MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Upcoming Mozilla Tree Plans

Friday June 1st, 2001

Chris Blizzard, a member of the mozilla.org Drivers, has posted an update on what will be happening for the next milestone (0.9.2). Basically, checkins will require Driver approval, along with the normal review and super-review. The milestone will only be two weeks long, and will give the tree a chance to breathe a bit, following a long string of large rewrites. To read the entire message, click the full article link.

Along these same lines, the current milestone, 0.9.1, was branched yesterday, and looks to be quite good. Expect nightly builds of the branch to start today or tomorrow, leading up to the final builds.


#1 Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by JVasqezi <JVasqezi@netscape.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

That mangelo fool can't complain about 0.9.2 being late, can he? And what's up wiht mozillaquest anyway? He obviously prints whatever he thinks will get the most attention, even if it's total bs.

Are those frogs on the banners at the bottom of the page or what? Killer frogs? With big white teeth?

#2 Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday June 1st, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

I sent him an email a few days ago pointing out his sensationalism and factual inaccuracies. I haven't gotten any reply from him :(

If anyone wants to email him, go right ahead since I think it would be a little harder for him to ignore if he gets more emails of that nature.

I for one am going to mention his site on NewZilla as an unreliable source (the same with Slashdot, heh)

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

#3 Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by macpeep

Friday June 1st, 2001 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

And MozillaZine only reports happy feel-good news about Mozilla. Is that so much better? As far as I'm concerned, there is no one reliable news source regarding Mozilla, they are all completely subjective.

#4 Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday June 1st, 2001 1:07 PM

Reply to this message

He's not talking about "happy news" and doesn't even mention it. There are some pretty significant inaccuracies and misconcepts in MozillaQuest's "news" coverage (which doesn't seem to cover just Mozilla, strangely).

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

#5 Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 1:09 PM

Reply to this message

does microsoft.com mention security breaches (kay, perhaps 'official' ones), delays, bad revews on it's main page?

MozillaQuest though misleading is very informative for the average user interested in Mozilla. personally, everything thats just plain incorrect aside, i think he's done a good job.. he just needs to verify his articles properly (and perhaps more clearly note his opinions as exactly that).

#6 Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by macpeep

Friday June 1st, 2001 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

You can't compare MozillaZine with a company - Microsoft or any other company - reporting news about itself. Of course they don't report any more bad news than they have to (due to being publicly traded) - it would be bad PR and it would cost them money in form of lost sales.

MozillaZine on the other hand, has no reason NOT to report news in an objective manner. There's no money involved and MozillaZine is not even directly tied with Mozilla.org, which itself too is a non-profit organization.

#7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

yup, my bad. i was going to correct that but i thought perhaps no one would be so nitpicky ;P

there are enough large Windows oriented sites that don't post bad reviews/news about MS products. no, i can't give examples but surely your not so ignorant not to know this.

i agree though, MozillaZine should also post less flattering news when available (but not the many "netscape has lost the browser wars"-like articles, which we've heard for years now).

#20 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 4:56 PM

Reply to this message

"there are enough large Windows oriented sites that don't post bad reviews/news about MS products. no, i can't give examples but surely your not so ignorant not to know this."

How about Paul Thurrot's WinInfo <http://www.wininformant.com/> and Paul Thurrot's SuperSite for Windows (<http://www.winsupersite.com/>

I didn't add the "Paul Thurrot's" bits, they're actually part of the titles. The former site is mainly news based and carries lots of generally pro-MS articles (though I do seem to remember a while back it covered the release of a Mozilla milestone ;-)). It features a picture of Paul Thurrot on every page, in case you forget that he made the site.

Paul Thurrot's SuperSite for Windows has some quite useful FAQs and features about Windows, Office and .NET, with a generally pro-MS slant, though he sometimes criticises product features in his reviews.

Paul Thurrot is one of the beta testers for Windows and obviously has informants at Microsoft to help him get news and information first. And he never misses an opportunity to remind us of this fact. Take this excerpt from his Windows XP FAQ <http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/whistler.asp> as an example: "On Friday, January 21, 2000, I broke the news that Microsoft had consolidated these two products [Neptune and Odyssey] into Whistler. Then, on Monday, January 24, 2000, I wrote an in-depth follow-up to the story that was quoted in every major computer news agency on the planet, including MSNBC, ZDNet (PC Week, Smart Reseller), CNET, InfoWorld, Internet Week, Windows NT Magazine, and the UK-based Register . I even appeared on CNET Radio in San Francisco that week. Due to all the media coverage, Microsoft was forced to make a public acknowledgement that Whistler was, indeed, the code-name for the next version of Windows." Is there no end to his arrogance?

Paul Thurrot's Web sites rarely miss an opportunity to criticise Microsoft's rivals (Linux, Sun, RealNetworks etc.), he's always telling us how exclusive his news is and whenever he refers to his reviews or FAQs he always prefixes the reference with "my" ("My Windows XP FAQ", "My review of Outlook 2002" etc.).

I'm sure even macpeep would agree that MozillaZine's not that bad!

Non-NewZilla Alex

#21 Correction

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 4:58 PM

Reply to this message

Link to Paul Thurrot's SuperSite for Windows should be <http://www.winsupersite.com/>

Non-NewZilla Alex

#28 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by macpeep

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 7:46 AM

Reply to this message

While I'm not familiar with Paul Thurrot's Super Site for Windows, I take your word for it having a very pro-MS slant. There's plenty of that going around for just about anything. I mean, we have Slashdot, which is so anti-MS that it loses a lot of credibility on it.

Just because other sites can't do good reporting doesn't justify that MozillaZine shouldn't.

#8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

yup, my bad. i was going to correct that but i thought perhaps no one would be so nitpicky ;P

there are enough large Windows oriented sites that don't post bad reviews/news about MS products. no, i can't give examples but surely your not so ignorant not to know this.

i agree though, MozillaZine should also post less flattering news when available (but not the many "netscape has lost the browser wars"-like articles, which we've heard for years now).

#10 yikes, thats what you get for being impatient(nt)

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:22 PM

Reply to this message

#9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

yup, my bad. i was going to correct that but i thought perhaps no one would be so nitpicky ;P

there are enough large Windows oriented sites that don't post bad reviews/news about MS products. no, i can't give examples but surely your not so ignorant not to know this.

i agree though, MozillaZine should also post less flattering news when available (but not the many "netscape has lost the browser wars"-like articles, which we've heard for years now).

#12 Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:49 PM

Reply to this message

I'm curious to know what news we haven't reported on. The stuff about the milestone releases being 'delayed'? Or the bit about 'Mozilla 1.0 pushed back'? I don't think that is news. There has never been a Mozilla 1.0 release date set. So how can it be delayed? Milestone release dates are approximate, not guaranteed. Mozilla does it's releases when they are ready. If you'd like to see a news story every day about how the release isn't ready yet, and so won't ship, you can find that in bugzilla, by querying for bugs in that milestone. I'd like to hear feedback on what you think we're missing here.

#13 Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by macpeep

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

Well, recently, there was the one about Neoplanet ceasing to support Mozilla. Then there was the one about AOL going back to talking with Microsoft about continuing using IE instead switching to Mozilla after all - which is possibly the worst thing that happen to Mozilla (being "dumped" by the company that pays for the project). There has also been no information about adoption rates, bug trends, regressions etc., which are all very serious issues for the Mozilla project. I'd like to see comparisons and benchmarks with other browsers; Opera, IE 5.5, IE 6.0 beta to see where Mozilla really stands and what kind of progress is taking place and if things are looking bad, then we need to talk about the issues and address them, just like when the NS4 rendering engine was dropped in favor of Raptor / NGLayout.

I'm not asking for MozillaQuest style reporting where everything is made to sound like the world is going to end. I also don't want Mozilla BASHING. All I'm asking for is good discussion about all Mozilla issues - good AND bad.

#14 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

Most of the articles on MozillaZine are written by developers to cover things such as trunk freezes, branching and feature updates. It's more informing the Mozilla community about the progress of Mozilla than anything else.

Other issues, such as the ones you raise, are often discussed in the Talkbacks.

MozillaZine (or is it mozillaZine?) is a really a community-run site (despite the "Copyright 2000 Chris Nelson" at the bottom of the page) and there is a link to submit articles, so in theory anyone can submit new stories.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:35 PM

Reply to this message

This is much better info than I expected to get. The main problem is, there are only a few people who help out with the site, and all have very busy jobs. 99% of the news you see here is generated by submissions. While we are working hard to improve what we have, but it takes time, and time is what we all currently have very little of.

As far as some of the stuff you brought up, I?ll try to explain. The AOL/MS stuff was a betanews story picked up by cnet and others. We haven't heard any hard facts out of either company about whether it's true or not, and until we do, we won't say anything about it. Benchmarks, bug trends and adoption rates are stuff we'd love to post, but again, have very little time to do such analysis on our own. As far as regressions and current progress goes, we rely on the build bar to get that information to you. It does a great job of keeping people up to date on what's happening, and it's one of the best-kept secrets that you can use to get a pulse on what's going on.

In closing, I ask that you not think we aren't trying to show Mozilla as something it isn't, we are merely posting what we have. We?re working hard to try and generate more homegrown stuff, but right now, we rely heavily on the community to bring its news to us.

#16 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by macpeep

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

I think I should be clear about that I'm absolutely pro-Mozilla and the reason I follow MozillaZine is to keep myself up-to-date about all the issues in the project. I appreciate all the effort everyone is putting into this, including coders, qa, web site staff and the Mozilla community. We all have a common goal, which is to get a kick-ass browser!

Sometimes, it just seems to me that people are living in denial about the state of the project, which is why I'd like to see more critical discussion rather than just feel-good stories and "Mozilla rocks!" type of comments about builds that don't even have working bookmarks and crash when you click on "compose mail". Stuff like that just takes away credibility.

One of the best things that has ever happened to Mozilla was dropping the NS4 layout engine and the reason for that seems to have been mostly because of community pressure and critical comments.

#18 Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by thelem

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

MozillaZine should probably point out that opinions expresses are those of the MozillaZine readers and not necessarily those of Chris Nelson and the other people behind MozillaZine.

You might want to put a sentance like this on all your pages, just incase.

#22 Re: Mr Wanker, Michael Angelo

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

"He obviously prints whatever he thinks will get the most attention, even if it's total bs."

And the worse thing is, he does get attention! Some respectable sites link to his 'news' (I use the term in the loosest sense).

The articles are long and repetitive. Every single article about Mozilla's supposed slippages outlines the entire history of the project and the milestone targets.

The only improvement I've seen is that recently he's started using links probably, i.e. actually putting them in the text rather than referring to related pages and pointing readers to the footnotes for the links.

And have you seen the guide to downloading and installing Netscape 6? <http://www.mozillaquest.c…onfig_01_MQ_Story_01.html> Paranoid is an understatement.

And as if the sensationalist news isn't bad enough, the design is appalling. Was he aiming to create the World's ugliest buttons?

If you ask me, Michelangelo should stick to painting. (Incidentally, do you think MozillaQuest complained every time the estimated completion date for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling was put back?)

Non-NewZilla Alex

#25 My take is somewhat different

by vondo

Friday June 1st, 2001 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

I remember when I was first trying to find out information about mozilla. What it was, how it was progressing, etc.

I found mozilla.org almost useless and mozillazine not a whole lot better. There was no one taking the long view and explaining it. That's better (here) now with the feature updates, but I was hungry for information and not finding it.

The thing that's largely missing is not just presentation of facts, but analysis of them. What does it *mean* that imglib2 landed? What does it do for me? What does it do that imglib didn't? (Example questions only.)

Only after sifting through tons of comments here, surfing bugzilla and trying to get involved did I really feel I understood *anything* about the project.

Mozillaquest is, I think, trying to fill that role for people who don't want to sift through all the information available.

It's a shame its done so poorly, because there really is a demand for good info on mozilla.

(N.B. Most other open development projects seem to have the same problems. The web pages are written for developers, not prospective users wanting to know if a program can make their life easier.)

#26 My take is somewhat different

by vondo

Friday June 1st, 2001 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

I remember when I was first trying to find out information about mozilla. What it was, how it was progressing, etc.

I found mozilla.org almost useless and mozillazine not a whole lot better. There was no one taking the long view and explaining it. That's better (here) now with the feature updates, but I was hungry for information and not finding it.

The thing that's largely missing is not just presentation of facts, but analysis of them. What does it *mean* that imglib2 landed? What does it do for me? What does it do that imglib didn't? (Example questions only.)

Only after sifting through tons of comments here, surfing bugzilla and trying to get involved did I really feel I understood *anything* about the project.

Mozillaquest is, I think, trying to fill that role for people who don't want to sift through all the information available.

It's a shame its done so poorly, because there really is a demand for good info on mozilla.

(N.B. Most other open development projects seem to have the same problems. The web pages are written for developers, not prospective users wanting to know if a program can make their life easier.)

#96 Re: My take is somewhat different (evangelism)

by Martyr

Monday June 4th, 2001 9:33 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I just dived in. *L* You do have a point in that we can broaden the appeal of Mozilla by making it easier to get into. In short, what we need are Mozilla evangelists. Have you suggested that as an idea for an official Moz list? Now that the product is nearing completion, we need people to go out there and tell folks about it...

#99 Re: Re: My take is somewhat different (evangelism)

by Gerv

Monday June 4th, 2001 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

I disagree. If we evangelise Mozilla, we'll just get people coming by asking for support.

We should encourage people (e.g. Beonex and Netscape) to produce products based on Mozilla, and evangelise those. Beonex ( <http://www.beonex.com> ) could do with a few more users - and it doesn't have Netscape's AIM and Net2Phone bloat.

Gerv

#11 about stability (info wanted)

by dipa

Friday June 1st, 2001 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

Last 3 days builds are indeed very stable when considering the browser. But I see occasional crashes in Mail that weren't seen before. They happen when browsing messages in 3 pane window. I can't find a standard way to reproduce them, so if someone knows a related bug #, please let me know.

Thank you

#37 Re: about stability (info wanted)

by eiseli

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 11:35 AM

Reply to this message

Dipa, I am experiencing the same problem since the June 1st build and filed the Bug 83785. Like you, I cannot find a way to always reproduce it. Can anyone else comment on it?

#17 Progress

by newmana_

Friday June 1st, 2001 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

In the builds newsgroup about a week or so ago there was a comparison between Windows/Linux/Mac with IE/NS 4.7/NS 6 and recent builds. I think the figures were roughly compared with NS 4.7:

* NS 6 was 4 times slower, * Recent builds 2 times slower, * IE twice as fast.

Although there was some differences with platforms. Mac vs Windows and Windows vs Linux.

#19 Progress

by newmana_

Friday June 1st, 2001 4:13 PM

Reply to this message

Just another update. That was using iBench to load pages. There\'s also updates on things like leaks (<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…/leaks_results_daily.html>).

Or you can check out the performance newsgroups which has updates on startup times and page loading.

Again, generally Mozilla is twice as slow as Netscape 4.7.

#29 Re: Progress

by fab

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 8:07 AM

Reply to this message

Read the comments in <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78695> from David Hyatt on 2001-05-21 12:20 and 2001-05-21 12:23 and 2001-05-22 11:16 That should give you a better idea of where we are compared to NS4 and IE6.

#23 Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 5:44 PM

Reply to this message

Re-read the second sentence of the tenth paragraph of the article. No, don't go away to read it, I'll quote it here:

"Their [Netscape's] choices were to either use the 0.9.1 branch as the basis for both the beta release that they have planned and the next 'real' release after that or to do a release off of the trunk some time after 0.9.1 has been released."

Now we could have already guessed that Netscape 6.5 Preview Release 1 would be based on 0.9.1. However, the article also suggests that the final release of Netscape 6.5 will be based on a pre-1.0 build.

So..., considering the problems Netscape had when 6.0 was released, do you think they're making the same mistake again? And why do you think they're not waiting until 1.0?

My personal belief is that 6.5 has to be better than 6.0, simply because Mozilla's progressed so much in the time between 6.0 being released and now. Mozilla's pretty near release quality now and the article suggests that Netscape's people will be working like crazy to make sure that 6.5 is a good release. So, in short, we're okay there. I'll even bet that it'll get some positive reviews.

Answering my second question, I think that Netscape aren't waiting for 1.0 because they want 6.5 to be out around the same time as IE6. IE6 is being developed alongside Windows XP, which is due out on October 25th. However, Windows XP will RTM before that (around July) to allow Microsoft time to distribute it to OEMs. Microsoft says that PCs preloaded with XP will be available before the 25th. Based on that, I think they may make IE6 available for download when it's ready, i.e. around July. With Mozilla 1.0 due out in October at the earliest (what will MozillaQuest say if it hasn't been released by then?), it's too long for Netscape to wait.

That's my thoughts. What's everyone else's?

Non-NewZilla Alex

#24 Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by fgxh298

Friday June 1st, 2001 5:54 PM

Reply to this message

Who says it will be 6.5? 7.0 would make much more sense. What happens to all those NS6 themes that won't work once upgraded? I say dump NS6 completely and move onto a fresh 7.0 name. What I would do is go ahead with the PR release but don't allow authorized skinning until it is done (otherwise you'll have all these Netscape skins running around that use the XUL from 0.9.2 rather than the 1.0 XUL which will probably be different). Make it PR and then when 1.0 comes out Netscape should go for 7.0 and not release on 0.9.5 or something like that.

#27 Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 7:48 PM

Reply to this message

It's almost certain that the next version of Netscape will be called 6.5. Here's some evidence:

* Numerous mentions of "Netscape 6.5" in Bugzilla <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

* The Talkback Agent that comes with Mozilla is branded Netscape 6.5

* The SmartUpdate FAQ mentions Netscape 6.5 <http://help.netscape.com/…ape%206%20for%20the%20Mac>

So, unless Netscape Marketing have a change of heart, I think it's highly likely that the next version will be called Netscape 6.5.

Bug 76512 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76512> deals with problems caused by incompatible themes.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#35 Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by bandido

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:39 AM

Reply to this message

The next version of Netscape should be called Netscape 7.0, even if it's based on pre Moz 1.0 or not. New release has enough new features and bug fixes to be consider a point release: new cache, new imlib, LDAP autocomplete, preloader, Modern3 theme, outliner widget, gopher, Math ML (maybe), View Manager 3, PSM 2,XSLT (maybe?) hundreds (or thousands?) of bug fixes. When Moz 1.0 is released, Netscape can release 7.x based on it. Lets break with the past (infamous N6. Lets push the idea.

#38 Re: Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 11:39 AM

Reply to this message

If Netscape called the next release Netscape 7, they would be admitting that the whole 6.x line was a failure. However, if they released a good version (6.5), then people wouldn't remember it like that.

There's also the problem that Netscape skipped version 5. If Netscape moved straight to version 7 after such a short period of time, people may stop believing that the version numbers are any indication of progression.

Also, many people would argue that 6.5 will have all the features that should have been in 6.0 and 6.01. By not jumping straight to version 7, users may think that Netscape has taken the time to improve Netscape 6 rather than dropping it to concentrate on 7. An x.5 version number says that the product has been tweaked and improved and should offer greater stability and polish than previous versions. An x.0 release says that while there may be new features, they'll be bugs. Based on the response to Netscape 6.0, Netscape can't afford to do that.

Lastly, Netscape want to get the message across that their browser is in direct competition with IE, to give the impression that it must therefore be as good as IE. Having similar version numbers (6.5 for Netscape, 6.0 for IE) reinforces this.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#67 Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by thelem

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

I know, how about we use some common sense? The first browser released after Netscape 4 should be called Netscape 5, and the browser released off a 1.0 branch should be called Netscape 6. Nice and simple.

Oh sorry, I forgot there was a marketing department around :(

BTW Did Netscape ever release a 1.0? I've seen Netscape 0.93 but not 1.0.

#69 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 11:32 AM

Reply to this message

Yes Netscape did release a 1.0, released on December 15th 1994 (it's why about:mozilla in 2.x, 3.x and 4.x says "Book of Mozilla 12:15"). It was the first official release, following the betas (named 0.9, 0.91 etc.). I believe there were two versions, a paid for version (Netscape Navigator 1.0) and a free one (Netscape Navigator 1.0N). If you wanted to use Netscape for commercial use, you had to get the paid for one; everyone else could use the free one. It seems primative now, but when it first came out it was truly revolutionary.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#84 Netscape 6.5 Release

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:13 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think they skipped really skipped 5.0. Technically, the code they released WAS 5.0. I saw it on Kerz's machine (he still has it) and the Windows version, at least, was sufficiently different from 4.5 to be 5.0. It had a sidebar, and even a built-in file manager on the personal toolbar. I think it'd be safer to say they "scrapped" 5.0 before releasing it. Some might argue that was a bad idea, but by defaulting to 4.5 and NOT focusing on 5.0, Mozilla got more attention. I think it would have taken even longer to get Netscape 6 if 5.0 had been released and supported. I even found an official 5.0 beta at Netscape's site once, it had a Guide button, I think, with a signpost on it.

As for 6.5, I agree with you. Most companies wait until a major bugfix release to upgrade to a product. If Netscape jumped to version 7 now, some companies would be confused into waiting until a post 7.0 release.

#91 Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 4th, 2001 8:29 AM

Reply to this message

I take your point about the Communicator 5 code being dropped, but even after that happened, the new product (based on Gecko and XPFE) was still referred to as Communicator 5 and the user agent string still says Mozilla/5.0. So Netscape could have released Netscape 6 as Netscape 5. I think they probably would have if it had been finished earlier.

"I even found an official 5.0 beta at Netscape's site once, it had a Guide button, I think, with a signpost on it."

Some versions of 4.x had a Guide button (with signpost icon). It was removed from later versions (around 4.7?). I believe it was replaced by the My Netscape button, but I could be wrong. I think I once read that there was a hidden pref to replace the My Netscape button with the old Guide button, but my mind could be playing tricks on me.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#95 Netscape 5.0

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 9:10 AM

Reply to this message

AOL/Netscape should post up some Communicator 5 binaries to their web/ftp site. Not that there is any reason for anyone to download and use it, but just so that it is there so that people will know that 5 was not totally skipped.

#101 Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by fgxh298

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:14 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know anymore whether 6.5 or 7.0 would be better. They both definetly have their advantages. The Netscape6 has become the edsel of web browsers. But by stressing Netscape7 like they did Netscape6 it may become kind of cheesy and will sound like "Oh Netscape is at it again with these numbers." How about the number in the name be dropped. Just Netscape. It would be like AIM. How many people do you hear talking about how they chat on AIM4 or use PhotoShop6.0, oh yeah and Outlook Express 5.0?. The only problem with this is trying to push that there IS something new out. It's a serious problem that needs to be adressed. If I had to vote on it I don't know what I would put.

#83 Netscape 7

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:06 AM

Reply to this message

7 would be a bad move in my view. I don't think they should go 7 until the product KICKS ASS and, while Mozilla is pretty damned usable lately (and prettier with the new skin), it's still too early for 7. 7 should be 1.0 or post-1.0.

#82 Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:00 AM

Reply to this message

"Now we could have already guessed that Netscape 6.5 Preview Release 1 would be based on 0.9.1. However, the article also suggests that the final release of Netscape 6.5 will be based on a pre-1.0 build."

I wasn't thinking "the next version of Netscape" (be it 6.5, or whatever they call it) would have preview releases. Here is my theory:

I assumed the Preview Releases of Netscape 6 were probably forced by AOL because the company had a huge Netscape press release planned in early April 2000 (Netscape/Gateway announcements). I would warrant that they realized at some point that Mozilla wouldn't be usable until late-2000 at the earliest, and simply couldn't wait any longer to get _something_ out.

It took longer to optimize the product after PR1 than was hoped. Even after three PR releases, the product STILL had major issues usability-wise. (Using the current versions of Mozilla, I'm actually starting to really hate Netscape 6.) I think they put out Netscape 6 when they did A) because it had been like three years since Netscape had had a non-4.5-clone release and B) because there had already been 3 preview releases and moving to PR4 just wasn't an option. By that time, marketing would have already lined up the product's release marketing, etc., it was too late to pull back. And that's why Netscape 6 is accused constantly of being a late beta - it was. That's ALSO why, I bet, Mozilla.org named the would-be M19 "Mozilla .6", to show how fiercely that organization believed that the product wasn't nearly done yet.

Now that Mozilla is in good shape and usable, I assumed that from this point on, Netscape would try and have ONE beta cycle, not three as they did with Netscape 6. Preview Releases are really a BAD idea, they show your product at its most horrible. If they do have PRs, I hope they do no more than two.

Another thing that seemed to support this was that I AOL 7.0 and Compuserve 2000 are both going to be based on Mozilla, according to CNET at least (search for "AOL" and "Komodo") and the beta for AOL 7.0 will have to be out by August or so for the product to be done by October, which is typically the month AOL puts out new versions. Therefore, since Compuserve, AOL, and the next version of Netscape are all supposed to be based on the same code (again, this is just based on public stories from CNET), I assumed that they'd all be on roughly similar schedules since they're all depending on the same code. So I was thinking Netscape beta by July or August, with a final release a couple months later.

It certainly would be preferable to have just one beta cycle. And I think it might be more possible to do this now that Mozilla is in decent shape, as it wasn't before.

The current Mozilla roadmap is hard to read, it shows three possible blue lines for beta branching. Those three could support a theory for preview releases, but then they could just mean what they say "vendor branches as required" (I'm pretty sure there are other vendors waiting on the code to finalize).

It'll be interesting to see what happens, I guess.

#92 Re: Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 4th, 2001 8:38 AM

Reply to this message

"I assumed that from this point on, Netscape would try and have ONE beta cycle, not three as they did with Netscape 6."

The fact that Netscape was considering releasing both the beta and the final release off the same branch (0.9.1) seems to support this.

"Preview Releases are really a BAD idea, they show your product at its most horrible."

Not necessarily. If a beta has lots of cool features, people will put up with poor stability and lots of hype will be generated about the product (look at Windows XP). Netscape became the number one Web browser while it was still in beta because it was so much better than Mosaic.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#97 Netscape 6.5 Release

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

"Not necessarily. If a beta has lots of cool features, people will put up with poor stability and lots of hype will be generated about the product (look at Windows XP). Netscape became the number one Web browser while it was still in beta because it was so much better than Mosaic."

You're missing the difference between a beta cycle and the PR releases. Windows XP was a beta cycle. The preview releases are PUBLIC beta cycles. I can attest myself to the fact that Netscape 6 For Dummies (which I was due to write) was cancelled based on the reviews of PR1 in the press. PR1 should simply not have been released. At least, those reviews were the straw that broke the camel's back. Beta cycles should not be publicly heralded releases, I think. The public should be able to use them, certainly, but they shouldn't be advertised heavily.

#107 Re: Netscape 6.5 Release

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 4th, 2001 6:05 PM

Reply to this message

I can kind of see what you're saying. Public betas should come with health warnings. I read a few reviews of PR1 that seemed to think that it was the final release. However, many of the more informed reviews thought it showed great potential, which advertised the product.

The main problem with holding off public betas is that you miss user feedback. However, as Netscape 6 is based on an open source project this probably isn't as important.

Nullsoft release their alphas for Winamp and it's not done them any harm (though they're not heavily advertised). And of course Mozilla has being releasing pre-alpha material since day one. I guess this things have to be handled with care.

"Netscape 6 For Dummies (which I was due to write)"

We have an author in our midsts? Nice! If Netscape 6.5 looks any better, can we expect you to write a book about that?

Non-NewZilla Alex

#123 Netscape 6 For Dummies

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

For PR1 to be the first release of Netscape in like three years was BAD. I think they should have released PR2 or PR3, as the beta, and then RTM.

As for the book, I had convinced IDG Books (whom I was an editor for), now Hungry Minds, that Netscape 4.5 For Dummies needed to be scrapped and that they needed to write a new book. They went to the author and told him they wnated this (he had the right to first refusal contractually), and he refused. They asked me if I'd like to do it, and I had the proposal and table of contents approved, and then they pulled it at the last minute due to market considerations. They said they wanted to see how Netscape "recovered from its self-imposed exile".

If 6.5 kicks ass, and people really start using Netscape again, then maybe I can roust up a market for books. The problem is that browser books just don't sell that great anymore. People know how to use browsers now.

The only Netscape books I'll bet will ever be marketable are on potential future products with the Netscape brand, such as Netscape Online, should AOL decide to release a broadband Netscape service as an alternative to AOL. AOL has really got to push Netscape before anyone will sign another Netscape book, or that's my take on it. It just isn't happening yet.

So we'll see. Thanks for being interested, though, and if Netscape ever goes ballistic in marketing like AOL can do, you'll see me writing about Netscape in a minute. :)

James Russell (aka Kovu)

#142 Netscape 6.5 for Dummies

by tny

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

> The problem is that browser books just > don't sell that great anymore. People > know how to use browsers now.

Maybe. But imagine a book that explained

1.) how to create sidebar panels 2.) creating simple XUL/JavaScript components to extend Mozilla/Netscape. etc. If all the book is about is how to browse, why buy it now? But if it's about "how do I use Mozilla to customize my experience of the web, or to customize my customers' / visitors' / readers' experience of the web," well, then you'd have something. . . ..

#146 True

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 3:37 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I've considered a "Creating Custom Web Browsers For Dummies", but haven't jumped on it yet. Mozilla is a moving target. If I'd started that book before, it'd be obsolete now. The product really needs to go 1.0 and settle before people can really start using it for any real development.

#149 TAN: Re: NS 6.5/Mozilla book (IR2: True)

by tny

Thursday June 7th, 2001 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe write the introductory stuff now, wait until the code freezes for 1.0 to write the details (how XUL works, how the XP bindings work, etc.) on about the same technical level as Perl for Dummies, whether for IDG or another publisher.

It would be nice if O'Reilly would do a book on it, too, aimed more squarely at experienced developers interested in Mozilla than NS6.5 power users.

#151 Re: NS 6.5/Mozilla book (IR2: True)

by thelem

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

You mean something with a title like 'Teach yourself Mozilla programming in 21 days' (Sams; ISBN: 0672321726) <http://www.amazon.com/exe…c_b_2/102-9555915-6176927> Or the Netscape Mozilla Source Code Guide (Netscape Press; ISBN: 0764545884; 1999) <http://www.amazon.com/exe…c_b_1/102-9555915-6176927>

#181 Netscape 6.5 for Dummies

by tny

Friday June 8th, 2001 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

I mean something that only covers extending the browser, not something on the base code (that, in the case given, is obsolete anyway).

I see you can't be recommending the SAMS book yourself: ain't published yet.

(Besides, don't like the SAMS books myself.)

Which doesn't answer JR's sensible objections, of course.

#164 Erm...

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 5:16 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, but the thing is: First, you should never start writing a tech book until you sign a contract for it. You could be wasting your time. Second, I'm not a high-end Mozilla engineer, nor do I want to be at this point. I could probably coauthor the book, but probably wouldn't want to attempt to write it myself.

'sides, it's not clear there's a market until Mozilla becomes popular as a technology. There was a Netscape Press book on Mozilla, and I think they haven't sold all that well. Indeed, the whole Netscape Press line is all but forgotten at Hungry Minds (formerly IDGB). It's a depressing time for would-be Netscape authors, and it's AOL's fault (they're not really pushing Netscape yet). Hopefully, this will all change soon.

JR

#30 OFFTOPIC: AOL and Microsoft hate each other again

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

The talks between AOL and Microsoft regarding the inclusion of Steppenwolf (AOL 6 for Windows XP) on the Windows XP CD have broken down.

AOL refused to make AOL Instant Messenger compatible with Windows (MSN) Messenger (AOL are never going to give in on this are they?) and also refused to replace RealPlayer with Windows Media Player (probably because they don't want to give Microsoft another market to monopolise).

I got this from my favourite pro-MS site, Paul Thurrot's WinInformant. <http://www.wininfo.com/> The most surprising thing the article says is that "[Netscape] has been developing Internet client software since the sale [of Netscape Communications to AOL] that is technically as sophisticated as IE." So, that means he thinks Mozilla's good then? :-)

Paul Thurrot also says that "it's likely that AOL will move to Netscape technology as soon as possible." So it looks like AOL isn't going to abandon Mozilla after all.

You can read the article at <http://www.wininformant.c…Index.cfm?ArticleID=21308>

Non-NewZilla Alex

#31 Whoops!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 8:42 AM

Reply to this message

Paul Thurrot's WinInfo is actually at <http://www.wininformant.com/>

Someone else completely is at wininfo.com.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#85 Talks have resumed (sigh)

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

#102 Re: Talks have resumed (sigh)

by strauss

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:43 PM

Reply to this message

Failing to deliver a reasonable browser by the expiration date of the AOL/Microsoft agreement was a serious risk to the entire Mozilla project. What else has AOL been spending on Mozilla for, if not to have leverage to cut the MS dependency? Now they're finding they can't, and they can't wait forever to deal with the issue either.

If they can use Mozilla a year from now, it'll be too late. They'll already have a new multi-year agreement. Ditto three months from now. Prospects for continued funding are not good.

#103 Not that critical

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

It's not THAT critical, I don't think. Microsoft says that AOL can use IE even if they don't sign a new deal. The key is how badly AOL wants to be on the Windows XP CD, and that's really it. I think AOL also has reason to use IE while the trial is still pending review (they don't want to stack the odds in MS's favor by switching to Netscape).

In the end, I think AOL has too much riding on Mozilla not to continue funding it. In case you missed it, both AOL 7.0 and the new version of Compuserve are going to be based on Mozilla code, not to mention Netscape. Further, a deal has already been set for an WAP browser for cellphones with Nokia. Think about it. AOL gets all these different products from ONE engineering team. Mozilla's not going anywhere.

JR

#104 Re: Not that critical

by strauss

Monday June 4th, 2001 3:47 PM

Reply to this message

AOL has made no commitment to use Mozilla in any future AOL browser. Claims to the contrary have not been supported by quotations. It appears to be an urban legend.

I'll believe Mozilla on a cell phone when I see it. Initial claims about the leanness of Gecko turned out to not match reality. It takes megabytes of memory and disk space, according to developers I asked some time back on #mozilla. In this market, Nokia is not about to add twenty dollars to its unit cost and shorten its battery life by hours, which would be necessary to run Gecko.

#105 Re: Re: Not that critical

by strauss

Monday June 4th, 2001 4:15 PM

Reply to this message

I did a Google search for "Mozilla Nokia." What I found is that Nokia is looking to use Mozilla on an Internet appliance called the Media Terminal. This project started in 1999 and was formally launched last Fall. The Media Terminal is slated for release in the second quarter of 2001, which, by the way, is just about over. They seem to have slipped by an undetermined amount since now they are only promising an August demo.

The Media Terminal is a Linux PC, not a cell phone. All attempts to date to commercialize Linux on the desktop have failed. So have all attempts to sell an Internet appliance, most of which were withdrawn from the market a few months after release. If they manage to release this product, I predict that like the other Internet appliances, it will have a sales life of less than six months.

AOL does not seem to make any money from the product. They're trying to avoid paying for any of the software. So I don't understand your claim that AOL stands to gain a lot from its Nokia alliance.

#124 CNET

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

Nope, a Netscape-branded cellphone WAP browser: <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4520937.html>

#152 CNET

by strauss

Thursday June 7th, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

That's not based on Mozilla. The article says it's a Nokia browser being branded by AOL. It says that it "complements what we are doing at Mozilla with Gecko", which is to say, it's not based on them.

#168 AOL stands to benefit plenty

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 6:02 PM

Reply to this message

You said " So I don't understand your claim that AOL stands to gain a lot from its Nokia alliance."

The Netscape WAP browser is how AOL, and Netscape, stand to benefit from that relationship.

#170 Re: AOL stands to benefit plenty

by strauss

Thursday June 7th, 2001 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

The article you cited said directly that it was a Nokia WAP browser which was being rebranded for Netscape and AOL. It's in no way related to the Mozilla code base. Mozilla is not suitable for low-footprint devices, despite the claims made for Gecko a few years ago. It's just too big.

Again, we all make mistakes. The thing to do is correct them, apologize if it's appropriate, and move on. The dodges you're issuing are not enhancing your credibility.

#171 Whatever

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:19 PM

Reply to this message

Dude, as if I give a shit about my credibility at MZ. I'm speculating, as are you. I posted a link I thought relevant, if you don't, sorry. I'm not apologizing for a thing.

#125 Komodo

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 12:43 AM

Reply to this message

Publicly, no, they haven't. But an internal memo, confirmed by two AOL employees by CNET, does say this. <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5729530.html>

So does this ZDNET article: <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,2767080,00.html>

#153 komodo

by strauss

Thursday June 7th, 2001 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

No, neither of those articles confirm your false claim that "both AOL 7.0 and the new version of Compuserve are going to be based on Mozilla code." Komodo is not based on Mozilla code, though it is intended to be _compatible_ with Mozilla code. It is also compatible with Internet Explorer. It's not based on either one of them.

Further, this is unreleased internal software on which AOL has declined to comment. There's no reason to assume that Komodo will ever be released just because an alpha was leaked, or that it will be released in a form that is compatible with Mozilla.

Would you mind not spreading misinformation about Mozilla adoption? One mistake was one thing, but two suggests something more than simple error.

#165 komodo

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 5:43 PM

Reply to this message

"No, neither of those articles confirm your false claim that "both AOL 7.0 and the new version of Compuserve are going to be based on Mozilla code." Komodo is not based on Mozilla code, though it is intended to be _compatible_ with Mozilla code. It is also compatible with Internet Explorer. It's not based on either one of them."

So what? And where's your proof to the contrary. Because you say it's so? Right.

"Further, this is unreleased internal software on which AOL has declined to comment. There's no reason to assume that Komodo will ever be released just because an alpha was leaked, or that it will be released in a form that is compatible with Mozilla."

There's no reason to assume it WON'T, either. I was offering reasons to believe otherwise than your doom and gloom projections for Mozilla, which are completely baseless.

"Would you mind not spreading misinformation about Mozilla adoption? One mistake was one thing, but two suggests something more than simple error."

Would you mind jumping in a lake? I'm not "spreading misinformation", I'm speculating. That's how people often prepare themselves for the future happenings given closed-mouthed companies.

The fact is, you have no more proof of Mozilla's pending demise than I do that AOL 7's based on Mozilla. And even if it wasn't based completely on Mozilla code, Mozilla-compatible is by far good enough for me, even if it isn't for you.

#169 Re: komodo

by strauss

Thursday June 7th, 2001 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

That's not a response -- it's just name-calling. It's no big deal to make a mistake, but it's disgraceful to pretend you were right when it's obvious you were wrong.

Komodo is not based on Mozilla according to the articles you cited -- it's supposed to be browser independent. From what you said, both AOL 7 and the next release of CI$ would be based on Mozilla. This is an objectively false claim. You could just as easily say they're based on Internet Explorer. In fact they're not based on either one.

You are also trying to dodge the issue of whether AOL has committed to supporting Mozilla. That was the question on the table, in response to your direct assertion that "AOL 7.0 and CompuServe 2000 are both going to be based on Mozilla, according to CNET". Komodo is not a committed product. It's possible AOL 7 will be Mozilla compatible. It's also possible it won't. From the people who shipped Netscape 6, anything is possible.

What name do you write under? I want to be sure to avoid your books. There's already more than enough misleading information out there. Thanks.

#172 Hardly

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:28 PM

Reply to this message

I called you no names, actually.

I also haven't dodged anything. AOL _is_ supporting Mozilla, no Mozilla.org employees have been let go to my knowledge. And you've shown me no proof that anything will change soon. You wildly claim that financial support is in jeapordy without even a shred of evidence, and I refute that, and you evidently have no proof in any case, all you're doing is trashing my reasons to hope that the situation is not as you say.

As to future support of Netscape within AOL, that's obviously up in the air given the Windows XP talks.

And finally, if you care that deeply to avoid my books, feel free to find out my publishing name yourself. Thanks.

#119 Hold it, they're back off again

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 12:16 PM

Reply to this message

It seems Microsoft doesn't like AOL telling the DOJ what a naughty monopoly it is (the monopoly in question being Microsoft, in case there's any confusion!)

<http://www.wininformant.c…Index.cfm?ArticleID=21339>

Non-NewZilla Alex

#129 Re: OFFTOPIC: AOL and Microsoft hate each other again

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 2:29 AM

Reply to this message

In all of the news regarding the AOL-MS talks, I have not seen any indication that any of th discussion is about whether or not AOL will continue to use MSIE instead of Netscape.

Everything seems to focus on AOL's Steppenwolf being bundled with Windows XP or compatibility between MS Messenger and AOL's AIM.

Seems to me that Komodo is a go regardless.

#167 No...

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 5:57 PM

Reply to this message

I don't think that this means Komodo is a go, I think it means that AOL has always willing to sacrifice Netscape. Microsoft is just demanding a great deal on top of that.

#132 Netscape out of the browser business

by strauss

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 8:59 AM

Reply to this message

#166 I disagree

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

"AOL Time Warner's retreat from creating distinct Netscape browsing software figures in the on-again, off-again talks the company is holding with Microsoft to renegotiate its licence to embed the Internet Explorer in its AOL service."

You can't seriously think Netscape is out of the browser business, when the next version of Netscape is close to beta according to this article and the Mozilla.org Roadmap?

Even the story (see above) admits that the talks figure into AOL not pushing Netscape. Once the talks are over one way or another, that's when we'll know where Netscape stands.

#32 Speed?

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 9:34 AM

Reply to this message

I think the main problem for mozilla now is not the stability but the speed. Mozilla is great but *very* slow! It takes about 4 seconds to open a new navigator window on my PII-400 for example (linux version).

I don't where this comes from... Maybe part of it comes from the compiler switches (-O0 -g2 vs -O3)? Or to the amount of debugging messages and asserations? If so, it'll corrected easly in the 1.0 release, but if it's a more critical problem... hum... I think you should concentrate on it.

Good luck, Mozilla team!

#34 Re: Speed?

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

hmm, 4 seconds is slow? :)

can't answer your questions, but here's the bug for the -02 and -03 compile switch on linux.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53486>

there\'s also alot of work being done on a preloader for mozilla, though it\'s not a solution for most people.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…&value0-0-3=preloader>

i'm not sure how mozilla is influenced by harddisk speed but most likely hdparm will speed up initial load times a little.

#48 Re: Re: Speed?

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 8:38 PM

Reply to this message

4 seconds is very slow to just open a new empty window (not to start a new browser).

The whole interface is slow. It don't think it's the layout engine (page load time), but the GFX layer.

It's not hard disk speed (I've tuned it with hdparm already, and the HD led isn't even blinking) I've 256M of RAM, so there are no swapping problems tooo.

#53 Re: Re: Re: Speed?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

interesting. I can open this page in a new window in less than 1.5 seconds and I only have 128 MB RAM.

--Asa

#43 Re: Speed?

by cobar

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 3:02 PM

Reply to this message

I would guess that's a part of it, and it just seems that the Linux versions are a bit slower than the Windows builds. I think switching to -O2 will help with some of that, but I think it also reflects less tuning of the Linux tree vs. Windows and perhaps a bit of overhead associated with using X instead of going direct to the hardware.

FYI, I tested 0.9 on my work K6-2 333 running Win98 and Debian, on Windows it runs quite well like Netscape 4.x but on Linux it's quite a bit slower. On my p233 Debian laptop it's almost unable but runs great on my FreeBSD Celeron 808. A lot of the general performance works seems to help Linux and Windows, so I imagine it'll continue getting better.

#49 Re: Re: Speed?

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 8:39 PM

Reply to this message

Normally there is a nice thing called "xshm" to avoid sending IP packets to the X server when the program and the display are on the same computer. Using xshm this should at least as fast as windows.

#81 Re: Re: Re: Speed?

by cobar

Monday June 4th, 2001 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for clearing me up on that, I hadn't been aware of that before.

X is indeed slower as it runs in user mode, while Windows runs in kernel mode at the cost of potential instability. Therefore Windows will be a bit faster. Similarly, that is why they had to create DRI, so that you could directly access the hardware instead of going through the X server.

#89 Re: Re: Re: Re: Speed

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Monday June 4th, 2001 5:58 AM

Reply to this message

X is as fast as windows if you use the proper extensions (DRI for 3D, xshm or DGA for 2D); even some windows 2D programs (like StarCraft) run faster with Wine than they do with zindozs.

The problem is not X; on my computer I play 25fps divx without any lag, on Moz still use 4 sec to create a new window.

#137 Don't Worry

by unbekannt

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 11:12 AM

Reply to this message

Linux builds will run faster in the very near future; there are some optimiziation quarks that are being ironed out right now. Expect at leat a 9% speed boost in the next few days when the optimization builds are ready

#50 Re: Speed?

by bzbarsky

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:15 PM

Reply to this message

There are a couple of issues with linux builds:

1) We use -O1. This is because the code produced by -O2 and -O3 has been known to have issues

2) There are many places in Mozilla where our usage of X is not as efficient as it could be. There are bugs filed on this

3) g++ is not as good a C++ compiler as one could wish for. Going from gcc 2.91 to gcc 2.95 gives a 10% speed boost at the expense of backwards compatibility with RH 6.x and similar systems. Going to gcc 3.0 should give an even greater performance increase.

4) Some OS-specific code is just not as well optimized on Linux as on Windows

5) The 2.2 kernel uses a very large timeslice (100 slices/second). This results in noticeable lag in multi-threaded applications that need to talk back and forth to X a lot (eg Mozilla). Recompiling with a setting of 1000 slices/second (which is default with 2.4 kernels, btw) improves performance tremendously.

So there's a lot of work to be done here. :)

#100 Re: Re: Speed?

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:10 PM

Reply to this message

So why doesn't mozilla try going with source code released tar.gz which includes just the required code for linux (or would that be too difficult to parse out nightly?) for the enduser to build with an easy to use makefile. And sure throw up a few pre-build packages too. But why should someone have to use cvs just to get the unbuild source.

#138 Source

by unbekannt

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

You can get nightly source trees from <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> in .tar.gz format; it's not a problem.

#159 Re: Source

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Thursday June 7th, 2001 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

Duh: never really looked, because the tar.gz in the nightly directories is not plain source. Went looking around and found it in the /pub/mozilla/source directory... thanks :)

#78 Re: Speed?

by Ben_Goodger

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 7:02 PM

Reply to this message

Are you running a debug build? (Assertions and almost all debugging information is suppressed in the nightly builds). Opt builds from <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> are several times faster than debug builds...

#88 Re: Re: Speed

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Monday June 4th, 2001 5:54 AM

Reply to this message

You can't really compare Mozilla and IE startup time because part of IE is already started when zindozs starts.

#145 Re: Re: Re: Speed

by deven <deven@ties.org>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 3:12 PM

Reply to this message

Once Mozilla is running, that "part of IE is already started" excuse doesn't apply. It still takes noticable time to open a new window when Mozilla is already running. On my P3-600 at work, with 512 Meg RAM, it still takes about 1.5 seconds to open a new window. It's a VERY long delay (10-30 seconds) on my P-200 at home (192 Meg RAM). I feel like this should be almost instant, even on a slow processor. Netscape 4 is no speed demon, and it takes maybe a quarter of a second on this P3-600...

#86 Re: Speed?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:19 AM

Reply to this message

I think the product's loading time from clicking its icon to start on Windows, even, is the major issue. I can usually count 9 seconds before Mozilla starts up, and that's WAY too long when IE starts in 1 second. And yes, it's a bit slow on Linux, too.

#87 Re: Re: Speed?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 2:20 AM

Reply to this message

I should note that I have a PII 400 mhz running at 100 mhz bus speed and 128k RAM, so I'm not on a dinosaur or anything.

#93 Re: Re: Re: Speed?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 4th, 2001 8:40 AM

Reply to this message

"I should note that I have a PII 400 mhz running at 100 mhz bus speed and 128k RAM, so I'm not on a dinosaur or anything."

128K of RAM? Sounds like a dinosaur to me! ;-)

Alex

#98 Err

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday June 4th, 2001 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

Now, now, you know I meant MB. :)

JR

#94 Re: Re: Speed?

by jmkg

Monday June 4th, 2001 9:07 AM

Reply to this message

Bear in mind that Internet Explorer on Windows is very much embedded into the OS once installed; thus the loading time is greatly reduced because some of the app is effectively already loaded, which makes sense.

#106 Re: Speed?

by WillyWonka

Monday June 4th, 2001 5:02 PM

Reply to this message

Why not compare mozilla again't IE's load time? That's what most end users will be comparing it to.

Unless on a default install it does a mozilla.exe -turbo but that's taking the cheap way out and we don't like cheaters.

#115 Re: Re: Speed

by kilobug <kilobug@freesurf.fr>

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 4:50 AM

Reply to this message

Running IE is exactly the same than running mozilla -turbo! The core of IE is loaded at boot time, so M$ is already cheaters.

#33 Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla 1.0

by Nemo_NX

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

Image blocking no longer works <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73848>

Looks like this one will be fixed by .9.2. If not, then maybe it would be better if that option isn't visible anymore. Personally, and ad image blocker method would be far more practical than taking them out one at a time. :/

[RFE] "AutoScroll"/Panning support [eg, Mousewheel Click/Drag triggered] <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22775>

It would mean so much to me if this bug were fixed. I use this on IE all the time and I do mean all the time. Personally, I don't give a crap if mouse wheel support is independent of the platform or not. You're just chewing up more system resources in Windows if you go that route. If might not seem much at all but tiny things like this can add up and would add more time to the start up time of Mozilla. Anyway, has it been proven that doing it the other way with the mouse drivers doing the work in Mozilla would lead to more crashes? I used K-Galleon and don't think so. I had meant to bug the K-Galleon guys to submit an official patch to Mozilla to get it working. Oh well, as long as Mozilla is in beta it really doesn't matter. :/ The good news is that it is being actively worked on so hopefully it will land before Mozilla 1.0. :) And, I'm damn near expecting that release to not have that debug crap in it like it always has in it's releases. >:(

[TXT]Textbox size does not match specified width if not using the default font. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43847>

Probably my second biggest complaint about Mozilla is that is can't render a simple textbox correctly. The web designers design the web pages around IE. That is a fact and we have to live with it. They aren't always going to support extra room on their sidebars for Mozilla's oversized textboxes. Looks like this bug is in real active development. I just love getting bug updates on this one. For a while there it looked like it would never get fixed. However, just like that autoscroll bug, someone outside of Netscape is stepping up to the plate to get a user requested feature completed. I could also bitch on how many web pages have text boxes with black borders instead of gray. I don't know if it's a web page issue or Mozilla's fault but I'm going to ask someone about that soon. :/

Show toolbars as text/icons/both <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22056>

This one might pick up again in soon. However it might get held up on theme support and new "tiny" icons for both Classic and Modern. It is nice to see progress on this bug though. :)

[RFE] Save Page With Images, Stylesheets, Objects, Applets <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11632>

Oh man, how I NEED this bug fixed like now! I can't see this as an enhancement when I need to test out a page to make sure it is rendering correctly. Go to this <http://www.shacknews.com>, and take a long look at that sidebar. See the problem? The stylesheets are overlapping and I was going to try and fix it and send the fix to Steve Gibson. However, when I go to save the page, then edit the source & save that then, and refresh the page there's nothing there to see! I need see those things guys, it's really important in order to make the web page look like the way it's suppose to. There doesn't seem to be any work being done on this and I'll leave you with a statement about this bug by David: "IE has this feature, the Mozilla based K-Meleon has this feature, even winEmbed.exe and mfcEmbed.exe which are included in the mozilla win32 and embed zipfiles. So at the moment our embedding demo programs have this feature but mozilla doesn't.

Research shows that 9 out of 10 cats prefer it :)" I smell a copy/paste code somewhere around here. :)

And finally!!!!!....

Cannot permanently delete Imported IE Favorites folder <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22642>

Gimme and SR=! SR=! Gimme and R=! R=! Gimme an A=! A=! What's that spell? DONE! :P Oh man, could this be true? *FAINT!* 78 people will be a lot happier in the next 48 hours. :)

If you feel that these bugs are important like I do then please, please, please, please vote for them. They do get notice and maybe even worked on a little. Whenever I posted about that IE Favorites bug, the number of votes kept getting larger and larger pretty quick. Hopefully this post will do the same thing for the other bugs that I mentioned.

Note: This is just an informative and slightly opinionated post covering user requested features that really should have been in Mozilla a long time ago. Thank you. :)

I'm am curious to know about whatever important speed/performance bugs that are out there that you might feel is important to fix. :)

#39 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla 1.0

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

i love the way people promote 'their' bugs like there will be an apocalypse if it doesn't get fixed :)

'my' performance bugs:

buglists hang mozilla for long periods of tg periods of time using all available CPU <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77460>

Default linux MOZ_OPTIMIZE_FLAG is -0 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53486>

Gecko blocks the main thread for > 1 sec processing events <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76722>

[perf] http connections should be reused earlier <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83772>

#41 Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 12:01 PM

Reply to this message

Performance bugs have been generally getting high priority last of late, so I'm not that worried about them, but here's the list of bugs I'm been eyeing on:

UI for FTP upload not implemented <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24867>

application-level improvements to startup <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76705>

Show link as :visited if opened in another window <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10491>

need ability to generate statically linked build <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46775>

Pref for minimum font size <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30910>

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

#47 Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 7:04 PM

Reply to this message

Can I join in?

The bugs I'd most like to see fixed are:

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32157> Bug 32157 - [feature] title tips (tooltips for cropped texts)

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57599> Bug 57599 - Mozilla doesn't line-break tooltips

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43180> Bug 43180 - Back/Forward buttons should have the page title in the tooltip

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20943> Bug 20943 - [FEATURE] Print preview needs to be hooked up

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18004> Bug 18004 - [RFE]resuming stopped downloads

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11632> Bug 11632 - [RFE] Save Page With Images, Stylesheets, Objects, Applets

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48845> Bug 48845 - [RFE] Offline browsing engine

* <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71413> Bug 71413 - Spam Filter: right click on incoming mail address and select "Block this Address"

Unfortunately, I think that I may have finished my Computer Science degree before some of these bugs are fixed (but by then I may be able to fix them myself!)

Non-NewZilla Alex

#45 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla

by cobar

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

For the image blocking, what I'd like to see is a pref to enable the image decoding pref (prevents animated gifs from showing more than the staring image). It's mentioned in 0.8 release notes and works quite well, but I doubt anyone will notice it. Image blocking is too inaccurate to be useful, you need something like junkbuster.

For the mouse scroll, I'd like to see something more like dragging allowed, so that you click and drag an image, causing the page to move in the opposite direction of which you drag, ala gv or Acrobat Reader.

BTW, AFAIK the milestones do not include debugging.

#51 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla 1.0

by bzbarsky

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:23 PM

Reply to this message

> However, just like that autoscroll > bug, someone outside of Netscape is > stepping up to the plate to get a user > requested feature completed.

Isn't that the whole point? :)

That said, once we emulate the IE algorithm, all it has to do is change it a little tiny bit... :( Perhaps web designers would do better to style text controls to the size they want if they care about layout that precisely...

#52 Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by Nemo_NX

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 11:02 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah but what about this black border over the text boxes thing? I see it on a ton of different web pages even this one. The color of the password textbox border is okay but the Title and Login textboxes is not. Is that not the wierdest thing you ever seen? Has anyone filed a bug about this one yet? Ugh, just found another one. The mouse icon doesn't change when I point it to the scroll bar. It just shows the hover over text icon. :( But it hasn't crashed yet, so that's cool. :)

#61 Re: Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by bzbarsky

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

There's a bug on the border thing, yes. Filed yesterday, and possibly an older duplicate as well.

#64 Re: Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by macpeep

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

A favorite bug of mine is that text is not vertically aligned correctly in textfields, at least on Win32.

#54 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla

by fab

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 2:09 AM

Reply to this message

>Cannot permanently delete Imported IE Favorites folder

Looks like you were heard in the end! Now let's all thank Ben Goodger by sending him some belgian waffles!

#55 Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss!!!!!!!!

by Nemo_NX

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 2:45 AM

Reply to this message

Where do I send them?!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

Me do dance of joy! :) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22642>

#56 Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla

by macpeep

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 4:45 AM

Reply to this message

What are belgian waffles like? I was in Amsterdam a year ago (stopped there for a day before going to Malaysia) and I was supposed to eat some dutch waffles but I never got around to it because the World Famous Place (tm) that a friend had recommended was closed. :( Would that have been very similar to belgian waffles and what are those like?

#57 Re: Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by

by sconest

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 5:17 AM

Reply to this message

> What are belgian waffles like? It depends : Brussels waffles or Liege waffles ?

Gilles

#58 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by

by macpeep

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 5:35 AM

Reply to this message

:P Ok, both then.. And a comparison to dutch waffles too, please. (getting hungry here!)

#183 Re: Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozi

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday June 8th, 2001 2:11 PM

Reply to this message

W is for the many ways that you're served A is for the admiration you deserve F because you're fluffy, you're flaky, you're fun! and F is for the flavor that is second ta none! L is for how light you are, you melt in my mouth! E is for eggs - oh baby! (Triple time!) Put 'em all together with a how-do-ya-do Lovely waffles we love - (Send me up another please!) Waffles we love - (Top mine off with runny cheese!) Waffles we love - (Chili waffles suit me fine!) Waffles we love - (Wash me down with Aunt Jemima?) WAA-A-FFLES, WE-E LO-O-VE YOOUUU!

What do you think, sirs?

- Mystery Science Theater 3000, "The Waffle Song" (from "Home Economics/Viking women vs. the Sea Serpent")

#68 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla

by locka <adamlock@eircom.net>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 11:16 AM

Reply to this message

"[RFE] Save Page With Images, Stylesheets, Objects, Applets"

If you want this feature, at least in KMeleon/Galleon, I suggest you suggest to them that they use the nsIWebBrowserPersist interface on their browser object. It let's you save the entire document including all linked files.

Mozilla doesn't use this mechanism (it implements its own stream transfer object) so I have no idea when it will get the same functionality.

#77 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla

by klee

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 6:37 PM

Reply to this message

I'll join in ... leaving out the already mentioned, my 'favorite' bugs are:

[Browser]

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9203> [RFE] do not save 'dead' or incorrect url's in the location drop down

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40988> incredibly slow Javascript/DOM performance

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55583> view-source should show original source (use cached source)

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56472> focus not clearing highlighted text

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58413> [RFE] Javascript/XUL run-time environment/debugger

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63918> [RFE] Need a Profile Repair Utility

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65254> Loading given URL hogs CPU forever

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77914> Transparent animating GIFs have black background

[MailNews]

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2660> [RFE] Printing contents of address book

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2920> Delete attachment from msg in folder

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20336> Ctrl-Enter should send the message only if there is pref to turn it off

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29158> Need more intelligent name to card conversion

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43015> Only one file can be selected in Attach File dialog

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57604> mass-replying to more than 8 emails opens only 8 windows

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70322> compact folders uses hardcoded temp file name "nstmp"

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71413> Spam Filter: right click on incoming mail address and select "Block this Address"

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76164> modifying a filter causes several seconds of flashing/redrawing if there are many filters above it

[WebTools] <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12286> "Related bugs" feature.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15967> "My Votes" link from initial screen.

#126 Re: Hopefully these bugs will be fixed by Mozilla 1.0

by tono

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:43 AM

Reply to this message

My personal favorite bug of the moment is <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82534> Cannot type in URL bar after minimal browser use. It's a real pain in the ass if you ask me.

#36 Netscape 7.0

by bandido

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 10:58 AM

Reply to this message

The next version of Netscape should be called Netscape 7.0, even if it's based on pre Moz 1.0 or not. New release has enough new features and bug fixes to be consider a point release: new cache, new imlib, LDAP autocomplete, preloader, Modern3 theme, outliner, gopher, Math ML (maybe), View Manager 3, PSM 2,XSLT (maybe?), etc and hundreds (or thousands?) of bug fixes. When Moz 1.0 is finally released, Netscape can release 7.x based on it. Lets break with the past (infamous N6). Lets push the idea.

#40 Re: Netscape 7.0

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

I dont agree. I think that it's a good move to mae the next netscape release 6.5 because it'll go head to head with IE _6_.

I agree there has been enough significant changes since 6.01 to call the next release 7.0, but i think it's over doing it to jump to 7.0 already (yes, i prefered 5.0 over 6.0), but that's just a personal opinion.

anyway, whatever you say or however many mozilla/netscape users you convince it should be 7.0, it doesn't matter. netscape marketing and whoever else is responsible for version numbering will make the decision, regardless of 'what makes sense' from a developers point of view.

#59 Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by bandido

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 6:30 AM

Reply to this message

"I dont agree. I think that it's a good move to mae the next netscape release 6.5 because it'll go head to head with IE _6_."

If that is the case Netscape 7.0 will make even more marketing sense. People who have evaluated IE 6.0 say that the improvements are minimal (maybe it should be called IE 5.6)

"I agree there has been enough significant changes since 6.01 to call the next release 7.0, but i think it's over doing it to jump to 7.0 already"

Then, what is the problem with calling it 7.0 There is no rule that says you must have decimal point improvements in between full point. I think it makes perfect sense, the same way it made sense to skip 5.0, which was not really skipped since version 5 was cancelled before completing it.

"anyway, whatever you say or however many mozilla/netscape users you convince it should be 7.0, it doesn't matter. netscape marketing and whoever else is responsible for version numbering will make the decision, regardless of 'what makes sense' from a developers point of view."

I am not that cynical. I think marketing changes happen ALL the time. There is nothing wrong about giving feedback.

#60 Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by macpeep

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 7:49 AM

Reply to this message

I also don't want to be cynical but really, if version numbers were to reflect quality and features, Netscape 6 should have been called 3.5.

Personally I think Netscape might want to release a 6.5 based on 0.9.1 or 0.9.2 since there's so much improvement over 0.6 that Netscape 6.0 was based on. If 1.0 is much delayed, like it seems now, they will probably create a 7.0 based on it, but such a browser wouldn't be released until Q1/2002 anyway so why not throw in a 6.5 as soon as possible to "get rid of" 6.0? I think it makes a lot of sense. I remember the early 4.x series (up until around 4.06) and they were of *really* bad quality.. Tho still not as bad as 6.0.. 4.5 was a good move by Netscape and 6.5 could be too, even if it's not based on Mozilla 1.0

#66 Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

"...if version numbers were to reflect quality and features, Netscape 6 should have been called 3.5."

I can see where some areas of 6.0 were sorely lacking in quality but I think that as far as features go, the browser was definitely not a 3.x version. The browser supported css1 and 2, dom 1, javascript 1.5, and other web standards better than any other browser. It had new and innovative features like image blocking, cookie management and site by site javascript controls (blocking popups and other js abuses). It had a useful and convienient sherlock based search system that allowed users more ease and freedom than any competing browsers. It It had feature parity with 4 and 5.x browsers in areas like auto form fill, URL autocomplete, and sidebar (not sure if you want to call this new of parity with IE).

I know there are other areas where the features were not there or not on par with 4.x and 5.x browsers like bookmark managemebt, full-screen mode, and others (I'm sure you'll be glad to enumerate the 1000 or so other feature shortcomings that keep you from using Mozilla). But if you look at the browser and compare it to other browsers I don't think that it makes sense to call it a 3.x class application based on feature set.

--Asa

#70 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by macpeep

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

You're probably right about the feature "count". I said quality and features tho, not just features. Mail & News, which is as important as the browser for me, is a step back in most areas, features, quality AND speed. There's no S/MIME, folders are *really* slow (Netscape 6.0 - the new outliner widget fixed it), the editor is buggy etc. Of course there's multiple accounts so.. *shrug*

The 6.0 browser surely has a higher feature count than 4.x had, but again, there are lots and LOTS of bugs there, which makes the whole thing feel pretty weak, and like I said - I was talking about features AND quality.

#63 Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 9:26 AM

Reply to this message

"If that is the case Netscape 7.0 will make even more marketing sense."

i think going from 4.7 to 6 and then to 7 without a single release that was widely accepted (for the average user: percieved) is overkill. Also, 6 vs 6.5 or 6 vs 7.. it doesn't really matter, however to me 6.5 'feels' more correct (disregarding Mozillas developement, which the people to which this matters: the common user is invisible).

"People who have evaluated IE 6.0 say that the improvements are minimal (maybe it should be called IE 5.6)"

as i said, it's not about development, its about marketing.

#65 Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by bandido

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

"as i said, it's not about development, its about marketing."

If it is about marketing, then you should agree with me, it should be called 7.0. But as I said before, I am not that cynical, I do believe the numering system should reflect significant improvements/rewrites and there has been significant rewrites in the code since Netscape 6/Mozilla 0.6. like new cache, imlib, the upcoming preloader, PSM2, Gopher, Outliner, View manager, etc, etc and of course Modern 3 >> I think changes in the user UI or perceived changes should nevre occur as decimal point release but at a full point release. Well enough of me repeating myself. I don't want to sound like JTK sophism :-)

#75 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Netscape 7.0

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 4:56 PM

Reply to this message

I would disagree on that. Even marketing has some limits to it. Skipping version 5.0, and now jumping from 6.01 to 7.0 in less than a year is a too much and may look silly too many people (many thought that skipping 5.0 was silly and confusing, do we want to go to 7.0 so soon?).

Besides, your major point is that a bigger number would suggest indicate a bigger change and could draw users' attention. A .5 jump from 6.0 to 6.5 is pretty significant, and I think will draw many users attention (plus I will be advertising it like crazy once it comes out on my sites).

Of course, the final decision is left to Netscape Marketing, not the mozilla.org community. It's not the most important detail in the world that we should be worried about (there are far more pressing issues in Mozilla), but 6.5 is very reasonable.

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

#184 IRC link question

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday June 8th, 2001 2:38 PM

Reply to this message

Additionally, many people deliberately avoid x.0 releases because they are usually just a step above beta, and pretty unstable. Calling it 6.5 would actually make it sound more stable to many people than skipping directly to 7.0.

#190 Stupid autofill...

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Sunday June 10th, 2001 12:20 AM

Reply to this message

I know that title made no sense. That's what I get for not proofreading before posting. :P

#74 MSIE 6.0 (Was Re: Netscape 7.0)

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 4:52 PM

Reply to this message

I personally don't like WinIE (not because it's from Microsoft), but IE6 has one major improvement that's worthwhile: it actually calculates CSS box widths correctly! This has been a major major MAJOR pain in the ass for those who wanted to venture more into CSS, myself included. Now we wouldn't have to use clumsy and stupid workarounds just to compensate for something that should have been fixed long ago.

Of course, Mozilla has been calculating CSS box widths correctly since day one :)

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

#90 Re: MSIE 6.0 (Was Re: Netscape 7.0)

by tny

Monday June 4th, 2001 8:18 AM

Reply to this message

There are other useful things about IE6: especially if they put MSXML 4.0 and therefore FINALLY put reasonably compliant XML/XSLT support in the browser (something invisible to users, but very visible to those who develop web pages for a living).

IE6 won't have as good features as NS6.5, and it won't be as compliant (and it will be a closed book); but it ain't bad as a competitor to Moz.

#42 Re: Netscape 7.0

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

I personally disagree with your assessment. We've already skipped 5.0 entirely, I don't think we need any jumps like this anytime soon. Perhaps when Netscape is based on Mozilla 1.5 or 2.0 then we'll see Netscape 7.0

Just to give you some better numbers, there are over a thousand bug fixes that go into each milestone. Some very noticeable, some not nearly noticeable (many cases the "unnoticeable" bug fixes prevents "noticeable" bugs from getting fixed).

We can't really push any ideas, since this will be a Netscape Marketing decision. The open source nature of mozilla.org allows us to influence Mozilla's direction, but that power does not affect what Netscape decides to do.

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

#44 My ten basic rules

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 3:03 PM

Reply to this message

I don't care about version numbers at all but Mozilla should:

1 - never crash 2 - never hang 3 - start faster 4 - render content faster 5 - use less memory 6 - be 100% standard compliant 7 - block rich media like Flash 8 - start external mail clients 9 - call regressions a side effect 10 - and call bugs features

The day this happens, I call it mozilla 99.99 or whatever you like!

So lets start killing bugs, we don't need smalltalk, we need bugfree code :)

#46 Re: My ten basic rules

by macpeep

Saturday June 2nd, 2001 4:28 PM

Reply to this message

"lets start killing bugs"!! Of course!! Damn! Why didn't anyone think of that before!?

#62 Re: Why didn't anyone think of that before!?

by Ryouga

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 9:09 AM

Reply to this message

I think he was being tongue-in-cheek with his post, but oh well. :)

#71 It seems you missed the message

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 12:14 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#79 Re: My ten basic rules

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 8:08 PM

Reply to this message

"Mozilla should: 1 - never crash 2 - never hang 3 - start faster 4 - render content faster 5 - use less memory 6 - be 100% standard compliant 7 - block rich media like Flash 8 - start external mail clients 9 - call regressions a side effect 10 - and call bugs features." Don't forget that it should also: 1) walk on water. 2) bring about world peace. 3) solve California's energy crisis.

#72 God dammit!

by Nemo_NX

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83642>

You try and fix one thing and the rest falls apart. :(...................

Now I can't delete or edit ANY bookmark. Anyone want to place bets on how long this will take to get fixed? :(

*FUTURED*

#73 Re: God dammit!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 2:37 PM

Reply to this message

There's no milestone set for it (nothing unusual) and it is not marked FUTURED. Relax a bit, it's the weekend, and Ben has yet to respond to it.

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

#76 Relax?

by Nemo_NX

Sunday June 3rd, 2001 5:31 PM

Reply to this message

After finnaly getting the IE favorites thing fix after so long a time, how the hell am I suppose to relax over this one? :P

#108 Re: Relax?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Monday June 4th, 2001 8:34 PM

Reply to this message

Because the fix has been checked in, so download the build tomorrow :)

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

#114 Yea!

by Nemo_NX

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 2:32 AM

Reply to this message

I find that Mozilla seems to load faster now. How about you? :P

Here's the build I was testing. <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…a-win32-installer-sea.exe>

#118 Re: Yea!

by Netvigator

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

True it's going damn fast! I wonder what they'll have tweaked :))) Lets try today's build now...

Netvigator

#120 Re: Re: Yea!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 2:29 PM

Reply to this message

It seems a bit zippier, but hard to tell on the machine I'm currently at right now.

A bunch of performance fixes were checked-in last night, but they didn't seem like any were large and general performance improvments. Maybe it's their combined effect is what we're seeing.

But whatever it is, I'm not complaining :)

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

#80 Re: God dammit!

by fab

Monday June 4th, 2001 1:51 AM

Reply to this message

this regression appeared before the fix for IE favorites. so someone else gently killed the bookmarks manager... note that there are workarounds.

#127 Re: God dammit!

by fab

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

fixed btw

#109 MAPI Support

by mwkchan

Monday June 4th, 2001 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

I might be asking a stupid well-known question. Yet I spent sometime try to look for the answer but failed. I wanna know whether Mozilla Mail/News support MAPI or not as I uninstalled my NC4.7 and installed mozilla (I'm using the 0.9.1 branch build) and I can't set Mozilla as my default mailer. If MAPI is not supported, is there any plan to have this feature built-in in the future?

#112 Re: MAPI Support

by aegis <aegisk@iastate.edu>

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 1:42 AM

Reply to this message

Look up bugs 11057 and 38969 in bugzilla.

#113 Re: MAPI Support

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 1:53 AM

Reply to this message

I've never seen a MAPI question asked here before, but I dunno what it is so ...

A simple search of MAPI revealed this: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

So yes, there is work on it. When? Dunno.

Although these past two weeks Mozilla has been the most stable as it's ever been, keep in mind that it's still not at the magical "1.0" yet, so there's no guarentee that everything will work and I suggest strongly keeping a back-up browser in case something might wrong or not work.

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

#110 MAPI Support

by mwkchan

Monday June 4th, 2001 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

I might be asking a stupid well-known question. Yet I spent sometime try to look for the answer but failed. I wanna know whether Mozilla Mail/News support MAPI or not as I uninstalled my NC4.7 and installed mozilla (I'm using the 0.9.1 branch build) and I can't set Mozilla as my default mailer. If MAPI is not supported, is there any plan to have this feature built-in in the future?

#111 OffTopic: Build differences

by turi

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 1:18 AM

Reply to this message

Something I've been wondering for some time: What exactly is the difference between the *sea.tar.gz and the *tar.gz builds for linux. The former is roughly 3MB bigger, that's not only the talkback functionality, is it?

#116 Re: OffTopic: Build differences

by bzbarsky

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 5:36 AM

Reply to this message

That's talkback plus the pretty installer, as far as I know.

#117 Re: Re: OffTopic: Build differences

by turi

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 9:14 AM

Reply to this message

Hm, can I somehow have talkback without the installer? I don't need it as long as I am using different builds simultanously. And it would be fine to save a few MB's as my bandwidth isn't the best. Talkback alone isn't to big as far as I know.

#185 Talkback without installer

by bzbarsky

Friday June 8th, 2001 3:15 PM

Reply to this message

You can't get talkback without installer... :(

#121 Mail/News Empty Trash icon

by zevious

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 2:52 PM

Reply to this message

I have always wondered why there was never an icon for Emptying the Trash? Seems like a function that is used a lot..

#122 bzbarsky PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!

by Nemo_NX

Tuesday June 5th, 2001 7:22 PM

Reply to this message

When the hell did they fix that textbox border color bug? Can you give me the bug ID for that one? :) I test todays build and just noticed that. I was like HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Dreams can come true! Two outstanding bugs that I always wanted to get fixed are now fixed?!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God damn and shit this is so cool! Now if that guy working on that autoscroll bug can get it fixed sometime soon, I'm really gonna have a heart attack. :) Good grief, what a week! :)

#130 Re: bzbarsky PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!

by macpeep

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 3:37 AM

Reply to this message

If only they would fix the vertical alignment of text in textfields. On Win32, the text is aligned top instead of middle and it looks very goofy.

Also, sometimes when you put the cursor in a textfield, the textfield changes its size and the page reflows just enough that you can see it when everything jumps up / down with one pixel.

And then of course it would be nice to have usable bookmarks for a change...

#186 Re: bzbarsky PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!

by bzbarsky

Friday June 8th, 2001 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

#128 Whatever

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

Does the "Flag new posts" option do anything?

#131 Anyone want to comment on this?

by ksheka

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 6:15 AM

Reply to this message

<http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010606/n05260410_2.html>

I think it might be cool to have a Netscape explorer. ;-)

#133 Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by macpeep

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 9:15 AM

Reply to this message

It's bad news for Mozilla for sure.. I really fear that if AOL continues on with Microsoft, that's the end of Netscape employees being paid to work on Mozilla. It's not the end of Mozilla since it's an open source project and can't really be killed just like that, but just think about what would happen if AOL cut off the money! Who pays for the CVS & web servers? Who puts food on the table of 95% of the developers?

#134 Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by schapel

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 9:15 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape is dead. Long live Mozilla!

#135 Re: Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by macpeep

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 9:52 AM

Reply to this message

If Netscape is dead, say goodbye to 95% of the Mozilla coders.

#139 Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by schapel

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

I don't get the impression from the article that Metscape is going to stop developing Mozilla.

"Netscape is by no means a rejection of its software legacy, as components of its browser technology will continue to power new features of Netscape's media services aimed at office workers, small businesses and sophisticated Web users."

It sounds to me like Netscape is simply de-emphasizing Netscape the browser and putting more emphasis on its newer browser components... collectively known as Mozilla.

#144 Re: Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

Kinda like just a switch on marketing plans or something simliar? We all knew that Netscape switched it's focus on its websites to make its money since the browser doesn't make them a dime anymore thanks to M$.

I would like to say this about the lastest builds of Mozilla. They are the best that they have ever released. It's very usable now with the exception of just a few minor things. Hopefully there will still be a Netscape 6.5.

#136 Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

Well this fucking sucks. Just when I wanted to contribute more to the Mozilla project, this shit happens. Oh well, fun while it lasted. :(

#141 It don't mean shit...

by astrosmash

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

...as far as Mozilla is concerned.

If an alternative to MSIE/Windows doesn't exist, AOL doesn't have a leg to stand on WRT the Microsoft negotiations. AOL competes directly with Microsoft, and being completely dependent on your biggest competitor's Internet and operating system software is not the best position to be in.

If, however, AOL decided to go with another cross-platform browser, say Opera, Mozilla would be as good as dead, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Mozilla has much greater potential to rise to glory than Opera, or any other browser on the horizon.

#140 "Good riddance?"

by broken

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 12:23 PM

Reply to this message

I can't believe the amount of "Good riddance, Netscape and Mozilla" messages that are being posted on Slashdot. I thought they supported open source projects instead of just bitching about everything and anything... :(

#143 Re: "Good riddance?"

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 1:29 PM

Reply to this message

Um, this is Slashdot we're talking about here.

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

#147 Re: "Good riddance?"

by archen

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 5:25 PM

Reply to this message

well yeah it's slashdot, I mean if God granted everyone one wish for anything they want, half the people on slashdot would STILL bitch.

I'm not sure this really changes anything for Mozilla, which was supposed to be more than just a browser. It's supposed to be a platform where you can make other things in addtion to a browser, like chat clients and other web gizmos.

I think AOL has bigger things to worry about anyway, since MSN is practically taking over the Internet.

#148 Re: "Good riddance?"

by archen

Wednesday June 6th, 2001 5:53 PM

Reply to this message

well yeah it's slashdot, I mean if God granted everyone one wish for anything they want, half the people on slashdot would STILL bitch.

I'm not sure this really changes anything for Mozilla, which was supposed to be more than just a browser. It's supposed to be a platform where you can make other things in addtion to a browser, like chat clients and other web gizmos.

I think AOL has bigger things to worry about anyway, since MSN is practically taking over the Internet.

#150 Gotta squash them all!

by Nemo_NX

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

In case anyone was wondering, Mozilla has 2782 bugs that need fixed by Mozilla 1.0. Good luck guys. :)

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.1> 0.9.1 Bugs (5)

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.2> 0.9.2 Bugs (847)

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.3> 0.9.3 Bugs (579)

And the magical 1.0 build has 1351 bugs to fix! <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…rget_milestone=mozilla1.0>

If your want to know how many bugs have been *FUTURE'D*, here's the link. :) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…p;target_milestone=future>

#154 Re: Gotta squash them all!

by strauss

Thursday June 7th, 2001 12:44 PM

Reply to this message

And that doesn't count the roughly 9000 unclassified bugs still in the New state. Don't worry, though, Asa tells us they're all junk bugs. Whew.

#161 And most of those bugs will be pushed back

by vondo

Thursday June 7th, 2001 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

At one point I saved the 0.9.1 list just after 0.9.0 was released. Maybe at some point after the 0.9.1 release comes out, I\'ll look at what happened to those bugs.

My gut feeling tells me ~80% of bugs for each milestone are pushed out to the next one.

Which brings up an interesting question. Are the milestones too close together? Are the developers spending too much time stabiizing the branched milestones and not working on making each milestone a significant improvement upon the last?

#155 Re: Gotta squash them all!

by macpeep

Thursday June 7th, 2001 1:05 PM

Reply to this message

4313 futured bugs.. But don't worry, they aren't important ones.. Just stuff like "Crash on start up", "crash navigating back" and "Crash when copying text and pasting into URL bar." and that sort of stuff.. Nothing major.

#156 Re: Re: Gotta squash them all!

by zevious

Thursday June 7th, 2001 1:55 PM

Reply to this message

Why bother coming here to bitch about the bugs? Yes there are a shit load of bugs but many times half or more of the bugs are related to another bug. 4000 bugs sounds like a lot but in the broad scheme of things fixable. The recent nightly builds are REAL stable. Keep up the good work guys!

#157 Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by schapel

Thursday June 7th, 2001 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, there were a couple of days last week when Mozilla was crashing only rarely. However, the latest nightly of Mozilla just crashed when I tried to click on the link to the 0.9.3 bugs. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that REAL stable. Mozilla is still one of the buggier applications on my computer.

#163 Re: Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by eiseli

Thursday June 7th, 2001 5:04 PM

Reply to this message

Errr, it's because you don't have Office XP installed then, I guess. There are _known_ bugs that existed in Word 97, that were not fixed in Word 2000 and that are *still* there in Word XP (2002). Hey, that's five years!!! So don't complain...

#173 Re: Re: Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by macpeep

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:53 PM

Reply to this message

Nice logic.. If one thing sucks, then it's justified that Mozilla sucks too.

#179 Re: Re: Re: Anyone want to comment on this?

by schapel

Friday June 8th, 2001 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

I wasn't complaining. I was just stating the facts.

When someone makes a statement about X that can be viewed in a negative way, that doesn't mean the same as "X is bad"!

#158 Re: Gotta squash them all!

by theuiguy

Thursday June 7th, 2001 2:07 PM

Reply to this message

Of course IE ships with 67831 known bugs.*

The joy of Mozilla (and open source projects in general) is that anyone can look and see what bugs there are and fix them. I find it really nice to be able to add bugs to Bugzilla and see them get fixed. This kind of openness is a good thing, but allows people to make fun of all the bugs that remain.

I wonder how many of those bugs are RFE? Looks like 42 in 0.9.1-0.9.3 plus 75 more for 1.0 for a total of 117. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

Just for fun I checked to see how many bugs were just in the Browser (instead of Browser+Mail and News as in the previous article). Answer: 1203 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

This isn't to downplay the fact that there's still a lot of work to do. Some of those RFE's are things I believe are requirements. Mozilla seems to be making great progress with stability, though. 34 or more topcrash bugs were fixed for 0.9.1!

*Okay, I just made that up. But how do you know how many bugs were there?

#160 Re: Re: Gotta squash them all!

by macpeep

Thursday June 7th, 2001 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

You may think that the joy of Mozilla is that you can look and see what bugs there are and then fix them. Personally, I think the joy of a web browser should be that you can surf the net and it just works. If you would rather look at bugs and fix them, good for you - you've found a piece of software that is perfect for you.

#162 wwwaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

by joschi

Thursday June 7th, 2001 4:13 PM

Reply to this message

"This UNRELEASED piece of software you GIVE to me for FREE still has bugs, before you released it and called it stable... while you are still working on it..." I really really don't see your point.

#174 Re: wwwaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

by macpeep

Thursday June 7th, 2001 11:59 PM

Reply to this message

The fact that it's free is nice (so is IE) but it means nothing regarding how acceptable various levels of quality are. Even if something that is free sucks only slightly more than something that costs money, I'll go with the commercial application instead. Quality is way more important than price.

The fact that is "not released" also means nothing. We're three years down the road in the project and the "release date" is nowhere in sight. It's still at a "when it's done", which is roughly six months away. It was roughly six months away two years ago. When do you suppose it's acceptable to start complaining about the quality of the project? After five years maybe?

#177 Contributions

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Friday June 8th, 2001 2:27 AM

Reply to this message

Besides your complaints, what do you contribute to the development?

#188 Re: Contributions

by macpeep

Saturday June 9th, 2001 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

What does that have to do with anything? Just because someone doesn't contribute doesn't mean their points are valid.

But for the record, I've filed a lot of bugs and I've tested every milestone since the project started, as well as about one nightly build a week on average.

#191 Attitude

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday June 10th, 2001 7:56 AM

Reply to this message

It has to do with your attitude. You may have some valid points, but the way you present them makes you just sound like a total jerk most of the time.

If you were someone who was working hard writing Mozilla code then it would be slightly more acceptable for you to be rude and obnoxious. Even then it would not be appropriate, but it would be more forgivable.

Filing bugs is a good thing, but it has not hardly earned you the right to be disrespectful towards the people who are squashing the bugs.

#180 complain? never, actually.

by joschi

Friday June 8th, 2001 11:06 AM

Reply to this message

Why do you feel the compulsion to give non-constructive criticism (read: bitching) to people who slave to give you something? If someone cooked a 7 course meal for you, would you come into the kitchen and complain that the pasta was not fully cooked while still in the pot?

You often say you are want mozilla to succeed, if so, bitching ain't helping. There are other, constuctive ways to contribute.

#189 Re: complain? never, actually.

by macpeep

Saturday June 9th, 2001 12:26 AM

Reply to this message

Slave? I'm sure the Netscape developers who are working on the project get paid very well. Oh yeah, and then there are one or two outside developers who develop on the project not as "slaves" but because they think it's fun.

The bottom line is still that they are trying to produce a good browser that will be used by the general public, either directly or indirectly. The fact that it's free and "given" to us means nothing. I mean, people "bitch" about IE here all the time and it's free too. I will continue to bitch about the stuff that I think sucks in Mozilla and I will continue to file bugs about the stuff. Until Mozilla because a good quality and stable product, you won't see me posting too much positive stuff about it. I may be negative but I'm fair.

#192 You are Warped

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday June 10th, 2001 8:19 AM

Reply to this message

Fair?

You must have a different definition of the word than I do.

From what I can tell from your posts, you do not have any comprehension for the complexity of the code, but still you think it is fair for you to insult the programmers and trivialize the amount of work that they do? You bitch because you do not think the project is progressing fast enough for you, but you are not contributing any code or cash to the project. What right do you have to be so arrogant? You seem angry because your wishes are not being granted fast enough; feeling disappointed that it has taken longer than originally anticipated might be justified, but being an angry, rude, disrespectful, pain in the ass, insulting, bitching jerk is definitely not reasonable or fair behavior.

#175 Re: Gotta squash them all!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 8th, 2001 2:17 AM

Reply to this message

I havent read all the posts here but let me just say that it's not at all rare to see 1200 bugs fixed in 1 Milestone.

--Asa

#176 Re: Gotta squash them all!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 8th, 2001 2:27 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, my number was conservative. Milestone cycles are about 5 to 6 weeks long. In only the last 30 days Mozilla developers have FIXED over 1600 Browser and Mail bugs. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…wser&product=MailNews>

#178 Re: Re: Gotta squash them all!

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 8th, 2001 7:43 AM

Reply to this message

"This list is too long for bugzilla's little mind; the Next/Prev/First/Last buttons won't appear."

hehe, even bugzilla is impressed ;)

#182 Re: Re: Gotta squash them all!

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday June 8th, 2001 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

Actually those are bugs that have been marked fixed in the last 30 days, but not the bugs that are currently still marked fixed :) The current number is 1597 (this is now 31 days of bugs :) Your number is currently 1679 :)

Other facts and figured bugs that have been closed sence the 7th 1597 Fixed 326 Invalid 106 Wont Fix 3 Later 3 Remind 1655 Duplicate 711 Worksforme

#187 Re: Re: Re: Gotta squash them all!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 8th, 2001 7:31 PM

Reply to this message

I know. It also doesn't even mean they were fixed in that period. Some might have been fixed 2 months ago and just recently resolved. I was jsut trying to keep it simple. There were also probably a handful of Fixed bugs that should have been marked duplicate or worksforme. My point was mostly that lots of bugs are getting fixed. Use M15 from about a year ago and then use today's build. It is getting better.

--Asa

#193 Mozilla Tree Plans - Excellent Idea

by NilsE

Sunday June 10th, 2001 9:19 AM

Reply to this message

Coming kinda late into this dicussion I'm surprised to see that almost no comment above refers to Chris' announcement of the changed tree plan, so here's my 2 euro-cent's worth:

I think that it's a long due and very good idea. Sure, there are lot's of nice enhancements I can think of, some of them really important (bug 22687 comes to mind), but stability should be the highest goal. A few weeks ago I stopped bug triaging because I was put off by too many crashes. No I can resume, and I'm happy to hear that Mozilla staff will try to keep the stability.

In my view, the next goals should be guided by basic browser functionality. Make usability better (e.g. focus issues, image drawing, etc.) and improve speed, if you can. That all won't give you new features, but provide a solid base where you then can plan new enhancements on. If that is the way Chris meant to proceed, the I fully agree. The development of having an increasing number of open bugs must be stopped.

Nils