. I can't remeber the last time a Mozilla/KMeleon crash caused me to reboot. Just the other week YET ANOTHER huge security whole was found in IE that allowed some simple javascript to OWN YOU WINDOWS 2000 ENTRIPRISE LEVEL SERVER by browsing a webpage. When was the last time Mozilla ever did that? Oh right, um... NEVER.

Damn you are funny as hell, thanks for bringing a smile to my face on this otherwise slow afternoon. :)

#18 Re: Re: Re: come on.

by macpeep

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

Crack? I don't know about you but if IE takes you 12-16 seconds to start, there must be something seriously wrong with either you or your machine.

I don't know about rendering 400 message long Slashdot flamewars but in general, there surely doesn't seem to be a speed advantage for Mozilla over IE - quite the opposite. I can resize the IE window and it will redraw and resize the HTML on the fly without any problem so.. I don't see where you get "twice as fast" on Mozilla. How did you get that number?

The advantage isn't really meaningful normally but in the context of replacing IE with something that looks exactly like IE, it is. Do you have any stats to compare IE vs. Mozilla page rendering and loading times? I'd be majorly surprised if Mozilla is ahead in the game.

Crashes? I don't know.. Maybe you are just one of those people for whom IE crashes once every 15 minutes and Mozilla never goes down. Funny thing how the majority of users seem to be in a completely reversed position. I can't even count how many of friends and co-workers have uninstalled Mozilla cause it was "buggy, slow as hell and unstable". Without any facts from either of us, there's no point in debating this, but I'd say that if IE really crashes once a day for you and your girlfriend, there seems to be something screwy with your setups cause I don't think IE has crashed EVER on my Windows 2000 boxes at home (2), nor at work (1).

Security holes.. How many have their been in Netscape 4.x since it was released? We've had HOW many update versions? I'd say the number is in the same ballpark as IE bugs. Security bugs is by no means an IE specific problem. And besides, I've yet to hear of anyone who had their computer hacked into due to a bug in Internet Explorer, but I'm sure you know 20 people. I wouldn't be surprised if the same 20 people also spell Microsoft with a $.

Don't exaggerate the problems the competition has. It does nobody any good since everyone can test and see what it's like ourselves and see the validity (or lack of) of your arguments.

#19 Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 12:18 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, numbers say that IE5/Win is still rendering pages faster than Mozilla (not Gecko specifically), although we should get a very nice performance boost from the CSS rule matching rewrite that's being done (tentatively scheduled to land as the first check-in for 0.9.2, and possibly into 0.9.1 if deemed stable and not cause any significant regressions).

Mozilla is catching up, but we're not quite there yet.

Of course, IE5/Mac is a different question. I don't have numbers for it, but it definitely feels sluggish at times.

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#21 Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 3:01 AM

Reply to this message

"I don't know about you but if IE takes you 12-16 seconds to start, there must be something seriously wrong with either you or your machine."

On my computer IE takes ages to load. So does the first Windows Explorer window I open or anything that uses IE's rendering engine (Winamp, Shockmachine etc.). I've heard it could be due to the number of fonts I have installed on my system (several hundred). Apparently, IE loads them all on startup, which is why it takes so long...

Non-NewZilla Alex

#23 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by macpeep

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 7:01 AM

Reply to this message

Interesting. Usually anti-IE people claim that the reason it loads so fast is that it's loaded when Windows loads. Now all of a sudden, it's SLOW loading the first time so it seems it's NOT loaded when Windows loads? Which one is it?

The part about fonts does make sense though and is true for many applications.

#26 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

"Now all of a sudden, it's SLOW loading the first time so it seems it's NOT loaded when Windows lo"ads? Which one is it?"

Both. As far as I know, some of IE is loaded when Windows starts and the rest when the first IE window is opened. I guess the fonts aren't loaded until the first Window is loaded.

What I don't understand is why all the fonts are loaded at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to load the required fonts on demand?

Non-NewZilla Alex

#27 Re: come on.

by rotocat

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 8:11 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know about other people, but when I load IE5.X or even 6.0beta, the screen with the menubar and buttons loads in about a half second. However, the actual web viewing area of the screen remains blank just for 10-15 second before anything starts displaying. This is on a PIII 750.

#28 Re: Re: come on.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

That's similar to what happens for me. The IE window opens, the chrome loads, but then there's a gap before MSN appears. IE is totally unresponsive during this time and there's lots of hard disk activity. Usually I switch to other application while waiting.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#29 Ditto me (N/T).

by FrodoB

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

N/T

#33 Displaying chrome to alter perception

by caspy7

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

So it sounds like IE could be displaying the chrome asap so as to give the appearance of a quicker than actual startup. Then its just \'slow\' loading the first page.

Whatever the case, if stuff is happening while a program is loading the user won\'t be so bored and the load time won\'t *seem* so long.

Any chance moz could display the chrome first then let other stuff load so as to reduce the user\'s level of bordom and change the perception of load time?

#34 Re: Displaying chrome to alter perception

by macpeep

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 3:35 PM

Reply to this message

I'm really surprised.. IE loads in no time flat for me. Mozilla also loads so fast that I'd never even consider load time an issue. And I don't have insane amounts of RAM (128 megs) or SCSI hard drives or anything either. Maybe it really is the amount of fonts or something like that that is slowing it down for you guys..

#35 Re: Displaying chrome to alter perception

by archen

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 4:56 PM

Reply to this message

Well not to spread anti M$ propaganda or anything, but it seems to me that getting the window up was a priority with Microsoft. One thing I'll say about MS applications is that the throw the splash screen up faster than any other program I've used. And that's the point of splash screens, to make you THINK it's loaded faster, when it's still chugging along and loading. Perhaps this is also why IE loads the window with no functionality. I mean it's THERE but it's not. Observably using windows 95 (clean) and comparing N4 to IE4, both actually become usable in about the same amount of time. IE throws up the splash screen faster, and it shows the window faster, but you can USE them both in about the same amount of time. That's with 107 fonts BTW.

Either way, K-meleon actually loads faster than pretty much any browser I've used other than Opera.

#36 i'm not sure how i feel about this.

by joschi

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 8:04 PM

Reply to this message

Displaying a broken window quickly has two effects, it feels like the browser loads faster, but also makes it feel less "professional" if you know what i mean. I think the best thing I've seen this handled is the way Ximian's apps (Evolution, Red Carpet) load. They throw up a splash screen instantly, and on the splash screen is a set of icons showing what is loading, like the extensios icons on a Mac. It is very veyr slick.

#37 Re: i'm not sure how i feel about this.

by glo_worm <glo83@yahoo.comical>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 8:59 PM

Reply to this message

> I think the best thing I've seen this > handled is the way Ximian's apps > (Evolution, Red Carpet) load.

i agree.. not to mention that the images and icons look absolutely gorgeous. i wonder if it would be a good idea to do this at some point in mozilla, with similar status icons for mail/news, java, other plugins, etc..?

#38 4.x tried this

by caspy7

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 9:30 PM

Reply to this message

"They throw up a splash screen instantly, and on the splash screen is a set of icons showing what is loading, like the extensios icons on a Mac."

This is something I think 4.x was going for with the splash screen that had the text flashing by at the bottom...which is better than nothing. I thought at some time Moz would impliment this again because there is a black strip at the bottom of its splash screen.

#43 No text on splash screen is a bug

by theuiguy

Thursday May 24th, 2001 9:12 AM

Reply to this message

Not having the status/progress text on the splash screen like with Netscape 4.x is a bug for Windows only. Go vote for it: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35866>

It amazes me that it hasn't been fixed yet.

#30 yup.

by joschi

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

When i first load ie, it pops up a window very quickly, but then trashes on the harddrive for like 10 more seconds while the window is unable to be used.

#20 Re: Re: come on.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 2:57 AM

Reply to this message

"...and it [IE] renders just about every page on the web the way the page was intended to be rendered."

But Gecko is more standards compliant than IE's rendering engines (there's different ones for Win and Mac, right?), so Gecko is actually rendering pages as intended (by the standards at least). The only time pages look better in IE is when Web developers have designed the pages around IE's quirks.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#25 Re: Re: Re: come on.

by macpeep

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

Gecko is more standards compliant than IE - yes. Nobody is arguing against that. What I'm saying is that if you surf on the top-500 websites, a larger percentage of these will look the way the designer intended for the people that use IE as opposed to those people that use Mozilla. The reason is very simple - since more people use IE, pages are designed to AT LEAST look good on IE.

Unfortunately, Mozilla & Netscape 6 - even combined - have such a small market share (less than half a percentage) that hardly any web designers bother with it. Even the beta of IE 6 has a higher market share at the moment. My stats are based on the combined stats of over 50 "general" websites on a stats server that my ex-employer has and is open to the public to view. In those stats, the number of Netscape 6 users *dropped* in both absolute and relative amounts during the month of April, though the number is now steadily holding at 0.04% Mozilla has a much higher number, tho that too is only 0.19%.

I'll happily provide more detailed information for those who request it, but only a person-to-person basis cause I don't want the stats server to be flooded. It's not "secret" or it would have been password protected, but it's also not meant for everyone to view.

#40 Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 10:08 PM

Reply to this message

If web designers are going to design based on so called stats (which mostly use the http header user-agent field to determine browser type), many browsers are going to be left out! The problem is that many sites also use browser detection to serve pages, and if you give then a Mozilla or Opera user-agent, they would give a 404 or claim that your browser is not supported.

The only way for Mozilla or Opera to browse the site is to spoof their user-agent. See bugs 3688 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3688> , 46029 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46029> and 80658 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80658>

#46 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by macpeep

Friday May 25th, 2001 12:57 AM

Reply to this message

Which browsers are left out if you determine the browser by the user-agent field? Opera will, I know that, but I also know that Opera is very marginal. I've *NEVER* seen anyone using Opera anywhere (as in "I've never seen it on anyone's screen") so it can't skew the stats too much.

I can't think of any other browser that would have any significant market share that would be left out so I think you'r exaggerating the problem a lot.

Mozilla is reporting what it is so there's no skewing there - same for Netscape 6.

#51 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday May 25th, 2001 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

if you look at the bugzilla reports I refered to, you would realize that mozilla will soon have to ability to allow the user to spoof the user agent string.

#52 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: come on.

by macpeep

Friday May 25th, 2001 3:45 PM

Reply to this message

Yes - but not yet. So my question stands - what significant browsers (over 0.5% market share), except Opera, are not detected with a user-agent check?

#31 true

by joschi

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

Gecko is an awsomely fast rendering engine, as KMeleon prooves. I just used IE on a Mac for the first time last weekend and have to say that it may be my second or third favorite browser. It's funny that MS did a better job with it on the Mac than on Windows :)

#32 Re: true

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 2:49 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I know (about IE5/Mac). The inconsistency is very annoying from a web designer perspective, since IE5/Win has a messed up interpretation of the CSS box model width, while IE5/Mac (and Mozilla) interprets it properly. Fortunately, there's a working around (taking advantage of another IE5/Win bug, hehe)

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#130 Re: Re: KMeleon comments

by gardnerj <gardnerj@pro-usa.net>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 12:33 PM

Reply to this message

I know there's already been a huge thread spawned from this message and infact it convinced me to try K-Meleon at work (The only place I have to use Windows). Silly me I thought all this time that it was a KDE version of Galeon. Anyway. . . After reading the arguments I can see perhaps why they may or may not have designed it to look like IE but what I can't figure out is why IE 4.0? That was a pretty lousy browser, better than 3.0 but still pretty bad. IE didn't really come into it's own until at least 5 when they lost the weird frosting swirls on the chrome.

Jonathan

#5 O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by billpena

Monday May 21st, 2001 8:11 AM

Reply to this message

I just picked up May 20th final build, and the new Sidebar in Modern looks fantastic. As a designer, I just wanted to tell the guys working on this they are doing a great job finally creating the slickest, most usable browser/mail/platform on the planet.

#6 Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by macpeep

Monday May 21st, 2001 12:22 PM

Reply to this message

Yup.. I agree - very nice! The whole Modern 3 is *VERY* good. The only bad things with it that I can think of right are that a) the browser has a different look (kinda - it's not as bad as I thought it would be) than the rest b) the drop-down lists with text on - like in mail composer - are a little hard to read cause they are so dark that the black text doesn't have enough contrast..

Otherwise, except for a couple of bugs here and there, like under the throbber in the address book, double click & click actions being reverse in the sidebar bookmarks, some menus painting oddly double, text STILL being misaligned in text fields in HTML etc., I'm very positively surprised by the progress of Mozilla lately.

Performance, which was a major issue for me for a long time, is now quite acceptable.. And you all know how critical I usually am, so.. :)

#7 Re: Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by saberunit02

Monday May 21st, 2001 3:20 PM

Reply to this message

IMO, there should be two sets of mouseover buttons for the printer icons. One with vertical borders for mail and one without the borders for the browser to match the other buttons. The same goes for the stop button. Other that the ever-evolving theme turning pretty nicely.

#41 Re: Re: Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by rtepp

Thursday May 24th, 2001 3:06 AM

Reply to this message

Even better would be if all the buttons (navigator toolbar also) would have vertical lines on mouseover...

#8 Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by SmileyBen

Monday May 21st, 2001 5:02 PM

Reply to this message

OMG! What have you done with macpeep?

#22 Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by firepile

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Heya! I was just wondering: in Modern3, when I click on the Forward/Back/Reload/Stop buttons in Navigator, I get a 5-6 pixel thick border on mouseDown; the border obscures part of the beautiful buttons. Is this border on purpose? I've searched bugzilla, but not sure of the best search terms!

#24 Re: Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by saberunit02

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 7:15 AM

Reply to this message

Yep, that an early design. If you look at the buttons in mail (in the recent builds, you'll see what I guess will be the final design for the mouse down state.

On a side note, I withdraw my earlier suggestion about having two versions of the printer icons. I think the mouseover states should not have the vertical borders for consistency. Those mousover buttons may look good in mail, and composer but it certainly does not go with the buttons in the browser component. I think the mouseover icons will still look good even without the vertical lines.

#39 Re: O/T: Modern 3 Looks Great!

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday May 23rd, 2001 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, but I say a little prayer to $diety whenever I start up a new nightly that the big, useless enevlope on the mail/news toolbar has gone away, or has at least been moved out of the way.

Once can only hope.

#44 Custom style sheet

by stfh

Thursday May 24th, 2001 11:30 AM

Reply to this message

Put the following rule in your userChrome.css:

#msgToolbar > .toolbar-holder > .toolbar-primary-icon { display:none !important; }

Voila!

#45 Re: Custom style sheet

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Friday May 25th, 2001 12:25 AM

Reply to this message

Ahh, good point. Thanks, it's gone!

#123 Other userChrome.css properties list?

by billpena

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 1:09 PM

Reply to this message

Where can I find a doc on the objects in the Mozilla chrome? Frankly, I don't want to wade through the source, I'm not *that* in need of pixel-level control. But I'd like a table or doc of properties available (like in yer post) so I can make my own userChrome.css ... any pointers?

#124 Re: Other userChrome.css properties list?

by stfh

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

Well, I found that example by just browsing through some of the files in modern.jar -- unfortunately that's not the easiest thing to do (you have to hunt around through lots of css files to find the right line of code.)

I agree that some sort of documentation page listing useful userChrome/userContent.css declarations would be a great thing for users. I might just start one since I've done quite a bit of Moz UI hacking and have some useful ones stored up.

#125 Re:

by stfh

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

Here is a site with some good examples-- I haven't tried any of them recently so some may not work in recent nightlies.

<http://www.kramm.org/graymodern/userchrome.html>

#42 Re:new home button

by saberunit02

Thursday May 24th, 2001 7:46 AM

Reply to this message

Does anybody else think the new home button suck? Frankly, the bubble effect does not go with the rest of the browser's design. It looked fine without the bubble border.

#107 You've got my vote against it. N/T

by caspy7

Sunday May 27th, 2001 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

-

#108 Mine too (n/t)

by thelem

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:13 PM

Reply to this message

.

#120 Re: Re:new home button

by saberunit02

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 8:28 AM

Reply to this message

The bubble effect would not be that bad if it was a mouseover image like the paragraph aligment images in composer.

#47 Slight Inconsistency Modern 3

by Netvigator

Friday May 25th, 2001 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

Hi First of all I wanted to say modern-3 is excellent, I liked modern2 but modern-3 is just brilliant. Then I'd like to point out a slight inconsistency. Why does the stop button go green when highlighted in the browser, but red in Mail&News. I think it should be the same colour for both cases.

Apert from that excellent work UI people

Netvigat

#48 Re: Slight Inconsistency Modern 3

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday May 25th, 2001 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

They deliberately varied it to set the browser and mail/news apart, however red just seems like a more natural color for anything that means "stop" :)

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#49 Agreed

by caspy7

Friday May 25th, 2001 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

I agree, the stop buttons in mail/news and the browser do not need to be set apart. I expect this make no usability difference at all. It only makes the user ask the question "Why are they different?"

Red would make more sense, but another color might work better with the theme as a whole. Either way, they should both be the same color.

#50 Re: Agreed

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday May 25th, 2001 12:08 PM

Reply to this message

I didn't say that they should not be set apart, I just said that the reasoning for the different colors was to set them apart. I did say that red is a more natural color for it, but I also agree with the reasoning behind it, but it's not an important issue that I'm worrying myself about :)

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#56 Re: Re: Agreed

by Netvigator

Saturday May 26th, 2001 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

I see, I understand the reasoning, but it still feels more logical that the same button behaves in the same way in the browser and in mail&news. If not it would be like if in the classic theme the trafficlights were on green in the browser and on red in the mail&news part.

Well just an opinion Netvigat

#53 Oye vey the sidebar!

by caspy7

Friday May 25th, 2001 11:45 PM

Reply to this message

Does anyone else think the new sidebar tabs are too tall?

It can make quite a difference in the amount of content you can view. Looks like it should be able to be shortened fairly easily so I hope it is in the next round of polishes.

#57 Re: Oye vey the sidebar!

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 1:53 AM

Reply to this message

Sure, your right

#54 Fist Neoplanet, now AOL?

by macpeep

Saturday May 26th, 2001 1:29 AM

Reply to this message

From CNET:

---

America Online and Microsoft are in preliminary discussions to revise their long-standing partnership agreement, a move that could see renewed cooperation between the technology giants after a period of apparent discord.

Some of the issues on the table include the inclusion of AOL software on Microsoft's upcoming Windows XP operating system and AOL's use of Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser, sources familiar with the talks said Friday. However, these sources cautioned that the talks are at an early stage and may not lead to a deal.

---

Considering the VERY slow adoption rate of Netscape 6 and Mozilla, if the AOL deal with Microsoft about continuing to use IE goes through, well.. that's not good news for Mozilla.

#55 Re: Fist Neoplanet, now AOL?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday May 26th, 2001 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

perhaps for it's adoption, but not for it's development. AOL will want Mozilla development to continue so they don't become completely reliant on MS.

Mozilla 1.0 is still quite some time off (even if it doesn't slip), alot can happen in the meantime.

#58 Re: Re: Fist Neoplanet, now AOL?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 2:33 AM

Reply to this message

How do you know about the AOL strategical goals? They are currently burning a huge amount of money on Mozilla - and have for 3 years - and so far, it has given them a browser with less than 0.5% marketshare that is not yet of good enough quality to replace IE for them. Even when Mozilla hits 1.0, remember that Mozilla is not for end users. If there's a Netscape 6.5 or even 7.0 release after Mozilla 1.0 is released, there's no reason why more people should adpot it than adopted 6.0.

Lack of AOL adoption of Mozilla *would* be terrible news.

#59 And it would be terrible news for AOL

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:08 AM

Reply to this message

What people debating this seem to be missing is just how bad news this will be for AOL, or at least their customers. Call me an optimist, but I can't see why anyone would want to be locked into IE when I think you can be pretty certain that, unless IE 7 is something spectacular, Mozilla will totally kick its arse.

Perhaps not just yet, perhaps not even at mozilla 1.0, but I have every confidence that once a rock-solid cutting edge browser is out there, Mozilla 2.0, or whatever other browsers that follow, built on this solid foundation, will be stunning.

People seem to miss the fact that once Mozilla 1.0 is out there /anyone/ can make use of the code. What that means is that anyone who comes up with a great idea - or the next killer web app - will be able to implement it unimaginably quicker that if they had to write it from scratch (as would have happened if open-source Mozilla had never come about).

For AOL to agree to this lock in could be disasterous - Microsoft are notoriously slow at predicting what the next big thing is (and notoriously /successful/ at jumping on the bandwagon what seems too late) - and the foundation Mozilla lays may well bite them on the backside, and AOL too if they become intertwined.

#61 Re: And it would be terrible news for AOL

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:16 AM

Reply to this message

You say that people seem to miss the fact that once Mozilla 1.0 is out there, anyone can make use of the code and create the next killer web app.

That's the issue!! The code has been out there for three years and anyone could have made the next killer app at any time. We've heard NeoPlanet say they will use it. Now they backed down. We heard about DocZilla some two years ago and nothing of relevance since then. We've heard AOL say they will create the next version of their browser using Mozilla.. and now they are back in talks with Microsoft. See the pattern? Pretty much all big announcements except the Nokia & Intel webpad one have just gone up in smoke and nothing has materialized from the Nokia & Intel camp either - yet..

The message is that even though the code is there, nobody seems to be doing anything with it!

From AOL's perspective Mozilla doesn't offer anything revolutionary they don't already have. IE has been embeddable since several years back - that's why they picked it over Netscape 4 to begin with. I don't think XUL is *that* big of an advantage even though it's certainly a cool piece of technology.

#62 No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:26 AM

Reply to this message

...and here was I thinking that Mozilla was almost entirely cross-platform, and very portable.

But why would AOL want that when they were, for example, developing a linux client?

;-)

#64 Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 5:25 AM

Reply to this message

You underestimate the crossplatformness of IE. It's first rate supported on Windows and Mac, giving it about 98-99% of market share. But if that isn't enough, it's also supported on HP-UX and Solaries, bringing up the total to over 99%. Not even Mozilla has 100% so even though the absolute NUMBER of supported OS's is higher for Mozilla, the PERCENTAGE is almost the same.

And since AOL is talking to Microsoft about continuing to use IE, it appears that Linux isn't that important to them.

#66 That's not really true.

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 5:48 AM

Reply to this message

The thing is, IE /isn't/ really cross-platform. What has been done (as is evidenced by IE5 Windows and Mac versions) is that Microsoft have basically written different browsers for different platforms, and called them the same name.

This isn't simply nitpicking in that whilst IE might be on a number of platforms, its *portability* is low. That means that for new platforms and new horizons Mozilla is a lot easier to adapt. Mozilla could never be absolutely portable (since, obviously, you need to actually get the platform to display stuff initially in the way peculiar to the platfom), but everything that can be aims to be.

And I doubt AOL will forget other clients if they continue to use IE. I would presume that this requirement will be only for Windows (and maybe Macs) - which Microsoft will of course view as the only important required platforms.

#69 Re: That's not really true.

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:18 AM

Reply to this message

> And I doubt AOL will forget other clients if they continue to use IE.

yup..

AOL is a big company, i doubt they'd want to be completely reliant on MS even if it's 'just' for the Windows and Mac platform.

i'm guessing AOL(/Time Warner) has enough money to fund Netscape programmers to continue their work on Mozilla and Netscape. This way they have something to bagain with. if MS knows that AOL doesn't have a browser to embed then they control AOLs fate (well, part of it).

heh, come now.. do you think they re that stupid?

ofcourse there are many things i could be missing here :)

#71 Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

"But why would AOL want that when they were, for example, developing a linux client?

";-)"

Don't forget PDAs, mobile phones and Web tablets. AOL is very interested in that area and Microsoft hasn't really got a foothold (except on PocketPCs). The only real players are Open Wave, Opera and Mozilla.

When AOL announced the availability of Netscape 6 Preview Release 1, one of the things Steve Case rambled on about was the fact that Gecko can be embedded in any device.

Alex

#73 Re: Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:58 AM

Reply to this message

Excellent point about PDA's and mobile phones. The problem here is that Pocket PC and Mobile Internet Explorer are already having the largest market share here too. EPOC (now known as "Symbian Platform") is going to be a be major player here in a year or two, especially on the cellular phones, but tell me.. can you get Mozilla for EPOC? How about Pocket PC?

So much for cross platform.

#77 Re: Re: Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

I've got to agree that it would be hard to port Mozilla to mobile devices. Symbian (which I hope is a success because it's backed by Psion, the last hope in the UK computer industry) looks like it's going to use Opera, most WAP phones use Open Wave (but I believe Nokia plan to use a Netscape-branded Mozilla browser in future phones), and I've no idea about Palm and Handspring.

I think Mozilla's got more potential in slightly larger devices, you know, 'Internet appliances' like Intel's hilariously named dot.appliance. In those devices there's more processor power, RAM and hard disk space to play with, so Mozilla could do better. I read recently that Netscape (not sure if they mean 4.x or a Mozilla-based version) is going to be ported to the PlayStation 2, so it seems to be going places. The great advantage for Mozilla is that it runs on Linux which is used as the OS by many of these devices. Opera runs on Linux too, but costs money. IE doesn't run on Linux (I think in some ways MS is hoping that if they ignore Linux it will go away). The modular codebase of Mozilla makes it easy to adapt which could be advantage too.

Alex

#80 Re: Re: Re: Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:18 AM

Reply to this message

More importantly than Psion, Symbian is backed by Nokia but you're only partially right about their use of Mozilla. As far as I know, Nokia is NOT porting Mozilla to EPOC. The choice of Mozilla was for their web-pad and media terminal products, which run Linux. For their EPOC products (cellular phones and communicators), they will most likely not bundle Opera but just use the browser that is bundled with the Symbian Platform.

I agree about Mozilla having a chance in "internet appliances" like web pads and media terminals and the like - for the reason that these also have a tendency to NOT use Windows OS's.

#83 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No difference between IE and M

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:24 AM

Reply to this message

I think the browser bundled with the Symbian Platform will be Opera. All Psion computers come with it bundled and Psion say that they're not developing their own browser any more.

Alex

#86 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No difference between IE and M

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

Oh.. that's excellent news!

#121 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No difference between IE and M

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

"Oh.. that's excellent news!"

And it's official news now. Symbian and Opera Software have just signed the deal.

<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,2766177,00.html>

Alex

#102 UMTS - Browsers

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 11:25 AM

Reply to this message

I agree with "Symbian Platform will be Opera"

and please don't forget what money stands behind companys like nokia, ericsson (and all the other symbian guys). Nokia is (was?) the most valueable company in europe (in stocks).

so making a browser like opera for Psions free is just a small aquesition of the norwegen guys by the finnish or swedish one.

UMTS (third generation mobile) is the next big think in europe (more or less). and it's a big gap in the mozilla landscape.

But maybe mobilephones will have 128mb ram in a shorter time than we all think

#100 Mozilla on PocketPC

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

Sunday May 27th, 2001 8:35 AM

Reply to this message

Would be so nice. I have a 32 meg iPaq just dying to run a Gecko browser. K-Meleon is light enough to run on an iPaq I reckon. Be great if there was a "Mozilla lite" for Win CE 3.0...

#122 Re: Mozilla on PocketPC

by macpeep

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 12:41 PM

Reply to this message

What's wrong with Pocket IE? It works great for me, 128 bit SSL, frames JavaScript, the works.. I order movie tickets with it, check news & weather.. It just plain works great.

#113 Re: Re: No difference between IE and Mozilla?

by archen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 8:25 PM

Reply to this message

Personally I think if for no other reason AOL will keep Mozilla around to develop for Linux. Sure Linux might not be the desktop of choice of today, but it COULD. Ten years from now everyone could be a pile of UNIX hackers, who knows? Maybe I'm the only person that thinks Microsoft will not be the dominant desktop of the future.

I'd also have to say that the power of Mozilla probably won't be in the browser itself, it'll be everything that comes from it. Mail and chat clients, and all sorts of other interesting things you can make with it.

#70 Re: Re: And it would be terrible news for AOL

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:36 AM

Reply to this message

"IE has been embeddable since several years back - that's why they [AOL] picked it over Netscape 4 to begin with."

Not entirely true. AOL originally signed a deal with Netscape back in 1996 (when Netscape and IE were still on version 3), but then Microsoft offered them an icon in the Online Services folder on the Windows desktop if they used IE as their browser.

Similarly, Apple only replaced Netscape with IE on Macs because Microsoft threatened to stop developing Office for the Mac.

Alex

#112 waiting?

by archen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 8:15 PM

Reply to this message

This is probably way off the mark, but it seems to me that UNTIL mozilla hits 1.0 most developers probably won't consider it. Much like how we're waiting for a great browser, anyone thinking about actually using this code wants to see if this is actually going to make decent products, or just bug laden piles of crap.

#116 Re: Re: And it would be terrible news for AOL

by NikoP

Monday May 28th, 2001 5:42 AM

Reply to this message

<quote> "From AOL's perspective Mozilla doesn't offer anything revolutionary they don't already have. IE has been embeddable since several years back - that's why they picked it over Netscape 4 to begin with. I don't think XUL is *that* big of an advantage even though it's certainly a cool piece of technology." </quote>

AOL has one big advantage if they use GECKO - remember they won't ever use Mozilla, the browser, but they would use the rendering engine embedded in their AOL app -: -> the rendering engine gets MUCH more users (far more than 20 millions AOL users worldwide) -> the rendering engine is the same Netscape - a part of AOL - uses for Netscape >= 6.0 -> the more a rendering engine has users the more web designers optimize their websites for it -> the more websites are optimized for GECKO (read: w3c compliant) the more users will use NS browsers -> the more GECKO users the more people interested in develop it further within the mozilla organization -> ...

there is one big fault in nearly all posts in here: AOL will never use the - still not perfect - Mozilla browser with its ui and performance problems, but the - yet very fine running - rendering engine. just look at the rendering speed and goodness of k-meleon.

Niko!

#117 Re: Re: Re: And it would be terrible news for AOL

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday May 28th, 2001 11:10 AM

Reply to this message

I agree that AOL will never use Mozilla's UI, but they may use components other than Gecko. For example, they'd probably want to use Necko (networking library) to handle things such as the cache.

Alex

#119 Re: Re: Re: Re: And it would be terrible news for

by NikoP

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

agreed. necko, imglib2 (or does this count as a "child" of gecko?), whatelse to mention in this list?

#60 Re: First Neoplanet, now AOL?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:12 AM

Reply to this message

> and so far, it has given them a browser with less than 0.5% marketshare that is not yet of good enough quality to replace IE for them.

neither has it been released yet (netscape 6.0 and 6.01 don't count, it was simply not useable for most people)

> Even when Mozilla hits 1.0, remember that Mozilla is not for end users.

nope, but it does mean it's finally useable for everyone (users, and for projects based on Mozilla (Netscape)).

> If there's a Netscape 6.5 or even 7.0 release after Mozilla 1.0 is released, there's no reason why more people should adpot it than adopted 6.0.

it being far better perhaps? sure, for quick adoption amongst the average user it will have to be bundled with AOL, but this doesn't mean it won't be adopted at all. it just means things will go alot slower.

i agree that it is bad news, but by no means catostrophic. but we'll just have to wait and see :)

#63 Not catastrophic?

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:29 AM

Reply to this message

...it may not be a total disaster for us, but if I were a Netscape developer I expect I'd be livid. Am I the only one who thinks that if AOL does this they'll be signing a large number of Netscape redundancy letters?

I would be interested to hear from the Netscape peeps that hang about around here - does 'Netscape' (the non-existent sub-entity of AOL) really have so little of a voice that AOL are happy to just trample on them? It just doesn't seem to make them a terribly respectful employer to me.

#68 Re: Not catastrophic?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:06 AM

Reply to this message

> but if I were a Netscape developer I expect I'd be livid.

heh, my first thoughts exactly. let us just hope that AOL has a change of heart.. erm, yeah..

#75 Re: Not catastrophic?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:03 AM

Reply to this message

"...it may not be a total disaster for us, but if I were a Netscape developer I expect I'd be livid. Am I the only one who thinks that if AOL does this they'll be signing a large number of Netscape redundancy letters?"

It would be a real shame if Netscape stopped developing browsers. The idea of the company that started the growth of the Web (okay, so it was NCSA Mosaic, but the two browsers were developed by largely the same team) dying is almost unthinkable. But a lot of pioneers in the computer industry are no longer the leaders. When was the last time you heard about VisiCalc (lost out to Lotus 1-2-3 which in turn lost out to Microsoft Excel), WordStar (lost out to WordPerfect which in turn lost out to Microsoft Word) or dBase (lost out to Microsoft Access - notice a pattern emerging here?). Will we be saying the same about RealPlayer (lost to Windows Media Player?), ICQ (lost to AOL Instant Messenger which in turn lost to MSN Messenger?) and Netscape (lost to Interent Explorer?) in the future?

To the point about whether AOL would lay off the Netscape engineers. I'm not sure. AOL bought Netscape because they wanted what was then Netscape Netcenter. They just saw the browser as a means to get people to visit Netscape's sites. Maybe they will give up on Netscape, or maybe they still have faith in them (they're still developing Project Komodo after all).

"'Netscape' (the non-existent sub-entity of AOL)"

Is Netscape non-existent? I know that the Web browser bit and portal bit are seperate bits of AOL, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (the management of AOL's technology division is likely to appreciate Netscape's needs better than the management of their online content division).

I'm really not sure about this. It looked all clear cut that AOL Time Warner and Microsoft hate each other, but after this deal, I don't know. Maybe AOL plans to end the deal with Microsoft when it thinks that its prescence in Windows is no longer important? But with talk of AOL dropping RealPlayer in favour of Windows Media Player, I'm not sure.

Alex

#103 A Media Player and not a Browser Deal

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 11:38 AM

Reply to this message

i think " But with talk of AOL dropping RealPlayer in favour of Windows Media Player, I'm not sure. " that is the thing! The german heise.de magazine also speculates that it's not about the browser (komodo is the name of a endangered reptile ..... gecko) but it's rather a deal to support Media Player.

From MS point of view this makes sense: They (think) they won the browser war, they don't care much about mozilla. They now want to get the monopoly in the Media-Format-Battle against RealNetworks (and Quicktime) to protect their windows monopol.

Mozilla as the primary AOL browser is not a thread to MS because there are only 30-40 Mio AOL-Customer and about 400 Mio Pc in the internet. AOL has just a 10percent world market share.... Microsoft has a 95% world market share in their fields

i don't know much about us market though...

#110 Re: A Media Player and not a Browser Deal

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:01 PM

Reply to this message

I think Microsoft wanting Windows Media Player to be the de facto standard means a lot more to them than just protecting the Windows monopoly. If Windows Media becomes the standard format they can make a killing from selling encoding and server software. They can also use Windows Media Player's Media Guide to control access to music giving them huge power. And then there's digital music distribution. If Windows Media is the standard for that then Microsoft could potentially demand a cut from every music sale. Sure, Philips has the same power with CDs today but do they also rent software (.Net), provide online content (MSN), make interactive TV stuff (UltimateTV) and manufacture games consoles (Xbox)? Microsoft could (but hopefully not).

It's harder for Microsoft to get dominance is streaming media because proprietary formats are involved. More people have RealPlayer, so content providers encode in RealMedia format, so then more people install RealPlayer... it's a positive feedback loop. By making sure Windows Media Player is on all Windows PCs, Microsoft can undermine this and convince content providers to encode in Windows Media instead. It's like the browser wars all over again but with potentially more at stake. RealNetworks' current attitude (in public at least) is "We don't care, we've got an 85% market share." You could have said the same thing about Netscape circa 1996.

Considering all this, AOL Time Warner should really be backing anyone but Microsoft. RealNetworks looks like the best bet because a) they're the current market leader and b) they're small enough to be purchased outright if the need arises. AOL Time Warner have that MusicNet deal with RealNetworks, EMI and Bertlesmann, so it would seem logical for AOL to continue supporting Real. (Universal and Sony, on the other hand, have a deal with Yahoo! called Duet - note the lack of Microsoft here.)

Alex

#65 Re: Re: First Neoplanet, now AOL?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 5:28 AM

Reply to this message

Heh, oh, so Netscape 6.x doesn't count cause it sucked. Oh, yeah, ok.. sure..

#67 Re: Re: Re: First Neoplanet, now AOL?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:04 AM

Reply to this message

nope, it doesnt count. yup, because it sucked. why it doesnt count? well, 'cause it wasn't ready for normal use, got bad reviews and couldnt be recommended by anyone. so, it was not used by anyone but a tiny minority. sure, it makes the chances that 7.0 or 6.5 or whatever it will be, will be more slim than if they had not.

#72 Re: Re: Re: Re: First Neoplanet, now AOL?

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:49 AM

Reply to this message

Let's face some facts here. Netscape 4.0 was released in 1997 - 4 years ago. Since then, Netscape engineers have been working on their next version of the browser. It has been thrown out and rewritten a number of times, and the current iteration has been in works for 2 and a half years.

Internet Explorer got from the laughable 2.0 version to the completely rewritten 4.0 is less time than Mozilla has been in the works and to 5.0 in less time than the Mozilla project has been up and running.

You're saying that the browser that was released after 3 years of development - Netscape 6.0 - doesn't even count cause it was THAT BAD.

And then there's Opera.. A couple of coders in a company in Norway nobody has even heard about.. Wrote a browser that is better than both Mozilla AND Internet Explorer in less than two years.

No wonder AOL is in talks with Microsoft!! AOL can't have much faith in the Mozilla project by now, which is sad since now, finally, the product is starting to get somewhere near usable.

#74 I still don't get this line of argument...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

I really don't understand this sort of argument. IE has taken something like *5* years to get to the place it is now. Mozilla has taken *3*. Why does that make Mozilla the slower project? Just because IE has gone through bug ridden released iterations previously doesn't affect the fact that they're basically now neck and neck.

If building a browser from scratch is so easy, why didn't Microsoft release IE6 three years after they started coding a browser???

#76 Re: I still don't get this line of argument...

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

Using Brendon's logic, I could argue that "oh, but IE2 doesn't count since it sucked so bad.".

If you count 5 years for IE, then you would have to count all the way from Netscape 1.0 for Mozilla too.

#79 Re: I still don't get this line of argument...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:16 AM

Reply to this message

Why? AFAIAA there hasn't been a complete rewrite - it's been building on previous efforts. I could be wrong, and if I am I'd be interested to know when Microsoft did start a new codebase. Only if they started again would it be fair to compare MSIE 2+ to Mozilla.

#81 Re: Re: I still don't get this line of argument...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:20 AM

Reply to this message

Internet Explorer is based on NCSA Mosaic (which was written by the people who went on the create Netscape - interesting how the two browsers have a common heritage). According to Microsoft, IE had major architectural changes made for IE 3. I believe the rendering engine was rewritten for version 4 (I can't imagine they're still using a derivative of the Mosaic rendering engine). Tasman, the rendering engine in IE5 for the Mac, is certainly a rewrite. But I don't think IE has ever had a complete Mozilla-style rewrite.

Alex

#82 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

Or rather, a Mozilla-style write!

#84 Re: Rewrites...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

Does anyone (SmileyBen, macpeep) get the feeling that we may as well be talking in real time here? :-)

Alex

#87 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:28 AM

Reply to this message

It makes a change to my having to refresh Mozillazine (and slashdot, and linuxtoday, and BBC News) obsessively in an attempt to procrastinate the revision for exams that start tomorrow!

...says something about /patience/ doesn't it? ;-)

#89 Re: Re: Rewrites...

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah :D We should get on IRC instead.. damn. :)

#91 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:33 AM

Reply to this message

<shudder>

In an IRC channel with macpeep... Scary!

(Okay kidding, we love you really!!!)

;-)

#93 Re: Rewrites...

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it would beat reloading MozillaZine all the time. :)

Seriously though, get on some EFnet server.. I'll be there.. :)

#95 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:42 AM

Reply to this message

You haven't tried persuading it to reload with the number of cache's Cambridge University has set up. Grr... ;-)

And no, I'm trying to revise! Do you want me to fail my exams??? ;-)

#96 Re: Rewrites...

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, why efnet? Let's get on irc.mozilla.com / #mozillazine

#97 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:46 AM

Reply to this message

Oh thank God! No IRC installed on the Uni computers! Thank God for that!

#98 Re: Rewrites...

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:48 AM

Reply to this message

Wuss. ;)

#99 Rewrites...

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:50 AM

Reply to this message

Look, it's not my fault they don't want us using the University network for IRC chat. I'm sure it's that they want to keep down transatlantic traffic, rather than thinking we'll end up chatting to pyshcopaths ;-) ;-) ;-)

#101 Re: Rewrites...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 8:44 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I'm back. I had to go and do some A-Level revision. Looks like you've been having a interesting discussion about... nothing in particular. Which is what chat's for really.

Alex

#109 Re: Rewrites...

by thelem

Sunday May 27th, 2001 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry to butt in here (only a few hours too late) but did anyone notice the 'chat' option in the mozine sidebar?

#111 Re: Re: Rewrites...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, but we were exploring and extending the technological limits of mozillaZine Talkback technology. Or something. ;-)

Alex

#85 Re: Re: I still don't get this line of argument...

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

nope.. what i said was that Netscape 6 wasn't useable for most users. IE2 on the other hand worked nicely with the the www at the time.

#114 Re: First Neoplanet, now AOL?

by archen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 8:36 PM

Reply to this message

Not sure if I agree with the IE annalogy, but the comment about Opera is pretty painful, cuz the truth really hurts. =P

#78 XP IE? Ha ha ha

by tialaramex

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:15 AM

Reply to this message

Let's deal with those multiple platforms one at a time, and see what a cross platform content provider, user or ISP is getting when they choose IE

Solaris: Not actively maintained. Ask around, which MS developers maintain the Solaris codebase? None.

HP/UX: Not actively maintained. Ask around, which MS developers maintain the HP/UX codebase? None.

Both of the "Unix ports" exist primarily on paper, so that if a PHB asks "Can we deploy this on Unix" the MS drone can say "Oh, sure" knowing it will never be used in production.

Mac: This is a fairly competent Mac browser, which happens to be called "Internet Explorer" it shares practically no important code or differentiating functionality with Windows IE.

The only important thing "macpeep" has uncovered is that MS control the Wintel desktop, something even a US court has been able to figure out.

FWIW Our major (mentioned in the international press) geek humour site Temple ov thee Lemur sees around 2% Gecko users and rising slowly.

#88 Re: XP IE? Ha ha ha

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

Wintel + Macintosh = how much of market share? Between 98 and 99, right? That's how much UNIX's mean in terms of market share of consumer applications.

#90 XP IE.

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

But the issue isn't number of platforms, it's *portability*. It's all very well Microsoft proclaiming that most current desktop users can use their browser, but they'll lag behind Mozilla on any new platforms that arise.

#92 Re: XP IE.

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

You are right, but the thing is that new platforms don't just "arise". I have a very hard time imagining any platform in the future ever repeating what Linux has done, and even Linux hasn't even got 1% market share and while I don't have stats, I don't believe the rise in market share for it is climbing as sharply as it was a year ago. There's not exactly saturation yet, but there's certainly not the same drive that there was a year ago.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Linux continues to be successful and reaches a 2% market share before the end of this year and the trend would be 3% before 2003. In a situation like this, Microsoft could very well start a port of IE for Linux and they would have plenty of time to complete it. They already have some experience from UNIX with IE so I don't imagine it being impossible.

Of course it's another matter if any Linux users would ever use IE even if it was available for their platform.. But we're talking theory here.

#94 XP IE.

by SmileyBen

Sunday May 27th, 2001 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

Erm. Web pads? Mobile Phones? Fridges? PDAs? It isn't just Linux that has appeared recently, and I honestly believe that Mozilla is more able to keep up with new developments than any other browser (except maybe Lynx ;-))!

#105 btw: PDA -- Handspring goes MSN

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

Handspring and Microsoft's MSN division announced an agreement Tuesday making MSN Mobile the first destination for Web-surfing Visor owners.

comes from here: <http://browserwatch.inter…2001/news-20010516-2.html>

#104 Re: Re: XP IE.

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Sunday May 27th, 2001 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

8 mio Playstation2 (and rising) a few nindendo game cubes PDA with palmOS PocketPC and Psion Third Generation Mobiles with Symbion

... and this set top boxes which will never make it.

...but the webpads will do

#106 Re: Re: Re: XP IE.

by macpeep

Sunday May 27th, 2001 12:36 PM

Reply to this message

There are more users of set top boxes than there are of Mozilla so I'm not sure you're quite the prophet you think you are.

#115 Good point.

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Monday May 28th, 2001 3:13 AM

Reply to this message

Good point. True today

#126 mozilla slips again

by strauss

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 3:34 PM

Reply to this message

Because this site only runs feelgood articles about how wonderful Mozilla is, I am posting this important link in an inappropriate article.

<http://slashdot.org/artic…8/2058232&mode=nested>

This is a link to a /. story, which in turn links to stories at MozillaQuest and RootPrompt. These stories discuss a further schedule slip for Mozilla.

#127 Re: mozilla slips again

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 4:16 PM

Reply to this message

mm, discuss? there's hardly any discussion. the change in release schedule has been on the roadmap page for.. a month? and perhaps a few weeks ago the graphic which was outdated was updated to reflect those changes. i believe there's a comment from the author of the graphic explaining this at your link.

#128 Mozilla 1.0 not delayed

by theuiguy

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 4:47 PM

Reply to this message

Ian Hixie notes in a comment to this stupid slashdot story that nothing has changed. The graphic has been that way for a while now and the goal has always been to ship Mozilla 1.0 When It's Ready. Here. Read his post.

<http://slashdot.org/comme…05/28/2058232&cid=141>

#129 Re: Mozilla 1.0 not delayed

by strauss

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 7:43 PM

Reply to this message