MozillaZine releases Mozilla Milestone 0.9.4

Friday September 14th, 2001 today released Mozilla Milestone 0.9.4. New to this release is the ability to disable the JavaScript method during page load and unload events. You can find more information on what's new at the release notes.

Builds are available on's download page(or go right to the FTP directory).

A recent post to the Mozilla builds newsgroup explains that Netscape will continue to check into the 0.9.4 branch. Work continues on the trunk toward Mozilla 0.9.5.

#71 Re: Re: I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad...

by asa <>

Sunday September 16th, 2001 1:00 AM

You are replying to this message

>The bug counts appear to be correct, as always. As for users, significant bug reports started rolling into both MozillaZine and SlashDot as soon as the stories were posted. Response to this build has not been enthusiastic.

We always get a few more bug reports from a Milestone than a nightly builds. I think it probably has to do with the fact that we get about 2500 downloads of nightly builds and about 100000 downloads of a Milestone build. I've read every comment at slashdot and here at mozillazine and don't see a single report of a real issue that isn't already in Bugzilla. I evaluate the slashdot and mozillazine comments as overall quite positive. I realize that others will have a different evaluation but I've been reading responses to Milestones since about M6 and I have seen them get more positive with every Milestone (with the possible exception of 0.9 for Mac).

>It's a valid issue. Asa has also refused to answer the question, and it's not obvious that AOL is who he was talking about. There is a conflict between having secret arrangements with commercial vendors and being "open." It's one of the more interesting issues facing the open source community today and is coming up on a number of projects. When is open not open?

What question have I "refused to answer" and please point me to my statement of refusal. There is no secret arrangement and there is no conflict. If you came to me and said that you wanted to check in a few fixes to the 0.9.5 branch for a commercial StraussZilla release you were doing I'd say "great!" and offer any help I could in improving your release. There's nothing that isn't "open" about you're desire to work on a branch after we're done with it. There's also nothing wrong with my commenting on mozillazine that I heard that you were interested in doing a commercial release based on the Mozilla 0.9.5 branch plus a few fixes. If you didn't want me to mention that you were doing this release I wouldn't but there's nothing secret when the day after we release 0.9.5 there are checkins to that branch from your cvs account. You really don't understand how this works or have much insight into what's going on in this project or you would have seen that for the last 3 months in Bugzilla and the newsgroups Netscape employees have been talking about their next release and the fixes that will be landing on the 0.9.4 branch after Mozilla 0.9.4 is released. Were you watching when Mozilla did an 0.9.2 release and Netscape continued to develop on that branch (mostly pulling high value low risk fixes from the trunk to the branch) for a while longer and released a product called Netscape6.1? There's no secret arrangement here. If you think there is then you're paranoid and out of touch or incapable of deciphering pretty blatant cues about what's happening with checkins and bugfixes.

>No, he's not. He's saying that enabling turbo by default was not a good idea, and he gives specific reasons -- it slows down Window launch, it eats resources even when you're not using it, and it keeps buggy code running in the background, which is a risk. We've seen half-a-dozen people say the same things about turbo on MozillaZine without them being accused of "paranoid delusion."

That's not what he's focused on. We've had turbo for some time and he never complained. He's complaining that we're taking away user choice. His arguement is broken from the start. There is just as much choice in unchecking a box as there is in checking it and there's an entire build made available that doesn't even have an installer if you're paranoid about installers and accidentally enabling turbo which can be turned off with great ease at any time.

>> He complains that there isn't a non-Talkback installer. <<

>That is a legitimate privacy concern.

It's not a legitimate privacy concern. If you're concerned about privacy then don't use our testing builds. We make no guarantees that it won't melt your harddrive and send all your tax evasion schemes to the IRS. I'm pretty sure that we even warn you on our download page that these things are likely to happen. THESE BUILDS ARE PROVIDED FOR TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES ONLY! Try Beonex (a custom Mozilla based browser distribution with a focus on security, privacy and support) or build it yourself without talkback or turbo or SSL or any other option you're interested in. If this isn't enough and you really want to use a mozilla based browser then hack the code until you're sure that nothing is infringing on your privacy.

>> More paranoia - "we recommend your disconnect your computer from the Internet when installing 0.9.4". If that isn't the biggest load of drivel, I don't know what is ! And what reason does he give for this suggestion ? Answer: none whatsoever (it's not even tied into his crazy Talkback rant). <<

>Yes, he does give a reason. "The installer version of Mozilla presents some potential privacy breaches,

The installer presents no privacy breaches. THis is silly. There are plain zipped builds that don't have an installer if you're really that paranoid, but mangelo consistently fails to mention that. There are no connections made to the net during the install of the full installer (where it's all downloaded in one blob) and the net installer has to connect to retrieve the packages you choose (connecting to the net is the whole point there). If you don't like talkback in your installerless talkback builds then before you start it (after you've unzipped it) delete the damn thing. But this kind of defeats the purpose of these builds and if you're not interested in helping to test Mozilla then find an end user distribution to use or find a different browser alltogether. To suggest that there are privacy concerns here is plain silly.

>Go ahead and call me an insane idiot now, but it continues to appear to me that Angelo is far more correct than most of his critics. He is being flamed without apparent regard for the facts of the case, and pranks like trying to get him fired from his day job do his critics no credit.

You have some proof that someone tried to get him fired from his job? A posting from some anonomous person suggesting that some other unnamed person(s) in this discussion (or was it just some person in the mozilla community?) tried to get mangelo fired is suffiecient evidence for you to repeat it multiple times? You're just repeating rumors. There's no real value in that.

I won't call you any names. It does appear that you're willing to make a lot of leaps from speculation and partial information that most people aren't. Mangelo has consistently misrepresented issues by giving half the story like his last turbo rant where he neglected to tell readers that there was a non-installer build available in every Milestone release and 2 non-installer nightly builds and that turbo was still optional in the installer. Much of his poor reporting is because he simply doesn't familiarize himself with the actual mozilla builds before writing about them. He reads a post to the newsgroup or here and writes an entire article (a paragraph or two pasted on top of cuts from his last 4 or 5 Mozilla stories) with little or no investigation. That's fine if you call it editorial but it's not reporting and it's definitely not respectable journalism.