MozillaZine

mozilla.org Releases 0.9.2.1

Tuesday August 14th, 2001

mozilla.org today released the source code for 0.9.2.1, which is the code that matches Netscape 6.1. This comes from the 0.9.2 branch, and is being made available both as part of the MPL license requirement, and as a way for third parties to easily use it to write compatible plugins and addon features to Netscape 6.1, as well as Mozilla.


#52 get serious!

by macpeep

Sunday August 19th, 2001 2:54 PM

You are replying to this message

"Now look at the decision to drop support for "Netscape-style plugins" from IE6. What Microsoft refers to as Netscape-style plugins is the EMBED tag which when placed in web pages allow authors to place animations, multimedia and more into their sites. Instead, Microsoft is telling people that all webpages should use plugins written for its (mainly proprietary) .NET platform. "

Uh, that's just wrong. Microsoft plugins are no more proprietary than Netscape plugins. Second, Microsoft plugins have nothing to do with .NET *AT ALL* and everything to do with Active/X controls, which have been the component model in Windows since God knows how many years back. Just about EVERY plugin on the net is implemented as an Active/X control these days, with the sad exception of Quick Time, which Apple says is going to come out as Active/X soon.

"Many people never stop to question why Microsoft goes to the trouble of writing IE and giving it away for free when it clearly makes large losses. The answer is simple - it's to do with control."

And AOL is going to the trouble of writing Mozilla and giving it away for free because.. what? They want to wrestle the control to them. Just like they want with AIM. I don't see AOL and Mozilla being any more noble. Of course it's about the benefit of the company as a whole. These are businesses! They are not giving away things because it's good for humanity. They are doing it because it serves their company in some way. Don't be so naive!

"It can't do "favourite icons" although this issue is mainly complicated by the fact that this particular feature uses the Windows icon format and so is platform specific."

Windows .ICO files are .BMP files, which are just a short header, palette and an uncompressed bitmap (or RLE compressed). It takes about 50 lines of C/C++ code to read an .ICO file.

"it became clear that MS was not at all interested in producing a good browser (hence the lousy and buggy standards support) but very simply in controlling the web."

Huh? That's a totally bogus assumption! If they make a bad browser, nobody will use it even if it IS bundled with the OS. Look at notepad. Anyone who wants a real text editor dumps notepad and uses something like UltraEdit32 instead. Lots of people use Outlook (not OE) or Netscape or Eudora for email because they don't like Outlook Express (me for example). In order to get people to use their browser, they had to make it as good as they good. If you think that they just wrote something crappy for the sake of control, you're just wrong. They paid a lot of attention to making it a GOOD browser. If not, it's kinda sad to see that a browser that wasn't even made to be good, is still superrior to Mozilla - 4 years down the road.