MozillaZine

Netscape 6.1 Beta 1

Tuesday June 12th, 2001

Netscape today released a beta of their upcoming 6.1 release, based on the mozilla 0.9.1 branch. Check out the release notes, or grab the build.


#1 0.9.1 release or a nightly

by shin

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

Just wondering if they used the stable release or one of the nightlies that followed it... ?

#2 Re: 0.9.1 release or a nightly

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 10:46 AM

Reply to this message

It said it's based the 0.9.1 BRANCH, so it's not from the nightlies.

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

#3 Pity, and a quick question

by VlaadtI

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 11:00 AM

Reply to this message

0.9.2 has been dubbed the "Stability Release".

Since NS has already been on the wrong end of a flogging when it released a rather unstable version6, I'd assume it'd learn it's lesson and hold off (for once) until 0.9.2 comes to fruition... ___________________ On another note, is there any way/plan to implement utilisation of the Moz theme widgets within the browser window (so forms on web pages, and other such controls mirror Moz), while also allowing for reversion to the default widgets should the website have customised them?

#4 Re: Pity, and a quick question

by cyd

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 11:52 AM

Reply to this message

This is a preview release of Netscape 6.1. They will be trying to do the release off 0.9.2. Read Chris Blizzard's article on this, a couple of stories down on the main page.

#24 Main concern

by VlaadtI

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 4:37 PM

Reply to this message

First off, I relise that 6.1 is a beta, however, version 6 was not. It was official. I think it's about time NS got back up to speed with the Moz crew, but I'm just worried that a 6.1 beta, which may have been a lot more stable (though I realise that it is, at the moment, very stable) than previous versions, could have the opportunity to be even better if they held off the week and a bit until the .9.2 release.

I'm in no way slagging off about Moz, but NS is treading a fine line between possible reemergence in the browser field as a serious competitor to MSIE, and being considered not worthwhile based on past indiscressions. Very worrying... (for me at least).

#7 Re: Pity, and a quick question

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

"Since NS has already been on the wrong end of a flogging when it released a rather unstable version6, I'd assume it'd learn it's lesson and hold off (for once) until 0.9.2 comes to fruition..."

But consider how much better 0.9.1 is than Netscape 6.01. It's such a huge improvement. And 0.9.1 has been designated the "recommended beta branch" by the Drivers at The Mozilla Organization. I think it's perfectly stable enough right now.

#8 Remember...

by zevious

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

that is is a Preview Release of 6.1. I suspect they will base the official release of 6.1 on Mozilla 1.0. (At least I think they should...)

0.9.1 is stable enough, feature complete and most of the major bugs are out. They should be ok using that build as a Preview Release.

I am beginning to think people have forgotten what a beta or preview release is and is intended to be. People are all over the 'net, on Slashdot, Betanews and here complaining that Mozilla is not complete, has some bugs, etc. Of course!!

Here is what whatis.com says for 'beta test': <http://whatis.techtarget.…93,sid9_gci211654,00.html>

#82 Re: Pity, and a quick question

by bzbarsky

Thursday June 14th, 2001 9:29 AM

Reply to this message

Search for bugs on "XBL form controls" in bugzilla. There _is_ a plan to move to these, yes.

#66 Re: 0.9.1 release or a nightly

by Roma <sap773@usa.net>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

I agree. It s a really good browser. Netscape 6.1 is called (beta 1) but is absolutely more stable that 6.0 final release. i believe that when the 1.0 version of mozilla engine will be finished they should rename netscape 7.0 browser. Infact this is a major upgrade. One question I download mozilla 0.91 and netscape 6.1 beta (they sholud be the same browser but netscape 6.1 is absolutely mor3e stable and all functions work. Why? there is this difference? )

Thanks to everyone

#79 Re: Re: 0.9.1 release or a nightly

by thelem

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

I guess Netscape 6.1 PR1 has also taken some fixes from the trunk that didn't make it into 0.9.1.

#146 Re: Re: 0.9.1 release or a nightly

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 10:01 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape released 6.1 from the 0.9.1 branch. If you take a look at Bonsai you will see that there were zero checkins to that branch after the release of 0.9.1. Any stability you're seeing in one and not the other probably has to to with how you're using the app and nothing to do with the code in the app. Do you have different profiles? Is one a migrated profile and not the other? If you can find some difference please let me know because there shouldn't be any differences except for the addition of a few proprietary features which simply cannot add to stability.

--Asa

#217 Netscape 6.1 RELEASED

by bandido

Monday August 6th, 2001 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6.1 Final version is on their ftp sites. ftp5.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/english/6.1.

#5 Direct link to FTP

by SomeGuy

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

<ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pu…etscape6/english/6.1_PR1/>

I didn't see a direct link on their download page to the FTP site, and changing to the "netscape6" folder after FTPing to <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> doesn't seem to work.

I needed the Win32 self extracting version <ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pu…ws/win32/sea/N6SetupB.exe> and am downloading behind a messed up proxy.

That reminds me, will Mozilla/Netscape ever support NTLM authentication? Bugzilla bug: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23679> If this were done it would bust the mini-monopolies that MS has in the form of a number of companies that use MS-Proxy with only NTLM.

#57 Problems with self extracting download

by paulGI

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 9:23 PM

Reply to this message

I tried using the Win32 self extracting download, NS6SetupB.exe and things don't look good.

I'm running on NT 4 with SP 6. After running the install, a number of main menu items don't show up (or at least the text doesn't), same with a large number of menu items and some dialogs. The address bar doesn't update with the URL of the page currently displayed, the back button doesn't work and a whole swag of other problems. Which leaves me an unusable install and with two questions:

1) have other people had luck with NS6SetupB.exe? 2) was I even supposed to use it?

#97 Fixed: Problems with self extracting download

by paulGI

Thursday June 14th, 2001 4:30 PM

Reply to this message

On Win NT went to the "WINNT/Profiles/pgittings/Application Data/Mozilla/Users50/paul_gittings/Chrome" directory. Deleted everything there and now everything works!

Isn't it pretty!

Now a happy litte vegamite down in Oz!

#83 Re: Direct link to FTP

by adsmith

Thursday June 14th, 2001 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

I don't understand your comment about NTLM authentication. I'm using 0.9.1 through an MSProxy to post this.

#99 About MS Proxy

by SomeGuy

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:13 PM

Reply to this message

Well then, you have a vary gracious systems administrator.

MS-Proxy can provide access in three different ways:

1: HTTP Web proxy service. Allows proxying of HTTP, browser FTP, and Gopher protocols. This can be enabled with either no authentication, basic authentication, or NTLM authentication. To use basic authentication you have to grant users the right to "log on locally" to the proxy server. In general the user ID and password are your Windows NT domain logon which your administrator probably doesn't want floating around in plain text on the network (although NTLM is not really secure either). Some administrators like to log and monitor internet usage. With no authentication only IP addresses can be logged.

2: SOCKS V4 - When set up, a client program can act almost as if it were directly on the Internet. This can be enabled to allow specific or all ports, but this affects all users as there is no authentication. Mozilla requires SOCKS 5 or higher, although SocksCap can be used.

3: MS-Proxy client - A program that runs on the client computer kind of like SocksCap, but applies itself to the entire OS (available for Windows only) instead of an individual application. Authenticates the user with the MS-Proxy, and permissions to ports and protocols are set on the proxy server on a per-user basis.

A typical configuration which I have witnessed is to have just the web proxy service enabled with only NTLM authentication, and the MS-Proxy client enabled but set to only allow FTP and Telnet (HTTP is forbidden so you can't run a browser though it). The result: you may only use MSIE as your web browser. You may only use FTP and Telnet clients on the Microsoft Windows operating system.

If you administrator was gracious enough, they may have allowed unathenticated HTTP web proxy access, given your user account permissions for basic authentication, enabled the SOCKS V4 proxy (works with Netscape 4.x and earlier) or allowed HTTP through the MS-Proxy client (limiting you to using apps on MS-Windows)

So MS-Proxy can be friendly to other web browsers, but it doesn't have to be. It is wrong to configure a proxy in such a way but there are many people who just don't care.

Implementation wise NTLM is not bound to the Windows OS. As proof I can install and run MSIE 3 for Win3.1 under Linux using Wine without any trace of Windows and it can authenticate using NTLM. MSIE can make use of the Windows networking components (client for Microsoft Networking) by grabbing the security info of the currently logged in user and sending that info to the proxy so the user does not have to re-enter their user id and password.

#154 Re: About MS Proxy

by adsmith

Monday June 18th, 2001 3:51 AM

Reply to this message

Hmmm, interesting. We're definitely using the web proxy service, and I assume it's with basic authentication because I have to enter my NT domain login and password (and get 407's if you do it wrong). Then again, the admins round here are totally clueless anyway.

#6 not too horrible...

by brasten <brasten@creativers.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

I think this will receive a MUCH better reception than N6 did. It feels much more mature and useable. I think my biggest complaint is the 6.1 versioning. This is so much better than a .1 increase. 6.5, definately. (IE added a button and jumps a whole point, we drastically increase stability, speed, and change the appearance and add .1??? common...)

#50 Re: not too horrible...

by cyfaone

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 7:31 PM

Reply to this message

Whats up with the version numbers!!! Netscape skipped a whole version number to 6.0 but a major upgrade to stability and speed, they incriment to 6.1. That means version 6.5 should be released next year and should be perfect. The version numbers make no sense!!

#63 I _like_ 6.1

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

6.1 falls back and says "Okay, 6 had ISSUES", but also admits "Hey, this ain't good enough for a .5"

See, .5 releases need to KICK ASS.

6.1 is actually in line with Navigator 4.08. Netscape honed a version of the browser until they were happy, then moved on to .5.

6.1 will be something like 6, but honed. But it's still not good enough for a .5 release. As a product, 6.1 is just Mozilla getting to its feet and getting its bearings (6 was the dizziness after waking up). 6.5 will be a finely, finely tuned machine and will just kick 4.5 in the ass. That's the problem - Netscape 6 was nowhere near as finely tuned as 4.5 and later releases because those releases were the end result of finely tuned-Windows-native code. Netscape 6 was a very unfinely tuned version of platform-independent code. 6.1 is reaching a level on-par with 4.5, if not with some issues. 6.5 will be the most finely tuned version of Mozilla - probably coinciding with Mozilla 1.0. That is, once Mozilla.org thinks Mozilla 1.0 is done, Netscape will probably release 6.5 based off of that code since, by definition, a .5 release should be the most finely tuned version of that particular code.

Now, some may use Communicator 4.77 as a reason to argue - this won't happen again. That was a fluke. Netscape decided not to release Communicator 5.0 commercially, but as open source instead. If you find a version of it, it had serious improvements over 4.x, including the sidebar and a Windows file manager. But Netscape decided, probably, that to release and work further on 5.0 would detract from the Mozilla effort, since that would take developers from Mozilla to work on 5.x code.

Thus, 4.6 was born, and it was actually a wise decision. Again, 4.5 was finely tuned, thus it was very easy to update the code when it was needed for a point release, bug fix, or security patch. It was already at the end of its cycle, and so was less of a distraction than publicly suppoting 5.0 would have been. If 5.0 had been released, Mozilla would have taken longer, and may not be where it is today.

Anyhow, to cut it short(er), .5 should be the last version in a cycle of releases. This release is not that good. It is much better than 6, but it's still not THAT clean. If it was, it would be versioned 1.0 by Mozilla.org, I think.

Now, 6.1 has a new interface, true, but that's not in itself enough to warrant a .5 release. If this had been .5, Netscape would have been saying that they were happy with 6.01 as the last in the pre-.5 cycle. By making it .1, they admit 6 sucked ass and needed a major update before they moved on to .5.

James

#68 Re: I _like_ 6.1

by macpeep

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:06 AM

Reply to this message

I agree just about 100% with that post, except that I think that a hypothetical (but very likely) Netscape 6.5 will be based on something that comes after 1.0, possibly 1.2 or 1.0.2, whatever it will be called. Why? Because if you think about it, by the time Netscape 6.1 is *released*, the Mozilla 1.0 release will not be too far away. In fact, there's even a slight chance that the two happen simultaneously. If that's the case, a 6.5 release would be based on a later version of Mozilla. In any case, I agree that a 6.5 release should kick major ass and leave no room for whining from assholes like me who are impossible to please.

I'm sure I will still find a lot to complain about in 6.1 tho. ;)

#90 Not even ready yet

by Hard_Code

Thursday June 14th, 2001 1:24 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6 is not even ready yet. They should still be calling it Preview or Beta or something. Mozilla is not even 1.0 yet.

#103 6.0b !

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 9:52 PM

Reply to this message

I would like to see Mozilla 1.0 released as Netscape 6.0b.

I would like a release statement akin to:

"The abortion that was 6.0 was such an embarassment that we would ask you, the users, to please forget it ever happened. This 6.0b is the real 6.0 release, and replaces the old 6.0, being what we should have first released had we not been listening to our PHP's and Marketdroids trying to generate some press, ANY press, so that people would stop thinking we were dead and to stop our market share from thinking the same thing. Thank you."

#9 Anyone notice the lack of NS ad garbage?

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

It might just be me, but after you skip the activation and uncheck the shop and net2phone buttons, there\'s little to no difference btwn netscape 6.1 and moz .9.1 -- very, very nice compared to the ad bloated experience I\'d had before. Maybe they\'re realizing that moz might be their own competition and toning it down?

#12 Re: exactly :)

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 1:03 PM

Reply to this message

"It might just be me, but after you skip the activation and uncheck the shop and net2phone buttons, there's little to no difference btwn netscape 6.1 and moz .9.1 -- very, very nice compared to the ad bloated experience I'd had before."

*very* nice indeed. though i thought i'd never use netscape and only mozilla releases i now prefer Netscape 6.1 P1 over Mozilla 0.9.1

No 'in your face'-advertising, and it's the same as Mozilla 0.9.1 only with more features.

Long live Netscape :)

(for now ;)

--- posted using Netscape 6.1 PR1

#15 It actually rocks

by Netvigator

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

OK maybe not as good as mozilla in some aspects, but HAS SPELLCHECK, and definetely is much nicer than netscape 6 Cool!

#80 Re: Anyone notice the lack of NS ad garbage?

by thelem

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:49 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, thats just because all the ads weren't ready yet.

#10 SpellChecker

by hstark

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:49 PM

Reply to this message

I\'ll bet that N6.1 has a spellchecker. We used to able to download the N6 spellchecker in earlier milestones. Can we do it now?

#11 Re: SpellChecker

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

6.1 does indeed have a spellchecker.

#13 Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 1:04 PM

Reply to this message

They really should have called it 6.5. It's positively bursting with new improvements and features (though many, like LDAP, were in 4.x).

Other than that, CNET seem to like it. Their review <http://www.cnet.com/softw…ubdir.3227883-8-6249661-2> praises the removal of the taskbar amongst other things. They also mention how "Netscape's nonbrowser applications... sport new icons on the left side of the main window toolbar... [that] help you tell which application you're in... a nice touch that we appreciate." And we thought they were just eye candy. :-) They round off their review by saying "And this may be Netscape's last opportunity to get it right... But based on the beta, we think Netscape may just pull it off."

Alex

#17 Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by fgxh298

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 2:00 PM

Reply to this message

CNET didn't praise it as much as I thought they would. They said that IE was still faster (do they mean start time or page loading?). Not a thing about LDAP was mentioned, GUI improvements not mentioned, Mail re-write not mentioned (they did put it in the news.com article). I can't wait to see how Netscape stacks up to IE when the formal page rendering tests are done. Until then let's try and get the system requirements lower.

#19 Re: Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

They probably meant start time and overall speed on a low end machine.

#29 Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by arielb

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

Not that Windows XP will even run on them

#65 Did they try -turbo mode?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 1:15 AM

Reply to this message

You can drop a shortcut with -turbo appended to the target in your Start/Programs/Startup dir to preload Netscape, making it just as fast to load as IE. Hopefully this feature will be the default behavior for 6.1 final.

James

#85 Re: Did they try -turbo mode?

by WillyWonka

Thursday June 14th, 2001 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

Hopefully you won't have to do this. Having one browser perma-loaded in windows is bad enough. I don't want a 2nd. But I still want it to load just as fast.

Startup times really need to get below 10 seconds. (Look at the graphs on mozilla.org)

#106 Re: Re: Did they try -turbo mode?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday June 15th, 2001 12:02 AM

Reply to this message

Thing is, it doesn\'t seem to extend my Windows loading much at all. Just take out the stupid \"find fast\" from the startup folder and you\'ve more than made up for the difference.

#125 Re: Re: Did they try -turbo mode?

by thelem

Friday June 15th, 2001 4:04 PM

Reply to this message

Um, excuse me, but you want to make Mozilla load as fast as IE does, but not use the main trick that IE uses to load quickly? It's impossible - sorry.

Granted it could be _much_ faster to load, but it will never be as fast as IE if it doesn't utilize a preloader.

#147 Re: Re: Did they try -turbo mode?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

startup time for me on a machine that's more than a year old is about 8 seconds on first start (IE6 is about 4 seconds on first start) and less than 2 seconds on all subsequent starts (IE6 is less than 1 second on all later starts). I restart about 4 or 5 times a day (mostly to switch profiles) and I don't think that the 8 or 9 seconds I lose every day using Mozilla instead of IE is affecting my productivity or my quality of browsing experience in the least little bit.

--Asa

#205 Re: Did they try -turbo mode?

by archen

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 10:11 AM

Reply to this message

Not to meantion that those of us who are paranoid about Active X and have it disabled probably save time using Mozilla since you constantly have to click the stupid error message that says "this page won't render correctly". Um, like I care? I disabled Active X for a reason, I don't need to be reminded every 30 seconds.

#22 Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by strauss

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 3:56 PM

Reply to this message

When you say they liked it, I think that's a bit misleading.

"Version 6.1 still doesn't match IE, but its performance is now tolerable, rather than terrible....

"We expect beta software to have a few bugs, and Netscape 6.1 suffers its fair share. Still, a couple of the bugs surprised us because the infected features work just fine in Netscape 6....

"a few features from Netscape 4.x we missed in 6 are still absent....

"Still, we're cautiously optimistic about Netscape 6.1. Although our original positive review of Netscape 6 turned out to be dead wrong, we're eager to give IE's only major competitor a second chance. And this may be Netscape's last opportunity to get it right. If its share of the browser market gets much lower, we doubt even cash-rich AOL will want to keep funding new versions of the software. But based on the beta, we think Netscape may just pull it off."

Note that last paragraph says something which people have been flamed to hell and back for saying here. The rest of the review could be seen as "daming with faint praise" -- words like "tolerable" are not the words you want to see in a review.

So it would be more accurate to describe the review as one of guarded optimism with significant reservations, than to say as you do, "CNET seem to like it."

#32 Re: Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

"When you say they liked it, I think that's a bit misleading."

I think what you said about my posting is misleading. I didn't say thay liked it; I said they seemed to like it, i.e. in my opinion the review appears to be generally positive.

You quoted extensive chunks of the article, but I feel you concentrated mainly on the review's negative comments about Netscape 6.01 PR1. You did not for example mention that the CNET reviewer (Rex Baldazo) said that "Netscape 6.1 may actually give Internet Explorer some earnest competition." You think that my digest of the piece was too positive, I think that yours is too negative.

You said that the review could be seen as "daming with faint praise". I don't see it like that - I find the review is encouraging. Equally, your comment that the review shows "guarded optimism with significant reservations" is as fair as my summary that "CNET seem to like it". Both are individual opinions. And both are equally valid.

The only way to capture the exact spirit of the review would be to quote the entire text and not pass any comment on it, as it is impossible to make any subjective comment about a piece of writing without expressing an opinion in the process. My aim was to provide a personal view of the article and highlight the positive aspects of NS6.01PR1 that it mentioned. I did not realise that my posting was going to be the subject of a damning critique. I deliberately put in a link so that people could read the full review and form their own opinions, as you evidently did.

I would like to assure you and the other readers of MozillaZine that I did not intend to mislead anybody nor manipulate CNET's article. I apologise if you feel I did.

Alex

#33 Re: Re: Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:04 PM

Reply to this message

Several times in the response I mentioned Netscape 6.01. I actually meant Netscape 6.1.

Alex

#37 Re: Re: Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by strauss

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:17 PM

Reply to this message

>>You think that my digest of the piece was too positive, I think that yours is too negative.<<

That was meant to be my point. Your quotes did not include anything that did not reflect well on the software. I was attempting to restore balance and show that it was a mixed review.

My summary stated that it was mixed, not that it was negative, while yours stated that it was positive and did not mention that it was mixed.

If my attempt to provide a more balanced view of the piece (in combination with yours) created an impression that it was an overall negative review, then I did not achieve my goals.

The reason I feel the need to do this is that this site has a tendency to propagandize for Mozilla rather than to present the more mixed reality. I was reminded at once of the treatment of the XUL submission to W3C. It was stated here that it was a great day for Mozilla, and a partial quote was given to make the reception look entirely positive. In fact, the reception by W3C was cordial but mostly negative.

I know you were not responsible for that -- I'm just giving another example to show why some of us seem negative, when in fact we're just trying to provide balance for coverage that often seems overly skewed in the other direction.

#41 Re: Re: Re: Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:33 PM

Reply to this message

"My summary stated that it was mixed, not that it was negative, while yours stated that it was positive and did not mention that it was mixed."

I quoted the positive aspects of the review to illustrate my opinion that "CNET seem to like it" (which in my view reflected the general tone of the piece). The link was provided for people to read the rest of the review. It was never my intention to provide a completely comprehensive summary as I presumed that most people would read the review.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to consider my response and thinking before answering rather than just flaming me.

Alex

#54 quick! look at the title of the front page!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 9:04 PM

Reply to this message

"this site has a tendency to propagandize for Mozilla"

WTF do you think this site was created for? This is an advocacy site. "Your Source for Mozilla News and Adovcacy"! If you want to bust our chops for being advocates then screw you. You're not helping Mozilla in the least by killing someone's buzz about Mozilla, even if that positive feeling isn't always rational. There is absolutely nothing gained by bringing people down. Folks didn't say "wow! it's great! we're done. let's all go home". We're all still working very hard to make it better. Telling us to not get excited about making progress is rude and insulting. We don't need you to tell us how good it is or isn't. We don't (or shouldn't) give a damn what you think because you're "mixed reality" doesn't motivate us to work to make it better. Keep on telling people to stop being excited about progress and they will soon stop working to make progress. Many of the people working on this are paid in the simple currency of joy. You and macpeep and others are ripping that currency away from a lot of people who are happy spending their time to make Mozilla better. Like I said above, this is rude and it is not welcome in a Mozilla Advocacy discussion forum.

--Asa

#58 Re: quick! look at the title of the front page!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 9:38 PM

Reply to this message

Cutting...

I thought answering strauss's (reasonably valid) points calmly and objectively was the way to go.

Alex

P.S. Is "propagandize" a real word?

#59 Re: Re: quick! look at the title of the front page!

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 10:20 PM

Reply to this message

I think Asa is really replying less to that specific message than to the overall thrust of his many posts.

Personally, I don't mind macpeep and strauss that much. At least on MozillaZine we don't have anybody as irritating as JTK...

#60 Re: Re: Re: quick! look at the title of the front

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 10:52 PM

Reply to this message

ROFL, so true.

I mean JTK does have reasons and points for saying the things he says on the newsgroups, but he stretchings and exaggerates everything to the soul point of irritation and I stopped reading the stuff he says weeks ago.

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

#96 Re: Re: Re: Re: quick! look at the title of the fr

by jesusX <jesus_x@mozillanews.org>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 4:09 PM

Reply to this message

Well, at least read mine. Hixie said he loves my replies to JTK. :)

#100 Re: Re: quick! look at the title of the front page

by strauss

Thursday June 14th, 2001 6:14 PM

Reply to this message

>>Is "propagandize" a real word?<<

<http://www.dictionary.com…dict.pl?term=propagandize>

#62 Re: quick! look at the title of the front page!

by macpeep

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:08 AM

Reply to this message

Wow, at first, I thought he was replying to me.. judging from the tone and all. Then I remembered I hadn't posted. When I still saw my name mentioned at the bottom of the post, I felt a warm feeling that made my morning. Thanks Asa!

#88 Re: quick! look at the title of the front page!

by strauss

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you for your helpful response.

You might consider making your intent for the site even clearer by adding a banner that says "cheerleading only, please -- honesty, accuracy and fairness are not welcome here."

#137 Warning.

by ess

Saturday June 16th, 2001 3:58 PM

Reply to this message

"We don't need you to tell us how good it is or isn't. We don't (or shouldn't) give a damn what you think because you're "mixed reality" doesn't motivate us to work to make it better."

Stay away from that Bugzilla guy's site, then. So negative. Man, he really kills my buzz.

#196 So basically you want lemmings?

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Thursday June 21st, 2001 1:50 PM

Reply to this message

And here I was promoting mozilla as a good example of how an open source group fights through rough times and owns up to their problems, and mozillazine.org was the best place to check it all out.

Instead, I was wrong, and Asa wants phpnuke.org style lemmings. It may feel good but it gets nothing done. At least I can be thankful macpeep will not shut up. ;) (as much as I may disagree with him on certain points)

#198 Re: So basically you want lemmings?

by strauss

Thursday June 21st, 2001 2:39 PM

Reply to this message

Those of us who have been in the industry for a while are all too aware that a culture of denial is just about the worst problem a technical project can have.

#136 It was XBL...

by pirat

Saturday June 16th, 2001 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

...and what is the most interesting on it - Spice was better solution for W3C stuff. And what is Spice? Three years old W3C note. If you can find any link to this note other than the one from "W3C comment on XBL", give me that link. It is not even on Technical Reports page...

#56 Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by arielb

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 9:17 PM

Reply to this message

oh who cares what it's called? Just give me a good browser :)

#14 Bug voting! Relax... :)

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

#18 :-)))) n/t

by Netvigator

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 2:01 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#16 Are there any changes to sun's java

by Netvigator

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 1:58 PM

Reply to this message

Does anyone know if there are any changes to the java program (or machine or whatever)? I used to have many problems using netscape6 and this implementation seems better to me

#21 Yes there are

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 3:24 PM

Reply to this message

This release also include many mozilla-java/oji fixes that was not in the last release. Now java applet developers are just waiting for full liveconnect support and blackwood.

#20 http://developer.netscape.com/docs/technote/gecko

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 3:21 PM

Reply to this message

Someone need to look through the issues in <http://developer.netscape…note/gecko/n6release.html>

Some of them are resolved and some of them are still sitting in bugzilla with no resolution.

#23 really really good

by arielb

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 4:16 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6.1 PR 1 is the best browser I have ever used. Better than IE 5.5, better than IE 6 beta, NS 4.7, mozilla, k-meleon, opera 5...oh and it's also better than NS 6 :) Can't wait for the official release

#86 Re: really really good

by wtmcgee

Thursday June 14th, 2001 11:49 AM

Reply to this message

i still like IE5.5 better right now just because its feature complete and doenst seem like \\\\\\\"beta\\\\\\\" software.

BUT when moz 1.0 or NS 6.5 rolls out the door, im most likely going to be a total mozilla convert.

#127 hmmm...

by FMXii <fattymanxii@netscape.net>

Friday June 15th, 2001 11:47 PM

Reply to this message

we can only hope.

#25 Cache worries

by VlaadtI

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 4:43 PM

Reply to this message

OK, I just noticed something that worries me no end... I cannot access the files in my NS 6.1Beta/Moz 0.9.1 cache.

I just ran a 10MB quicktime trailer (quite hefty @56K, factoring in my impatience), and expected it to be sitting there as a nice little .mov file in the cache directory. What I found, in it's stead, is a lot of binary files without extensions.

Can someone unravell this mystery for me? I NEED THAT MOVIE!!!

#28 Re: Cache worries

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 5:00 PM

Reply to this message

The cache sorts the files in its own naming system. Unless you downloaded a bunch of other 10 MB files, look for the cache file that's 10MB and rename it to "somethingsomething.mov".

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

#108 type about:cache (or about:diskcache) in URL editb

by thealx

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:21 AM

Reply to this message

Type it in url editbox - you will recieve nice formatted list of all files in cache - press ctrl-F, type part of searched file name, and save it (with right-click) wherever you want.

#143 EXACTLY!

by VlaadtI

Sunday June 17th, 2001 12:03 AM

Reply to this message

thealx,

This is exactly what I wanted to see!

Thanks!

#81 Re: Cache worries

by thelem

Thursday June 14th, 2001 8:33 AM

Reply to this message

You dirty, dirty man. j/k (I hope).

#144 No...

by VlaadtI

Sunday June 17th, 2001 12:09 AM

Reply to this message

Ain't that type of movie ;)

And it turned out it was actually 15MB (the Shrek trailer).

#26 App icons

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 4:52 PM

Reply to this message

Downloading now. I hope that the really biggest annoyance of Mozilla is fixed in this release. We need separate taskbar icons for Navigator, Mail and Composer. The capability has been added to mozilla but we still only have one icon. Hopefully Netscape have created separate icons for each application. If not then we all need to send Netscape our feedback.

#27 Re: App icons

by jhewitt <joe@joehewitt.com>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 4:59 PM

Reply to this message

This isn't in PR1 but it will be in the final release.

#30 Re: Re: App icons

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 5:46 PM

Reply to this message

That's great :)

Another thing I noticed now I've got the download is that the keywords drop down in the classic theme is in a big box, also the classic theme doesn't have any special icons for the My Netscape, Search and Shop buttons.

Anyway, I'll go back to Modern now anyway as I prefer it, but I thought I'd take a look at Classic.

#31 Will 6.1 final come with the preloader?

by avisdurgan

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 5:47 PM

Reply to this message

I haven't DL-ed 6.1PR1 myself because I only have a 48kps connection available these days, so I don't know the status of the preloader in this release. But I hope that at least the final 6.1 version (Win32) will have the preloader functionality included (with an UI to turn it on and off).

I currently use Mozilla 0.9.1 with the -turbo switch, and it works great! That is, it works great when it works... I have noticed that if I use Mozilla for a long period of time and then close all the windows manually, I get a non-resizeable empty white window when I try to open the browser again. (I have found a workaround for this - just press CTRL-N and then close the white window). Besides, if you use Mozilla with a lot of windows open and you use CTRL-Q (or File > Exit) then not only are all the windows closed, but Mozilla itself is in its entirity unloaded from memory. Which means that next time I try to open a browser window, Mozilla has to be started from scratch like usual. And at last, when Mozilla crashes it doesn't reload itself (don't know if it should, but the preloader functionality does disappear when Mozilla crashes...).

Anyway, I guess bugs are filed on these issues (I haven't checked Bugzilla myself - don't really know what words to search for), but I just hope that Netscape will fix these bugs and then release NS6.1 instead of releasing NS6.1 without the preloader. I know that I at least won't be downloading NS6.1 if it doesn't have the preloader.

On an off-topic note, has anyone tried to change the text size in Mozilla while reading this page (table borders will be messed up)? Is there a bug filed for this?

#34 Re: Will 6.1 final come with the preloader?

by Salsaman

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:05 PM

Reply to this message

#35 Re: Will 6.1 final come with the preloader?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:12 PM

Reply to this message

The preloader, via the -turbo command-line option, is not ready for primetime yet, and a slew of fixes were checked-in only yesterday, so we're getting closer :)

Since Netscape 6.1 PR1 is based on Mozilla 0.9.1, it has the -turbo command-line option, but it's also buggy 8P

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

#36 Re: Will 6.1 final come with the preloader?

by stfh

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:13 PM

Reply to this message

6.1PR1 has the -turbo switch functionality, but no UI for controlling it yet, as there is none in Mozilla yet and many issues with -turbo are still being ironed out.

#71 turbo mode issues

by dipa

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

Many bugs related to -turbo mode have been fixed in the trunk, in the last 3 days. For a list of related open bugs, search in bugzilla for the keyword "-turbo" in summary. File->Exit is by design a method to kill resident Mozilla. It's not a bug, afaik.

#145 I guess we need a file->"close all windows" N/T

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

N/T

#38 Can we have at least another beta

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:17 PM

Reply to this message

I think we need a beta 2 before Netscape 6.1 is released. I know Netscape probably want this browser out before IE 6 is launched but there's still a large number of open nsbeta1+ bugs which are bugs which were planned to be fixed before beta 1. Therefore I think we need at least a beta 2 where all these bugs are fixed even if the release version comes out only 2 weeks after beta 2 it'll give us a chance to look over it before the general public get their hands on 6.1

#39 Re: Can we have at least another beta

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

Well we don't know how many Preview Releases (betas) there will be before the final version is released, although historically Netscape has always released at least three of them before the final version. So expect at least two more, unless they decide to deviate from their usual plans.

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

#42 Re: Re: Can we have at least another beta

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:47 PM

Reply to this message

There was only ever one 4.5 beta. I think their 3 beta trend seems to be for major point releases 3.0, 4.0, 6.0

#45 Re: Re: Re: Can we have at least another beta

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:52 PM

Reply to this message

Are you sure? Somehow I remember more preview releases for Communicator 4.5. I could be wrong, but we need to verify this (or at least I need it!).

Netscape 6.1 is a really significant update to Netscape 6.0/6.01, so this could be a little more than just a pointn release. But if Netscape decides on only one preview release and releases the final version of 6.1 relatively soon, then I hope that they will release Netscape 6.5 when Mozilla 1.0 is done.

Of course, that's just my hope and speculation.

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

#46 Re: Re: Making money of this?

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:59 PM

Reply to this message

That might be why they used 6.1 rather than 6.5 so they could make the browser based on 1.0

Definitely only one beta of 4.5 on Linux, can't talk about other platforms but I can't imiagine them being any different (in fact 4.0 for Linux had more than 3 betas but back in the 4.0 days Linux wasn't a priority of any sort and 4.0 was in beta for a while after it was released on Windows/Mac)

#48 Wrong title (autocomplete filled it in) N/T

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 7:05 PM

Reply to this message

N/T = no text :)

#47 Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we have at least another beta

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 7:03 PM

Reply to this message

"I hope that they will release Netscape 6.5 when Mozilla 1.0 is done."

So do I, but I doubt they would call it 6.5. To have a jump of 0.1 for such massive enhancements and then a jump of 0.4 for relatively minor improvements would be just plain silly. They'd probably call it 6.11 or 6.2.

The Other Alex

#61 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we have at least another b

by ataferner

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:04 AM

Reply to this message

what makes you think a Netscape release based on Moz 1.0 will only be "relatively minor improvements"?

#64 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we have at least anoth

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 1:00 AM

Reply to this message

I meant relative to the leaps and bounds made between 0.6 (Netscape 6) and 0.9.1 (Netscape 6.1). Though, I keep on forgetting how long it is until 1.0 comes out, so I guess there's still time for something really special. :-)

Alex

#74 0.9.2 is supposed to be the STABLE release

by illsleydc <illsleydc@bigfoot.com>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

It looks like Netscape will release 6.1 FINAL off the 0.92 branch or we wouldn't be having this period of "stability" enforced. Then I would imagine 6.5 when Moz reaches 1.0 which is when the 6.x line gets respectable (like the 4.x line)

David

#78 Re: 0.9.2 is supposed to be the STABLE release

by saberunit02

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

IMO, It doesn\\\'t make sense to release 6.1 off of 0.9.2 since the final modifications for the modern theme are not slated to be finished till 0.9.3 Check out bugs : 84048 84050 84051

#40 Interesting...

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:28 PM

Reply to this message

How do I connect to Netscape webmail? I only got the free account so does that mean I can d/l my messages to the Mail program?

On another note it's nice to see the Credits link at the top of the About Netscape page. :) And nobody say the word "milesotne" anymore. It's a "revision" according to the About Netscape page. :)

Now let me take a guess on how Netscape will release it's beta and non beta versions of Netscape.

Netscape PR1 = 0.9.1 Done Netscape PR2 = 0.9.2 Sometime after June 26th? Netscape PR3 = 0.9.3 ?????? Netscape 6.1 = 1.0/0.9.4/modified 0.9.3? October? or will that just be Mozilla?

#43 Re: Interesting...

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

I think your scheduling is too close. I mean just two weeks and we're seeing a PR2? Wait a least a month, or two I think is more consistent with their scheduling in the past.

You're forgetting that 0.9.2 is running on a special schedule, so it may be released in as little as a week. It's a short development cycle to experiment with the changes to how check-ins are approved and handled, and has yielded some of the most consistenly stable nightly builds yet.

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

#44 Re: Interesting...

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 6:50 PM

Reply to this message

You can use Netscape webmail. If you've filled in the activation at the beginning there should be a Netscape webmail account created when you open mail. Otherwise just add your Netscape account like you would any other mail account but selecting "Netscape Webmail" rather than "ISP or Email provider"

#67 Re: Interesting...

by utopistics

Thursday June 14th, 2001 2:32 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, 0.9.2 is focusing stability and performance.

I think the biggest landing before 1.0 is XBL. NS6.1PR2 should have *stabilized* XBL form control. Wish we can use it in 0.9.3.

plus, i'm curious how netscape handle -turbo option.

at least PR2 shouldn't have "Under Construction" or "Buggy" phrase in [Edit]>[Preferences]>[Debug].

#84 Re: Re: Interesting...

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 10:45 AM

Reply to this message

Actually one of the biggest landings before 1.0 is staticly linked builds, which requires a large reorganization of the way files are organized within Mozilla. More info at <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46775>

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

#95 Re: Re: Interesting...

by gregk

Thursday June 14th, 2001 4:06 PM

Reply to this message

Unfortunately, it doesn't work for everyone. For example, my username and password are refused by the mail client, but the browser mail interface is perfectly happy with me.

SDagley (I think) spoke once on moz.mac about some kind of AOL-Netscape account synchronization that took place about a year ago, and that process may have gone a bit wonky.

#49 Personal toolbar context menus

by dave532

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 7:19 PM

Reply to this message

The proper bookmarks on the personal toolbar have context menus so you can delete them, the Netscape buttons (My Netscape, Net2Phone, etc) should have something similar on the context menu to remove these buttons when clicked on them (and probably an option to bring up the prefs box to add them again)

FYI the bug for CNETs favourite feature (save as wallpaper) is: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41526> The only reason I like to see it fixed is to increase the possibility of positive reviews :) Personally I didn't think that CNET review delved into any serious areas and offered much constructive criticism (bundling winamp was listed as an important improvement over 6.0!)

#53 Re: Personal toolbar context menus

by arielb

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 8:58 PM

Reply to this message

You can remove them! go to Navigator preferences and click on the items you want or don't want on your toolbars

#73 Re: Re: Personal toolbar context menus

by dave532

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:36 AM

Reply to this message

I know that :) Just some users will wanna know why some items on the toolbar have context menus (the users bookmarks) while the other stuff doesn't

#51 Very good

by tono

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 8:09 PM

Reply to this message

This is probably the most polished netscape release since 4.08, except for one bug #82534 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showbug.cgi?bug=82534> It really destroys the browsing experience, other then that, it's fantastic.

#52 Re: Very good

by tono

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 8:11 PM

Reply to this message

That's actually <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82534> nevermind me, I'm just an idiot.

#55 Netscape Theme Park

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 13th, 2001 9:04 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape promise that they're going to update the Theme Park for Netscape 6.1. Hopefully they'll keep this promise, unlike the one to put up all the entries for the Themes Contest.

Currently, there's nothing there except a rather intriguing preview of a 'Toy Factory' theme.

If you're not using Netscape 6.1 PR1 you can still have a look: <http://home.netscape.com/themes/6_1/index.html>

Alex

#69 Installer

by SmileyBen

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:17 AM

Reply to this message

Am I the only one who finds that the netscape installer seems to be relatively happy, but gets bored right near the end and just never finishes the download? It's getting really annoying, I've tried a number of times, and it still won't work. (Interestingly, I've never had this problem with the mozilla installer). Ideas, anyone?

#70 Re: Installer

by SmileyBen

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:20 AM

Reply to this message

d'oh. It would probably be somewhat more helpful to mention that I'm using Linux (RH7)... I've tried using custom and deselecting everything unnecessary, but still doesn't work...

#72 Re: Installer

by dave532

Thursday June 14th, 2001 5:32 AM

Reply to this message

Well I've noticed this on the Linux installer but it still installs fine.

If you look at the mozilla net installer you'll notice that does the opposite, it actually downloads more bytes than it is supposed to.

So what's wrong is the total size of all the files

#76 Re: Re: Installer

by SmileyBen

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:13 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I don't think this is the case for me. I think it doesn't want to install until it's finished d/ling, and so it never gets there... Myabe I'm just being impatient...

#75 ICQ Support

by dave532

Thursday June 14th, 2001 6:17 AM

Reply to this message

Well what I'd really like is that Netscape bundled Jabber support but that's never going to happen (but when JabberZilla is ready we can add that). Anyway, what would be good is if Netscape at least supported both of AOL's messaging protocols so that we could use ICQ through the IM client, even Opera has an ICQ client and they have no connection to AOL.

#105 Re: ICQ Support

by aegis <aegisk@iastate.edu>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 11:48 PM

Reply to this message

AOL won't do that, as they're pushing for AIM...

However, a good Jabber component released for Mozilla would really be cool. ^_^

#126 Re: ICQ Support

by thelem

Friday June 15th, 2001 4:46 PM

Reply to this message

I really don't understand AOL's love of AIM. The ICQ has many more features and while it is not so good looking I think it still has more users (but I may be wrong).

#153 Re: Why, oh why, didn't they call it 6.5?

by arielb

Sunday June 17th, 2001 8:30 PM

Reply to this message

I have many people in my buddy list and many people on my ICQ contact list. I want to combine the 2 lists and have them in my sidebar.

#156 Jabber for Mozilla

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Monday June 18th, 2001 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

#206 Re: ICQ Support

by archen

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know why AOL would care since they own ICQ too. I imagine they would like people using anything that isn't MSN Messenger...

#142 Re: ICQ Support

by sremick

Saturday June 16th, 2001 9:34 PM

Reply to this message

I agree: ICQ support would be awesome. Also support of passing the current URL to ICQ for sending to another person, like Netscape 4.x does.

I hate AIM. It doesn't even allow you to send messages to users who are offline, like ICQ does. And the whole concept of finding a screenname not in use by one of the existing 40M or so current AOL users is just stupid. Stick with numbers like ICQ, and then use whatever name you like associated with it.

#77 Best theme ever is still not Modern3

by fat_cow

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is so gorgeous...

Alfred Kayser (the IBM employee and littlemozilla architect) has released the "Wood" variation on his website at <http://members.tripod.lyc…/AKayser/skins/themes.htm>

Screenshot at <http://members.tripod.lyc…nl/AKayser/skins/wood.gif>

Download for a high-quality dead-trees mozilla! The web looks so... dated... within the boxes.

Strangely enough, but wonderfully, this theme seems to work very well with the N6.1-PR1

#91 Re: Best theme ever is still not Modern3

by akayser

Thursday June 14th, 2001 1:57 PM

Reply to this message

Not so strange though, because wood is derived from LittleMozilla and Alfred (both earlier work which was compatible with 6.01). By keeping track of all the changes up to Mozilla 0.9.1 and keeping all extra Netscape stuff (AIM and Help), my themes are compatible with N6.1PR1 and M0.6.1.... (And after some initial tests with N6.1PR1 wood only required a few little changes in the AIM area to get even better.

Summary: good news for Theme developers: it is possible to do, and M and N are getting better in theming...

#87 How I hate talk about NETSCAPE

by jedbro

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:03 PM

Reply to this message

Although I hate taking about Netscape on Mozilla (I'm a netscape freak, but mozilla is on it's own for me)...

I find it rather irritating that mozilla depends on Netscape's Browser acceptance. What I mean is that if the next few versions of Netscape Browser are good, mozilla will be looked at (through the eyes of the media) as a Success, or on the other hand, if bad, as a failure..... Let's just hope NETSCAPE get's it right this time so we can have some more PRO-Mozilla support.

Cheers

#92 Re: How I hate talk about NETSCAPE

by macpeep

Thursday June 14th, 2001 1:58 PM

Reply to this message

In theory, you're right.. But then again, when you say "let's just hope Netscape get's it right", what does that mean? Who is coding the Netscape browser? That's right, it's Mozilla.org plus a different throbber here, a couple of default bookmarks there and a slightly different packaging. That's not what it stands and falls on. What it DOES stand and fall on is the stuff that Mozilla.org is working on, and thus it's actually quite right that the feedback Netscape's browser gets reflects on Mozilla...

#102 How I hate talk about NETSCAPE

by jedbro

Thursday June 14th, 2001 7:56 PM

Reply to this message

I totally agree... and when I say "let's just hope Netscape get's it right".. I'm stating that I hope NETSCAPE's desicions are the right ones being taken place here... as an example.. taking 0.9.1 to PR 6.1 when 0.9.2 is just around the corner, seems it would save allot of Netscape bug reports and complaing... Again, I don't know there plans nor much about the core of 0.9.1 but sure hope they know what they are doing.

As you say, What NETSCAPE does reflects on Mozilla!!!

cheers

#89 off topic

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Thursday June 14th, 2001 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

Say, does anyone else have trouble with getting Yahoo Mail to remember your password (in either Mozilla or Netscape 6.1)? There's no yahoo mail setting in the Password Manager for Passwords Never Saved, so I didn't accidentally do that. What gives? Any ideas?

#94 Re: Password Manager

by schapel

Thursday June 14th, 2001 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

I've also had lots of problems with the Password Manager.

On some sites such as DevTrack Web, it doesn't ask to save my Username and Password. I'm waiting for the techexcel website to become available again before I enter this bug.

On other sites such as MozillaZine, the first field in the form is saved as the Username. I've already entered this bug: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85777>

When I try to use the Form Manager instead, it saves the Username as my actual name: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79527>

#98 Re: Re: Password Manager

by schapel

Thursday June 14th, 2001 4:51 PM

Reply to this message

I've entered the bug about the Password Manager not asking to save the Username and Password for some sites: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85992>

#111 Re: Re: Password Manager

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:37 AM

Reply to this message

"On other sites such as MozillaZine, the first field in the form is saved as the Username."

Happens to me too. The trick is to save the password the first time and then choose 'Never for this site' the next time. It'll stop bugging you then, but any blank subject fileds will be filled in with whatever you entered the first time.

I read the bug and I really think that Password Manager's at fault here. It just grabs the first text field. On MozillaZine that's called "title". The username field, however, is called "login". Surely it would make more sense to look for fields named "login", "username", "user", "userid", "loginname" etc. before just grabbing the first field?

Currently, I think the Password Manager identifies a password by the presence of a text field and a password field (that displays **** instead of what you enter). However, it remembers everything in all text fields (but not textareas). I think that the Password Manager prompt would still pop up if you change the title field for a MozillaZine post. On MozillaZine remembering every field is a bad thing, on other sites though it's a good thing. It's quite complicated really.

Alex

#180 Yahoo works in M0.9.1

by skeeter

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 1:47 PM

Reply to this message

Haven't installed NS 6.1 pr1 but in M 0.9.1 Yahoo works fine but half the time Netscape Mail doesn't work when I visit 'My Netscape' plug the coloms don't work either. So If Yahoo doesn't work in NS 6.1 as a pop3 agent then this is with intent and not a bug.

#109 Re: off topic

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

I believe it's possible for sites to disable the Password Manager with autocomplete="off" as an attribute in the <form> tag. This is because some online banks think that saving passwords is a security risk, so won't allow Mozilla users in unless it can be disabled. This is stupid because if people can't use the Password Manager they tend to go for the less secure Post-It-note-stuck-to-the-side-of-the-monitor approach. How are the banks going to stop that?

I don't think Yahoo! Mail uses autocomplete="off" (I've looked at the source), so I'm not sure what the problem is. It works in Netscape 6.0 & 6.01 (not 6.1PR1) though.

Alex

#93 Wonderful!

by tl47

Thursday June 14th, 2001 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

Been using 6.01. This is much improved! Congrats first to the mozilla team, and then to NS for adapting it and helping to popularize this IE alternative. Works great on Linux.

#107 Re: Wonderful!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:18 AM

Reply to this message

"Been using 6.01."

Nooooooo! You've been using 6.1, not 6.01! 6.01 was the February update that improved the installer and performance on slower systems (but not much else). 6.1 (still in the Preview Release - beta - stage) is the vastly improved version based on Mozilla 0.9.1.

I was worried people would make this mistake. This is why they should have called it Netscape 6.5.

Alex

#124 Re: Re: Wonderful!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday June 15th, 2001 3:46 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I'm afraid that people are making this mistake. When 6.01 first came out in February I saw people who called it 6.1.

::sigh::

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

#155 are you sure...

by FMXii <fattymanxii@netscape.net>

Monday June 18th, 2001 8:32 AM

Reply to this message

that he didn't mean that he has been using 6.01 and that he just installed 6.1?

#158 Re: are you sure...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 18th, 2001 12:29 PM

Reply to this message

I suppose he (or she) could be, but I think it's more likely to be a confusion between 6.01 and 6.1 (or an ingrained mistyping - I sometimes type 6.01 when I mean 6.1).

Alex

#161 No mistake, 6.01 not 6.1

by tl47

Monday June 18th, 2001 3:05 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I meant 6.01 and I just installed 6.1... that's why I said it was much better. I'm impressed at the improvement, and I'm using NS6.1PR1 at the moment as my primary browser!

#162 Thanks for clearing that up! (n/t)

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 18th, 2001 4:32 PM

Reply to this message

This space intentionally left blank.

Alex

#101 I wish Netscape would get it right for once

by fgxh298

Thursday June 14th, 2001 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

Man every time we here at Mozilla do something right Netscape marketing has to screw it up. Why release a browser on version 0.6? Why release on 0.9.1 when 0.9.2 is coming out in two weeks with much enhanced stability? Why is the installer for Netscape 6.1 so unstable? That's why I love Mozilla but can't stand Netscape.

P.S. If we can get the memory footprint down that will be one less thing for us to picked on about by Netscape bashers :)

#110 Re: erm, well..

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:33 AM

Reply to this message

..Netscape 6.1 WILL be based on 0.9.2.

#129 Re: erm, well..

by masi

Saturday June 16th, 2001 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

Oh, oh, so Mozilla will eventually see a 0.9.3 (perhaps some more 0.9.x) milestone and will again be better than the official Netscape release.

#140 I bet...

by drwho9437

Saturday June 16th, 2001 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

That netscape 6.1 will be based on 0.9.2 and then there will be version 6.1.1 or something or perhaps more pr versions before to the final

#104 Netscape and MOZILLA?

by jedbro

Thursday June 14th, 2001 11:00 PM

Reply to this message

Just downloaded it.. and am wondering if there is a way to have Mozilla and Netscape both running on my sistem without conflicting... seems my bookmarks, sidebar, skinz, etc. in Netscape all reflect what I've done in Netscape.. is there a way to get around this..??

thanks

#113 Re: Netscape and MOZILLA?

by sconest

Friday June 15th, 2001 2:59 AM

Reply to this message

Just use two different profiles. This is what I do : one profile for Moz for nearly everything and a profile for Netscape to access my netscape.net mail account.

#159 Re: Netscape and MOZILLA?

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Monday June 18th, 2001 1:22 PM

Reply to this message

No, unless you mean Netscape 6.1PR1 and mozilla which will automatically want to use the same profiles. I've been doing that quite often recently. Pretty much switched to 6.1pr1 as my main browser and using the mozilla nightlies.

#112 Fullscreen

by BKovacs

Friday June 15th, 2001 2:00 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6.1 and Mozilla v1 will need Full screen options. Like Opera and IE 5.5 and 6.0.

#114 Re: Fullscreen

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Friday June 15th, 2001 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

#115 Re: Re: Fullscreen

by tny

Friday June 15th, 2001 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

And reasonably enough targeted for Mozilla 1.1.

#116 Re: Re: Re: Fullscreen

by schapel

Friday June 15th, 2001 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it was nominated for Mozilla 1.1, but it is targetted for "future".

#118 Re: Fullscreen

by thoffman11

Friday June 15th, 2001 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

Does anyone actually use full screen? Seems like a big waste of time to me.

#119 Re: Re: Fullscreen

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Friday June 15th, 2001 11:04 AM

Reply to this message

I don't. I HATE fullscreen

#141 And for TVs

by vondo

Saturday June 16th, 2001 9:31 PM

Reply to this message

I use IE's full screen mode when I have my computer hooked to the TV. Can't afford all that extra real estate on a 800x600 or 640x480 screen.

I assume set-top boxes and the visually impaired will be big users of a full-screen mode.

#121 Re: Re: Fullscreen

by schapel

Friday June 15th, 2001 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, I use full-screen mode in IE several times a week. It would be a welcome addition to Mozilla.

Judging from the number of votes for bug 68136: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68136> it looks like there are many others who share this opinion.

#148 Re: Re: Re: Fullscreen

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 10:46 AM

Reply to this message

twenty-something of the 30,000+ bugzilla account holders thought it was important enough to vote for

--Asa

#151 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fullscreen

by schapel

Sunday June 17th, 2001 11:35 AM

Reply to this message

...making it the 16th most desired enhancement request out of the thousands currently in Bugzilla!

#199 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fullscreen

by calroth

Friday June 22nd, 2001 1:06 AM

Reply to this message

I don't see 300,000+ votes that have been cast in the Bugzilla database :-p

#128 Re: Re: Fullscreen

by Tekhir

Saturday June 16th, 2001 3:26 AM

Reply to this message

I don't use it for websites, but where I work we use it for web-based training modules. Basically our WBTS go fullscreen to prevent any distractions, to keep the operator focused on learning, and maximize our display space.

#130 Re: Fullscreen

by chip

Saturday June 16th, 2001 11:06 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, if you want to set up kiosks (on street, shopping malls...) for custom application like showing flight schedules, promotions, using a browser interface, full screen is a must.

#149 Re: Re: Fullscreen

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 10:54 AM

Reply to this message

If you're setting up kiosks you don't need a fullscreen mode. A full screen mode is something a regular browser needs. You want a specialized browser that doesn't need a non-kiosk mode. You can create a new XUL FE and just remove all the toolbar XUL. There is even a simpler solution than that. I believe you can do most of this now with a userchrome.css that just hides all the chrome items by setting visibility on each id.

#152 Re: Re: Re: Fullscreen

by pirat

Sunday June 17th, 2001 12:08 PM

Reply to this message

That's exactly what I'm trying to do now. In my previous hack to bug 68136 I changed some chrome files and now I want to rewrite it using userHTMLbindings.xml, but I'm running into numerous problems.

#117 user ratings on download.com

by beastie

Friday June 15th, 2001 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

6.01 Windows: 37% (1128 votes) Linux: 50% (72 votes) Mac: 27% (197 votes)

6.1 PR1 Windows: 70% (174 votes) Linux: 75% (8 votes) Mac: 80% (15 votes)

The 70% on Windows is still a little low, but things are definitely looking up from 6.01!

<http://download.cnet.com/…;cn=&ca=10000?tag=txt>

#120 Re: user ratings on download.com

by arielb

Friday June 15th, 2001 11:25 AM

Reply to this message

80% from the mac is interesting even though it's 15 votes because mac users really care about UI issues. So that's a good sign.

#122 Re: Re: user ratings on download.com

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday June 15th, 2001 1:43 PM

Reply to this message

It may also be a sign that Mozilla fans are the only ones who cared to vote.

#123 Re: Re: Re: user ratings on download.com

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 15th, 2001 2:53 PM

Reply to this message

User opinions can be unreliable in that way. However, CNET's review <http://www.cnet.com/softw…ubdir.3227883-8-6249661-2> is quite positive (though for the benefit of strauss I should point out that it does also contain some negative comments and that my interpretation of the review as "positive" is just a personal view and may not be the same as yours or anyone else's).

Alex

#139 IE loyalists always bring down Netscape numbers

by drwho9437

Saturday June 16th, 2001 5:14 PM

Reply to this message

Even releases were the IE fans were sick of venting like netscape 4.7 never got more than 80% so 70 some is good. Very good when you consided some things don't work yet.

#131 Linux Rating is now 86%

by ctx

Saturday June 16th, 2001 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

More votes came in for the Linux version... it\\\'s now 86% take a look!

#204 Re: Linux Rating is now 86%

by _Lewellyn

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 4:56 AM

Reply to this message

It's currently at 85% now. Kinda funny that there are about twice as many people who have voted for the Mac version. And, unfortunately, as a Mac user by default at the moment, I have to agree... :(

IE 5 for the Mac just comes across as so much *smoother* in general. At least on this machine (G4/450MHz/192MB/OS 9). There are far too many outstanding interface issues right now on the Mac. It's come a long way in a short time on the Mac, yes, but it's still not quite my default browser. (Unlike on other platforms...)

Before I get flamed for not posting Bugzilla links, I should note that Cmd-N (new window) simply brings up a blank window without chrome even. I recall seeing this as a bug, but I don't know right now.

I know the Linux version has to be better than the Mac version. Where are the numbers to show it? 20-odd votes making up 85% approval isn't much. Sorry. At least Mac users are voting. Even if the numbers aren't encouraging.

#132 AOL/MS talks break down again

by strauss

Saturday June 16th, 2001 1:17 PM

Reply to this message

<http://news.cnet.com/news…00-6295416.html?tag=mn_hd>

This can only be good news for those who hope to see AOL 7 released in a Mozilla-friendly form.

#138 Re: AOL/MS talks break down again

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 16th, 2001 4:24 PM

Reply to this message

Interesting that the talks broke down over the inclusion of RealMedia rather than Windows Media Technologies in the AOL client. I guess AOL didn't want to assist Microsoft in their aim to dominate online music (AOL, RealNetworks et al want to dominate that themselves).

Alex

#133 The problem report page doesn't work. How catch 22

by witbrock

Saturday June 16th, 2001 1:23 PM

Reply to this message

Ay least if you go in through the (scrollbarless) 6.1PR welcome page, the linked pages don't get scrollbars either (something is sticking on off?). What's worst is that you can't scroll the problem report form page to enter the whole problem [but pgdn works].

No, that's not what's worst. What's worst is that there's a javascript problem that stops problem reports from validating (it wants you to use "other OS", no matter what, even if you have already).

So, you can't submit a problem report no matter what.

This sort of things drives me to paroxysms of helpless rage.

And I was beginning to like PR6.1

(oh, and netscape webmail integration for non INBOX folders doesn't work either) <http://home.netscape.com/…wsers/6/su_setup61pr.html>

#134 Re: The problem report page doesn't work. How catc

by witbrock

Saturday June 16th, 2001 1:25 PM

Reply to this message

Please ignore the typos. It's the paroxysms that did it.

#135 Re: The problem report page doesn't work. How catc

by witbrock

Saturday June 16th, 2001 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

p.s. even the "Suggestions" page has the "Won't validate OS" JS (probably) bug, even though IT DOESN'T even MENTION the OS.

I managed to submit a "Suggestion" about this problem using IE. Interestingly, whatever incompetent boob turned off the scrollbars made it work for IE too (and not even pagedown works in IE) so you can't submit a problem report using that either.

Can I start a class action suit against AOL for malicious infliction of emotional distress?

#150 Re: Re: The problem report page doesn't work. How catc

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday June 17th, 2001 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

Even if they were fined billions of dollars, you would not receive much after it was divided for all of the lives AOL has ruined.

#157 MORE FULL SCREEN

by jedbro

Monday June 18th, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

To continue the discussion on FULLSCREEN mode, Bug--> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68136> If you read the bug comments, Jiri Znamenacek made a "Quick-Hack" by editing 3 files in Mozilla "platformNavigationBindings.xul" "navigator.js" "navigator.css"

But this was back in April, and hence I cannot find those 3 files anywhere in mozilla.

Anyone know what they are now?

cheers

#160 Re: MORE FULL SCREEN

by pirat

Monday June 18th, 2001 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

I changed those three files to achive this - when F11 was hit, all unnecessary tabs was closed, current window's size was stored, available screen space was checked and Mozilla window was expanded "out of screen". Just now I'm trying to move these changes to userHTMLBindings.xml, which could reside in user's profile directory (somewhere in the future), but still no success. BTW - it is really "hack" since it works only on Windows. UNIX window managers are "too strict" about expanding window out of screen. (See my post on n.p.m.xbl for details. Any help really appreciated ;-)

#173 Pirat

by jedbro

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 10:00 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, that is what I want to do, but where are those 3 files located?? Can't find them anywhere on my windows box with Mozilla...

Anyhelp appreciated! Cheers

#181 Re: Pirat

by pirat

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 4:00 PM

Reply to this message

comm.jar ^_- But be carefull - about one week after my post they split navigator.css and moved global rules under this archive.

#163 ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by thelem

Monday June 18th, 2001 4:41 PM

Reply to this message

Well, the reviews are up on Tucows and its official: Netscape 6.1 PR1 (depite being 'adware' instead of GPL) gets and extra cow giving it the extremly prestigious (ahem) rating of 5 cows!

Netscape 6.1 PR1 <http://tucows.mirror.ac.uk/preview/59081.html> Mozilla 0.9.1 <http://tucows.mirror.ac.uk/preview/174675.html>

Ian

#164 Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 18th, 2001 5:08 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape isn't GPL - it's a freeware commercial product that uses open-source Mozilla code. Mozilla itself isn't GPL either (but I believe parts of the code are), it's MPL/NPL which the Free Software Foundation doesn't even class as proper open source. I can sort of understand why Netscape 6 could be called adware (it has small ads in Instant Messenger and implicit ads/links to Netscape's site elsewhere), but I agree that it's a bit unfair.

Alex

#172 MPL and FSF

by sab39

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 9:25 AM

Reply to this message

You're mixing terms.

The FSF doesn't class *anything* as "proper open source" because they object to the term "open source" in the first place. They prefer "free software".

Not only that, but the FSF *do* class the MPL as a true free software license (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html> ), although they have some minor practical issues with it (which doesn't really mean anything - they have some practical issues with virtually every license except the GPL, but they still endorse their use in some situations)

Stuart.

#178 Re: MPL and FSF

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 11:18 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for clearing that up.

I had seen the page before, which is where I got the impression that they didn't class the MPL/NPL as proper open source (or free software or whatever). I must have misread it.

I find the FSF's views on open source are rather extreme in that they believe no-one should use anything but open source. I feel that open source software can coexist well with commercial software.

Alex

#190 IRC link question

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 3:40 PM

Reply to this message

"I find the FSF's views on open source are rather extreme in that they believe no-one should use anything but open source. I feel that open source software can coexist well with commercial software"

Not exactly true. Even RMS himself says that there are certain situations where open source is not a viable option (such as games).

#192 Re: IRC link question

by strauss

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 6:19 PM

Reply to this message

>>Even RMS himself says that there are certain situations where open source is not a viable option (such as games).<<

Since RMS would rather die than use the phrase "open source" instead of his own phrase, "free software," I'm not sure I can consider you a reliable source on his viewpoint.

#193 Re: Re: IRC link question

by SmileyBen

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 8:08 PM

Reply to this message

The whole point is that RMS doesn't believe the issue is about what creates good software, etc. (though he does believe free software will produce the best) it's about essential freedoms. He believes we should support free software because it is egalitarian, it supports and empowers people by creating tools that people can use and tap into, not things to which they are slaves. When you realise it is about freedoms, if you agree with this, you see that it isn't that closed source could produce good software that's the issue, it's that that software wouldn't really be a helpful tool in the way RMS envisions it should be

#179 Re: Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 12:40 PM

Reply to this message

Actually its dual licensed. Meaning if I download it I can assume its GPL for my purposes, and make changes and redistribute it as GPL only. Any changes summited to mozilla.org have to be licensed under the MPL also (meaning you can\'t upload to mozilla.org any pure GPL code created by someone else, this is important as it doesn\'t allow mozilla.org to steal for other mozilla based products, unless they want to give up the notion of MPL). Then as it has the MPL netscape can pick it up and wrap it into a closed source browser. Personally as netscape put so much money into it, I think this is perfectly fair.

#183 not yet

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 12:17 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla is NPL and MPL. It is not yet dual licensed with GPL or LGPL

--Asa

#197 Re: not yet

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Thursday June 21st, 2001 2:13 PM

Reply to this message

Wow, I thought it was. You said yet? So are there plans? When?

#165 Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 18th, 2001 5:13 PM

Reply to this message

Why did Netscape 6.1 PR1 get five cows and Mozilla 0.9.1 only get four. Do they really like AIM that much?

Alex

#166 Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by strauss

Monday June 18th, 2001 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

It's good news, but just to provide a bit of that fabled "balance" which seems to turn a certain "driver" into a frothing maniac --

I hardly ever see anything on tucows rated less than four cows.

#167 Re: Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday June 18th, 2001 6:16 PM

Reply to this message

I do agree with you that Tucows tend to be generous with their scores.

Alex

#168 Re: Re: Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.

by strauss

Monday June 18th, 2001 7:09 PM

Reply to this message

No, no, you're just supposed to flame me.

#177 Re: Tucows

by WillyWonka

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

Don't believe the tucows rating system.

My companies product got 5 cows. It should have gotten 2 maybe 3. It's not very good.

I think they gavee us 4 but we called and they changed it to 5. *ahem*

#182 Re: ONTOPIC! Netscape 6.1 PR1 v Mozilla 0.9.1

by dave532

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 7:32 PM

Reply to this message

Their review of Netscape 6.1 is a joke. First off calling it adware is unfair and secondly it definitely does not feature a pure java interface, Netscape 6.1 has java installation as an option and the interface still works without it :) <http://tucows.mirror.ac.uk/preview/59081.html> Please submit your feedback to Tucows to tell them their errors in their review, I've done it before but they need a few people shouting at them: <http://submit.tucows.com/contactus.html>

#216 TUCOWS's Response

by MXN

Monday June 25th, 2001 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

I just e-mailed TUCOWS yesterday, and here's their response:

"The reviewer will be clarifying the review about the use of 'a pure Java interface'"

#169 Netscape 7.0??

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 8:13 AM

Reply to this message

Last night on CNN Moneyline, an anaylist said that AOL was reporting that they\\\'re releasing NS 7.0 in Q4.. it was an interesting report, they were talking about the AOL/Microsoft talks breaking down. Has anyone else heard these rumblings or was the pundit just an idiot? :)

#170 Re: Netscape 7.0??

by lama <lasse@lama.no>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 8:37 AM

Reply to this message

I checked the transcript: <http://www.cnn.com/TRANSC…IPTS/0106/18/mlld.00.html>

They never mention "Netscape" and "7.0" in the same sentence. Looks to me like they're talking about whether Netscape will be the basis for AOL 7.0, which is a different matter.

Still interesting though.

#174 Re: Re: Netscape 7.0??

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 10:04 AM

Reply to this message

It's not in the transcript, it was in some quick banter just before the commercial break - they were talking about bundling the browser w/ AOL.

The statement started with one of them commenting that Microsoft had been saying that if the Netscape browser was so good, why don't they just use it instead of Internet Explorer in AOL.

The other replied that AOL's answer to that will be in Netscape 7.0 slated for Q4.

And it ended with Dobbs saying, "Isn't that interesting, a new Netscape browser just in time for WindowsXP."

#176 My bad!

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

Hehe, I think I may have to file a bug on the search feature, it didn't find any references to browser the first time i loaded the transcript.. here's the chunk of text: -------------- DOBBS: Out of curiosity, why in the world wouldn't AOL resurrect Netscape, a perfectly good browser?

YOUNG: Microsoft been saying for some time that it's inferior, that if it was so hot, AOL would have switched to it. DOBBS: Oh, that explains Microsoft's view. What's AOL's?

YOUNG: Well, AOL simply tells us that version 7 comes out in the fourth quarter and you never know. ----------- Rather ambiguous, I took at as refering to version 7.0 of the browser at first, but macpeep is right, i'm sure.

#171 Re: Netscape 7.0??

by macpeep

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

They were talking about AOL 7.0 - not Netscape 7.0.

#175 Re: Re: Netscape 7.0??

by kaine023 <jeremiahnelson23@yahoo.com>

Tuesday June 19th, 2001 10:05 AM

Reply to this message

You're probably right, I think they were just confused between the two.

#184 off topic: Lots of fixes in last 2 days

by dipa

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 4:18 AM

Reply to this message

Important patches for -IMAP folders -Find Again gives no feedback when reaching end of page -keyboard scrolling -right mouse clicking -turbo mode shortcut in Startup menu -turbo mode installation/preferences options -backend support for different taskbar icons -body slider problem when images are blocked -mail not showing international characters in headers (regression) -unwanted carret moving problem in mail -frames in a frameset can't be be manually resized by dragging the border -context sensitive help support etc.

see <http://bonsai.mozilla.org…01&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot> for a complete query.

New builds for Win32 don't exist yet but I hope there will be one available today for testing the above fixes.

#185 Re: off topic: Lots of fixes in last 2 days

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 8:48 AM

Reply to this message

Is it me or has 'resolving host' speed greatly improved on linux, does anyone have a bug #?

#187 Re: Re: off topic: Lots of fixes in last 2 days

by Beafsteak <christian.mattar@fh-aachen.de>

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 12:21 PM

Reply to this message

Nope it's not you, it's the new DNS-cache :-)

#189 Resolving host

by dipa

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 3:24 PM

Reply to this message

I think it's because they elliminated some unwanted "resolving hosts" messages (but I can't recall the associated bug #)

#186 Memory usage

by drdjr

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 11:45 AM

Reply to this message

I'm sorry, but I have one browser window open and netscp6.exe is taking 42MB!! I've got plenty of memory, but still, that's just crazy out of control!

#188 Re: Memory usage

by rotocat

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 2:10 PM

Reply to this message

I have 2 windows open and netscape 6.1PR1 is taking 18megs. That is less than 4.7 at 21 megs.

#191 Re: Memory usage

by dipa

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 4:04 PM

Reply to this message

On which plattform and from which utility did you got memory footprint measurement? Was a blank page or a page full of graphics or other memory consuming content (java enabling)? Did you really tested NS6.1 or just NS6.0 with it's JRE pluggin always loaded?

While I'm not a system programming expert, I am sure measuring memory footprint isn't as easy as it seems because of the differences in the various methods of memory allocation and the multithreading operation in modern operating systems. Anyway, while I can't find a reliable way to measure of memory footprint at user level, this is definitely much smaller than that you report. SpyGuru (freeware) shows 23.5MB (latest talkback Mozilla build) after loading a blank Mozilla browser, while System Monitor (indirectly) indicates 16MB. In Win2k, Task Manager and SpyGuru report 9-10MB. I can't see why NS6.1 is worst on this aspect.

#194 Re: Re: Memory usage

by hadron

Wednesday June 20th, 2001 10:48 PM

Reply to this message

If you keep it open for a while, task manager will usually show in the 25-35 meg range on my win2k system (with a couple windows open), though I've seen it as high as 60 or 80 megs (with more windows). But if you minimize it and then restore it, the memory usage seems quite low, for a while...but then it goes back up.

In contrast, I've opened 4.7 with something like 15 windows before and task manager reported only 25 megs. These are windows in real use, with large documents and some with large images loaded...

#210 Minimize Behavior

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

OK, I just noticed that Moz is taking up 44-some MB for this window alone, according to the W2K task manager.

Minimize it and it drops to 534K and then starts slowly creaking up to about 1.8MB. Restore and it\'s back up to 15MB or so. Strange. I have 512MB so no swapping while this is going on.

What\'s going on here - is taskman lying, or does Mozilla really shed 40MB of RAM by taking it off the screen? Is most of the 15MB used just to keep the page image on the screen?

#195 Re: Memory usage

by pirat

Thursday June 21st, 2001 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

Heh, ever tried Mozilla Mail client for reading newsgroups? It tooks about 2-3MB for every new group. I usually ends somewhere at 50-60MB...

#200 hurray ! transparent GIFs and PNGs !

by shin

Friday June 22nd, 2001 7:20 AM

Reply to this message

At last this black-background thingo got fixed ! :D How long had this bug lasted ? Months... If all the other survivor bugs got eradicated for 0.9.2, this is gonna be a great release ! (and for Netscape 6.1, this can only be good, as I'm sure lots of potential users ran away on PR1 after these black GIFs)

#201 Criticism in moderation...

by Ugg

Friday June 22nd, 2001 4:03 PM

Reply to this message

First off, let me simply state that I think Asa is wrong. There are things wrong with Mozilla, and it is the right - no, the DUTY - of the community to point this out. And when in their zeal someone reinterprets a lukewarm review as a glowing one, it is proper that someone should point this out.

I invite any Mozilla engineer who needs his ego stroked with a continual stream of praise and a false sense of accomplishment to leave, now. Go find some place in the Bazaar where the customers are more gullible, thanks.

A great deal has been accomplished with Mozilla, but now is not the time to say, "alright, we did it!" As far as I and much of the rest of the Mozilla-aware world is concerned, you're still playing catch-up to IE, which is not the place where a revolutionary new browser/internet platform/whatever should be.

But on the other hand, these personal and almost-personal attacks by strauss and others are, IMO, unwarranted. I don't think that we're so blinded to reality that the quality of the project is threatened. I've been aware of Mozilla since its inception and keeping an eye on it since M9 or so, and despite the fact that this sort of optimism has always been around, you can hardly argue that Mozilla hasn't made *significant* progress since those days.

...

You know, this "politeness" thing wastes too much time. What I really mean to say is, "all of you, SHUT UP ALREADY!"

There. Now I feel better. I should have done that in the first place.

#202 Re: Criticism in moderation...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 22nd, 2001 4:49 PM

Reply to this message

"And when in their zeal someone reinterprets a lukewarm review as a glowing one, it is proper that someone should point this out."

I'm a zealot?! I didn't interpret the review as being "glowing", but I feel it was more than lukewarm. The exact phrase I used was "CNET seem to like it." I never had any intention of those five words being microanalysed and the semantics getting endlessly discussed!

"I invite any Mozilla engineer who needs his ego stroked with a continual stream of praise and a false sense of accomplishment to leave, now."

Remember that many Mozilla contributors are unpaid and that most of the others work for AOL. Encouragement boosts morale and that boosts productivity and commitment to the product. Nobody ever produced a good product without believing in it. Why do companies employ motivational speakers? Why do warring countries always use propaganda to convince their citizens that they're winning?

"A great deal has been accomplished with Mozilla, but now is not the time to say, 'alright, we did it!' As far as I and much of the rest of the Mozilla-aware world is concerned, you're still playing catch-up to IE, which is not the place where a revolutionary new browser/internet platform/whatever should be."

But the developers aren't stopping. Take, for example, Gecko. It's the most standards-compliant rendering engine in existence (with the possible exceptance of the one in Amaya). It's also very fast. Maybe not as fast as IE, but pretty damn close. Are the developers resting on their laurels? No. They keep on improving it. There's a new imglib, CSS rewrite, not to mention all the other tweaks that occur.

"But on the other hand, these personal and almost-personal attacks by strauss and others are, IMO, unwarranted. I don't think that we're so blinded to reality that the quality of the project is threatened."

Fully agree.

"You know, this 'politeness' thing wastes too much time. What I really mean to say is, 'all of you, SHUT UP ALREADY!'"

But earlier you said criticism was needed...

I believe that MozillaZine should allow some reasonable, well-thought out and, most of all, constructive criticism. Attacks shouldn't be personal or excessively negative (e.g. "Mozilla is crap produced by a bunch of lame coders who can't get proper jobs."). As the TalkBack instructions say "Please keep your comments friendly!"

I'm bored of this debate now. Let's talk about the nightly builds.

Alex

#203 Re: Re: Criticism in moderation...

by Ugg

Friday June 22nd, 2001 5:34 PM

Reply to this message

"Remember that many Mozilla contributors are unpaid and that most of the others work for AOL. Encouragement boosts morale and that boosts productivity and commitment to the product."

True, but to be realistic, they should settle for only moderate ego-stroking. Asa's suggestion that quoting the article jeopardized the project somehow was more than a little ridiculous. His critics have overreacted, but they have a point.

"But earlier you said criticism was needed..."

It was, but criticism was made, which is why shutting up now would be best for all concerned parties, IMO.

"I believe that MozillaZine should allow some reasonable, well-thought out and, most of all, constructive criticism."

If it doesn't, I'm forced to side with Asa's critics.

"I'm bored of this debate now. Let's talk about the nightly builds."

Sounds good to me.

#207 Re: Criticism in moderation...

by fab

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 11:12 AM

Reply to this message

>I invite any Mozilla engineer who needs his ego stroked with a continual stream of praise and a false sense of accomplishment to leave, >now. Go find some place in the Bazaar where the customers are more gullible, thanks.

Even though I don't consider myself an "engineer", I do my fair share of work on this project. I never heard of someone called "Ugg" on the project, but that's another story.

My point is, I have become so used to "Mozilla developers suck, they don't test their product, etc etc" that I don't even pay any attention to them anymore. It doesn't even affect me. You can bitch all you want actually, my brain ignores it. Only in some rare occasion (macpeep must remember one of his first posts here ;-) do I react to what I call "pessimistic" comments.

On the other hand, posts in this forum, or on slashdot, or on cnet, that say "Good job developers, it's not perfect yet, but it's much improved!", those actually make me want to keep on doing this work. You can shout as much as you want that I have a "false sense of accomplishment" but it's not for you that I do what I do. It's not for macpeep, or strauss either. First it's for me, and also because I believe in Open Source. But also for all the people who say "I know [the mozilla developers] can make it".

I hope this didn't sound too aggressive, but, as you said, "Now I feel better too" :-)

Fabian.

#209 Re: Re: Criticism in moderation...

by macpeep

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

"macpeep must remember one of his first posts here"

Probably not one of my first posts since that would have been like 3 years ago, but I think I know which one(s) you mean.. :)

Good morale is important, but kidding oneself about the quality of the product is not. This has been debated in great lengths tho so there's no need to go into it anymore IMHO.

#208 Mozilla is faster than IE 5.5 in loading

by BryanH <BryanZx@excite.com>

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 11:39 AM

Reply to this message

It's been pointed out before, but if you count the time that IE displays chrome and no web page, Mozilla loads just as quickly... on a PII 300Mhz. In addition, Mozilla doesn't make the computer unstable when it runs. If we could just make the page start rendering before it finishes loading, like it used to, Mozilla would be faster than Internet Explorer. And isn't that what all the bashing is about? I think we can finally say that Mozilla is the most complete browser in the world. If anyone disagrees, why don't you give some reasons instead of attacking the engineers. Point out what's wrong, and then help to finish it. And if you want negative Mozilla news, make a new site. One final thought: Why don't we submit Mozilla 0.9.2 to CNET for review?

#211 Re: Mozilla is faster than IE 5.5 in loading

by macpeep

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

Also remember that Microsoft kicks your dog, scratches your car, spits in your food and pisses in your beer. These are all good reasons to use Mozilla that you forgot to mention.

"I think we can finally say that Mozilla is the most complete browser in the world. If anyone disagrees, why don't you give some reasons instead of attacking the engineers."

Relax a little. I don't think anyone has been "attacking the engineers". Maybe I've missed some posts here? Anyway, I'll give you some reasons why I don't consider Mozilla the "most complete browser in the world" - YET.

1) The thumbs-up-with-exclamation-mark rated nightly build took *3* attempts until it started for me this morning. Yes, I had deleted my profiles etc. etc.

2) I click on a form field and it resizes. Text is vertically misaligned in the textfields. Combo boxes have native scrollbars.

3) Mozilla crashes about once per hour for me. IE crashes maybe once a week or so and it doesn't bring down the OS like people like to comment. I'm on a Win2K box with IE 5.5 SP1. Maybe I'm lucky, but most people I know feel the same way.

4) The "Bookmarks" in the sidebar take a single click on folders to expand and a double click on arrows. History is reverse (and correct) from this. In "Manage bookmarks", the behavior is correct.

5) Resize a column header in Mail & News, move it one pixel and the columns to the right collapse. Move it one more and they revert back. There are also rounding errors in the column headers, causing borders to be 2 pixels sometimes, 1 pixels at other times.

6) About a gazillion of one-pixel alignments etc. that are off.

I could go on for a long, long time.. The bottom line is that I just don't see Mozilla being as finished and polished as IE yet. And hey, it's not FINISHED yet, so that's perfectly ok.

But it was you who claimed it was the most complete browser in the world and you asked if someone disagrees. Well, I do.. and above are a few reasons why.

As far as making a site about negative Mozilla news, I couldn't care less. I have no interest in spreading bad news about Mozilla. I'm hoping the project would turn out great. That doesn't mean I'll put blindfolds on and run around like a headless chicken screaming "M4 is the best browser in the world!!".

#215 Re: Re: Mozilla is faster than IE 5.5 in loading

by BryanH <BryanZx@excite.com>

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 3:36 PM

Reply to this message

I'm glad you're here, macpeep. You actually give good counter-points, and even though people see you as negative, I don't think you are. But I do think it's interesting that my Win98 box, approximately 5 years old, installs Mozilla every day without a hitch. Maybe a bug should be filled to attempt to bring Mozilla to an equivelent state on various platforms.

When you say "It doesn't bring my computer down like people like to comment," in reference to IE, Win2000 is much more stable than Win98, where Internet Explorer crashes can take down the whole system.

You're right about History, but I don't use it much so I wasn't aware of this reversal of functionality.

My claim to the most complete browser has to do with the total features, not that it was the most polished. Perhaps with people like you to continue to remind us where we need to be, and with people like the others here, who have the drive to get us there, Mozilla will gain the respect and the users it deserves.

#212 Re: Mozilla is faster than IE 5.5 in loading

by utopistics

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

but IE6 is faster than IE5.5. how will it be if compared to it?

still I prefer Mozilla. Because Multi-lingual support is pretty good.

Mozilla can be not only the most complete browser but also the most consistent international/multi-platform software. :-)

#213 Re: Mozilla is faster than IE 5.5 in loading

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

"And if you want negative Mozilla news, make a new site."

Or just go to MozillaQuest <http://www.mozillaquest.com/> ;-)

You should see the state that Michaelangelo is getting himself in about inconsistencies in Mozilla documentation about when 0.9.2 will be released. He also says that it will be really buggy if it is released on June 25th as the Roadmap says. Did he miss the news about 0.9.2 not adding any new features as it's a stability milestone?

Alex

#214 Jaberzilla Beta 1

by jedbro

Saturday June 23rd, 2001 1:37 PM

Reply to this message

Jabberzilla is out now!!! Beta 1.

It has NO FEATURES, other than CHAT.. can't even add users yet... but it's a huge step from Beta 0 (despite the features)....

Can see the awesome capabilities with this!!! Can't wait!!

check it out

<http://jabberzilla.mozdev.org/>

Cheers!