MozillaZine

What do you think?

Wednesday October 10th, 2001

Many in the community have been discussing what components nightly builds should include by default. We wanted to find out what you think? Are you happy to see the new Javascript Debugger included in the build? Would you like to see other things shipped, like the DOM Inspector? Or would you rather only see the browser shipped, and make the rest, like Mail/News, Chatzilla, and other components, optional add ons?


#1 I say turn them on.

by joschi

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:01 AM

Reply to this message

I personally think that the nightlies are a great place to test out features that are nearing completion (like the link bar and the tabbed browsing)on a crowd that are a little more tolerant of a few more quirks in exchange for more cool new things. I would love to see the DOM Inspector turned on, and am loving the tab's and the link bar, for instance.

#3 Re: I say turn them on.

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:10 AM

Reply to this message

I fully agree. The whole point of the nightlies is for testing the latest Moz code, but a lot of people don't want to or can't build Moz.

By not building these components, the components are missing out on a lot of testing and QA.

Maybe the archive versions (tar.gz, zip, etc) could just come with the standard components, but the installers (SEA, net-installer) could offer the compete range of component goodies. Even if you get an archived version without the extra components, you could always just install the XPI for it anyway form the nightly build directories.

#16 fully agree

by niner

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 5:54 AM

Reply to this message

Nightlies are for testing new features and fixes, at least that's what Mozilla people always say. And everywhere you look there is a warning that nightlies may not be as stable as releases, thats what releases are for. I think nightlies could afford many more possible unstable features, they are already much more stable than any other browser at least on my PC so I would not even have a reason to use a release for every day browsing if I were more interested in stability.

Let's test these features and push development further :)

#20 Bring it on!

by CatamountJck

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:13 AM

Reply to this message

I for one do not have the ability to build mozilla and would love all the new features turned on. I agree that even the nightlies are more stable than most other officially released browsers and I get download new nightlies every day - I think it would be of the utmost benefit to the mozilla organization to include all the new features for testing in their nightly builds. Even though my connection is slow, and although I am sure others would not agree, I (for one anyway) would still be willing to make the sacrafice of a little more download time. I say bring it on! :-)

#61 Re: Re: I say turn them on.

by quarkness

Thursday October 11th, 2001 1:50 AM

Reply to this message

I agree, but I'd like them in a zip file... The download and install process is fully automated now... I don't want to install moz manually

#90 Re: Re: Re: I say turn them on.

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 10:56 PM

Reply to this message

You can choose to download a full install. I download the talkbalk ZIP files, and they've been working great. Click on the READ MORE link on the build bar for all of the different builds you can download.

#36 Re: I say turn them on.

by klee

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

I like to have a lot of stuff to try out in the nightlies. Especially I'm looking forward to the DOM Inspector and MathML.

#42 Re: I say turn them on.

by schapel

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:35 PM

Reply to this message

I agree... the nightlies should have all components included by default. Perhaps some should be turned off by default (for example like the Site Navigation Bar is now and like FastLoad was until yesterday), but we should be able to easily turn on all the components in any nightly build.

#2 Good Question

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:09 AM

Reply to this message

Hrm, that is a good question.

I guess it depends on how it effects the build size?

At first it is tempting to say, throw in everything but the kitchen sink, as the more eyeballs testing that code, the better it will get. But if the download is too large, it will discourage more eyeballs from downloading or testing anything at all.

Would it be problematic to create multiple builds, with one 'minimal', and one 'full'?

Is the nightly build mechanism the same one used for Tinderbox? I would think you would want to run as all-encompasing a build as possible through Tinderbox, just to make sure everything builds and smoketests. Could you run a 'minimal' build as a secondary build only after success with the 'full' one?

Hell, can't we just get a Beowulf cluster of build boxen and build for each of the full cartesian product gamut of build options? :-)

#7 Re: Good Question

by rginda

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:44 AM

Reply to this message

I'm probably biased here, I own ChatZilla and Venkman, which are in the default builds, and cview, which is not, so I'll try to stick with facts.

ChatZilla is 101k of js, xul, css, and images. When building, it takes a few seconds to compress this stuff, and slightly more than 101k of your disk. If you're installing via a stub installer, the only overhead is about 7 lines of text in the installer script.

Venkman's story is slightly different. Part of Venkman is actually installed regardless of whether or not you select the "debugger" component in the installer. The part that is installed consists of a 68k binary component, and about 3k of interface data in browser.xpt. This 71k of "bloat" makes it absolutley trivial to install the cross platform front end at a later date. Without installing this, someone has to maintain a seperate install for each build, and each platform, regardless of whether or not the debugger itself has changed. Not only a nightmare for someone trying to distribute both mozilla and venkman, but for the end user trying to figure out which version is the right one. The front end is an additional 120k of js, xul, css, and images, and like ChatZilla, adds just a few lines to the installer script. If you don't want it, don't select it. As far as build overhead goes, Venkman, in total, adds about 30 seconds to a debug build on my P3/850 laptop. Multiple builds is overkill, IMO. I'll bet the build team has better things to do than manage additional build flavors, for each platform, branch and trunk. The installer *already* allows users to configure which components are installed, why add more headache and confusion?

Rob.

#39 Re: Good Question

by Gerv

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:32 PM

Reply to this message

> Is the nightly build mechanism the same one used for Tinderbox?

No. The nightly build machines are separate from the tinderboxes at the moment.

Gerv

#4 Me too...

by dipa

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:11 AM

Reply to this message

...because I think there are many people willing to use embedded debug/performance tools. Making a debug build needs a certain infrastructure that is not always available for home users.

But there might be an issue here, regarding to the bloat that might be induced.Builds might be bloated in a way that we can't monitor improvements on footprint and performance.

#5 All and add-ons!?

by dat94egu

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:19 AM

Reply to this message

Hi

I'm not sore how mozilla-installer/mozilla components works but I would like to see all available components in nightly build but broken up so that I can install just the components that I would like to test out. In the list over components that are possible to install are all the components and some of them are listed as developing that means buggy, incomplete and may crash you browser.

Thie componet list would look some thing like this:

Mozilla Browser Mozilla Mail/News Java-script debugger (developing) DOM-Inspector (developing) :

This way more people (I expect) will try out the latest components to see if they work.

#8 Re: All and add-ons!?

by rginda

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

The installer builds already offer this granularity on all platforms. Try a \"custom\" install.

Rob.

#14 All and add-ons!?

by dat94egu

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 4:10 AM

Reply to this message

Yes on some of the components but not on all the blending edge technologies like javascript debugger and so on. My point is that all this new features should be listed so that users can try them out and find all the nasty bugs...

BTW I always use custom install.

#66 me too

by cyfer

Thursday October 11th, 2001 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

yes, that will be better.

#81 Re: All and add-ons!?

by cobar

Thursday October 11th, 2001 5:16 PM

Reply to this message

I'd guess that as time goes on, you'll be able to disable the new stuff. The committers have enough to worry about without expecting them to componentize everything immediately. Plus I would be suprised if changes to the installer are done by an individual rather than the owner of the individual components.

When it's first being added to the tree, I think I support it being turned on in all builds, just so that a little more testing can be added to make sure tha t component doesn't screw anything else up.

#6 Turn it all on....

by whiprush <jorge@whiprush.org>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:44 AM

Reply to this message

I say turn it on for nightly's, and selectively choose what will be available for milestones, depending on the stability of said component.

That being said, I'm totally hooked on optimoz - throw it in an turn it on!!!

#9 All of the main components, at least

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 2:05 AM

Reply to this message

I'd really prefer it if everything was turned on. But at the very least, the other main components in the suite (mailnews, composer, and I'd say chatzilla too) should be included, because they tend to need more testing than the browser.

Unlike with milestones, the bugginess of a feature should be a reason *for* inclusion in nightlies.

#10 depends on what build you are talking about

by jilles

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 2:17 AM

Reply to this message

The nightly builds are for early adopters, developers and testers. I'd say they want easy access to everything related to Mozilla. However, milestones are for regular users and they will only be annoyed by large downloads of stuff they will mostly never touch. So I suggest to make developer stuff like debuggers, test urls and so on optional in the milestones. And as discussed earlier, a build with all the developer stuff removed might as well be presented as Mozilla 1.0 so that we can all move on with our lives. I've felt Mozilla is close to a release for nearly two years now, somebody please stop the madness.

#86 Re: depends on what build you are talking about

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 9:12 PM

Reply to this message

Milestone builds are for developers and testers too. Mozilla doesn't make binaries for "regular users". We can't stop those users downloading Mozilla but we're not going to cater the builds to suit their needs.

--Asa

#11 Only if...

by odd <odd@findus.dhs.org>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 2:28 AM

Reply to this message

My opinion is that they should only be disabled if it would give a considerable increase in speed -- which I doubt it does! But if that's the case, nightlies should only include the browser. I don't think the download size is important at all, since 10MB is nothing.

#12 Add ons is better for users on slow link...

by PeS

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 2:34 AM

Reply to this message

I think, it's better to have chance to download browser as one main package and other as optional add ons. I can test nightly builds, but I'm limited by the link speed, so if it grows, I can't be downloading it often.

#67 Re: Add ons is better for users on slow link...

by cyfer

Thursday October 11th, 2001 10:46 AM

Reply to this message

great. I have no high speed internet connection and I can not afford it. So, file size is a thing. And if there will be two installer package, one for the main package which is confined to about 10M and the other for the addons, it could be beeter.

#87 Re: Add ons is better for users on slow link...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 9:15 PM

Reply to this message

Use the stub installer. It's only 209k on win32, 91K on Linux and 248k on Mac. From this installer you can select a Browser only install and save all that additional downloading.

--Asa

#13 Additional options in sea

by illsleydc <illsleydc@bigfoot.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 3:12 AM

Reply to this message

OK, the general concensus seems to be that some people want everything and some don't.

My humble suggestion is that the sea builds include in them things: which it has been proven that people want/that mozilla.org think are good for people

For other things, these should be available in the sea installer in the custom option as downloadable items like what happens with the net installer.

So, In conclusion, everything should be built, but not everything should be a part of the default download and the sea installer should be able to download and install the non-sea modules.

Hmmm, did any of that make any sense?

#69 Re: Additional options in sea

by dman84

Thursday October 11th, 2001 11:20 AM

Reply to this message

love the idea of the custom installer being able to download what you want to choose to add. The installer should have browser only; custom, and add everything to full;

just change custom to be able to install just those things people wanna install seperately the browser, mail/news or chatzilla, etc. That is the way to solve the download issue.

The only thing is the builds have to be broken apart so they have behave like seperate components.

#88 Re: Re: Additional options in sea

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 9:17 PM

Reply to this message

We have this. These are tiny installers that will let you select only the components you want.

Mac <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…cMozillaInstaller.sea.bin> Linux <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…inux-gnu-installer.tar.gz> Windows <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…zilla-win32-installer.exe>

--Asa

#15 Bring it on !!!

by don

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 5:47 AM

Reply to this message

If you can make an xpi out of the stuff nobody should be offended. They can always go the installer way and choose which components to include in their download. I've been using nightlies for a year now and I have never even heard of the DOM Inspector. I would like to try it out, go ahead, include every bit of code there is available, you can always turn stuff off for the milestones and the branch builds.

#17 Jabberzilla

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 6:46 AM

Reply to this message

A few months ago, I had hope of getting my Jabberzilla instant-messenger into Mozilla 1.0. I talked to some Moz people at the O'Reilly Conference (including Mitchell) with no answer or even a point in the right direction. I filed a bug to get CVS access with no response.

So anyway, I have given up on the idea. Development of the client has slowed, and life goes on...

#29 Re: Jabberzilla

by dave532

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:48 AM

Reply to this message

I'd like to see Jabberzilla in Mozilla however the biggest complaint I have is it doesn't look like a Mozilla application, whereas the AIM in Netscape 6.x does.

Jabberzilla adopts its own skin, however it should use the skin selected by the user for the entire suite rather than make its own. Also if the users skin doesn't have jabberzilla it should goto a sane default (e.g. classic).

What would be really great if NS AIM and Jabberzilla were similar enough that skins for the AIM component of Netscape 6.x will also work in Jabberzilla, this would make the theme developers life easier.

#31 Skin

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:00 AM

Reply to this message

I got rid of that separate skin a long time ago. Now it look like a regular Moz app, as you suggest.

BTW, I have pretty much handed control of the project to two other guys, because I don't have much time anymore to work on it :-(

#45 Re: Skin

by dave532

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:18 PM

Reply to this message

I've not looked at it for a while. I've not had the time to follow the Jabber project recently and most people on my list used ICQ and I was keep having problems with the ICQ transport, so I thought I'd just go back to using an unofficial ICQ client until I had more time to follow jabber again.

#40 Re: Jabberzilla

by Gerv

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

> A few months ago, I had hope of getting my Jabberzilla instant-messenger into Mozilla 1.0. > I talked to some Moz people at the O'Reilly Conference (including Mitchell) with no answer

You mean you stood there and they ignored you? :-)

Seriously, I think it would be great to get Jabberzilla in the Mozilla source tree. Mail me and we'll discuss it.

Gerv

#52 Thank GOD!

by jedbro

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

Gerv! Thank you so much for wanting to include Jabberzilla in mozilla's source tree.... If Eric hasn't e-mailed you about Jaberzilla yet, please e-mail him (I think ericmurphy @ jabber.org).

I think JabberZilla is a VERY importante part of MOzilla, and it's future, and find it sad that it's making has slowed down!!!

Cheers! --Jedbro

#18 nsIDTD

by puppet <puppet76@terra.es>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 6:50 AM

Reply to this message

Hi...

I am working in a XML generation from browser to a server using a DTD. How can I access nsIDTD interface or something like this?

#19 MathML

by dave532

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 6:59 AM

Reply to this message

I'd like to see MathML in the nightly builds even though for it to work properly you need the correct fonts and I believe that an agreement to distribute these hasn't been released yet some people will have the fonts already, but may not want to build their own nightlies.

I'd definitely like to see the document inspector shipped too.

There may be a case for doing a browser only zip/.tar.gz for those who don't like installers but want a minimal build.

One thing that should be done is to improve the links on the Mozilla.org website, these only link to the zipped builds, there should either be a link to a page like the one used by the milestones to show all the different download available, then more people may get to know about the installer builds.

[OT] Also we need the link element on Mozilla.org ;) - that's just a consideration for the new site tho.

#44 Re: MathML -- Please vote if you agree

by afranke

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:40 PM

Reply to this message

I'm looking forward to seeing MathML enabled by default in the nightlies, too. If you agree, please vote on bug 15391:

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15391>

(but no "me too" comments, please)

#21 What about composer?

by CatamountJck

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:34 AM

Reply to this message

Is composer so tightly integrated in browser that it can\\\'t be removed? To me, it seems like a good deal of bloat for those who do not use it and this has always baffled me as to why it is automatically included. For me it is my most UNused feature of the suite and although I tend to download nightly builds regardless of bloat, I would love it if this component were optional. Does anybody know how much baggage it adds to the package?

#41 Re: What about composer?

by Gerv

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:35 PM

Reply to this message

> Is composer so tightly integrated in browser that it can\'t be removed?

The editor widget is used in both the browser and mail. The front end is basically some XUL, JS and CSS - it could be removed, but it wouldn't make much difference. And it needs testing too - more than other stuff :-)

Gerv

#47 Re: What about composer?

by ap1978

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 2:41 PM

Reply to this message

I agree!

#22 What about composer?

by CatamountJck

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

Is composer so tightly integrated in browser that it can\\\'t be removed? To me, it seems like a good deal of bloat for those who do not use it and this has always baffled me as to why it is automatically included. For me it is my most UNused feature of the suite and although I tend to download nightly builds regardless of bloat, I would love it if this component were optional. Does anybody know how much baggage it adds to the package?

#24 Re: What about composer?

by SmileyBen

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:02 AM

Reply to this message

Composer adds very little bloat. Basically, forms are composer elements, so all you would be removing if you got rid of composer would be the front end - though obviously for simplicity's sake perhaps being able to disable that would be good...

#25 XPIs?

by SmileyBen

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:05 AM

Reply to this message

As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) - the only way to get mail / news added in to a build is to reinstall the lot, including the browser, which seems rather bizarre to me - surely we should have XPIs for any component that can be dropped in. Obvious an API freeze might be necessary before this is possible, but I'm certainly all in favour of being able to just install the browser, and add any bits you want later on.

#33 Re: XPIs?

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

You can add mail/news with an .XPI install from the XPI directory for the nightly you downloaded. <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…0-10-05-0.9.4/windows-xpi> for example (assuming you have the 2000-10-10-05 nightly for windows) offers you the mail.xpi which you simply click on and it offers to install it for you.

#32 There is a bug filed to take it out

by vondo

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:02 AM

Reply to this message

See bug #29838

No real action there. It's not important to me from a bloat standpoint, but the less options I have in the tasks menu or on the task bar, the better.

#34 Re: There is a bug filed to take it out

by tny

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:18 AM

Reply to this message

Hmm, and some of us would like to see the composer MORE tightly integrated into the browser, like with Amaya or AOLPress. Imagine allowing one to change state on any given tab from browser to editor, bringing up new toolbars and menus with editor functions added to the browser functions, and opening yet another tab with an editable source view (with syntax highlighting).

THAT would be my ideal browser.

#37 I think part of Composer is used by Mail&News (n/t

by dipa

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#23 Everything

by Lynggaard <Lynggaard@netscape.net>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:55 AM

Reply to this message

SImple as that

#26 OFFTOPIC - Users' XPIs

by prokosch

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:09 AM

Reply to this message

I am sorry for posting this here, but it could fit into the topic: as I now have a reasonable connection at school, I get a Windows nightly almost daily. But the bad thing is, that all the additional goodies are packed into the mozilla directory, not into the user profile! So I have to (if I want to have a rather clean _install_ of mozilla) remove the mozilla directory, then install the nightly and _re-download_ all of the goodies - these are OptiMoz and sometimes the Toy Factory Theme. This is also really bad on Linux, as I must start Mozilla as root to install anything XPI-like!! Can someone give me a few hints on how to avoid this? Are there any bugs filled for this problem? Thank you.

#28 Re: OFFTOPIC - Users' XPIs

by sconest

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:14 AM

Reply to this message

Don't erase the previous version. I only do it when I hav a problem that other can't reproduce.

As for linux, install Mozilla in you own home directory.

#50 Re: Re: OFFTOPIC - Users' XPIs

by prokosch

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 4:30 PM

Reply to this message

> As for linux, install Mozilla in you own home directory.

I use Debian`s packages - these put Mozilla into /usr/lib/. And BTW, think of all the multi-user environments (I mean, real _multi-user_, not like my Linux, where I am the only user of 10 accounts :))) - every user would really appreciate installing his own goodies, not just ones his admin wishes he'd have :))

#43 Re: OFFTOPIC - Users' XPIs

by Gerv

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

> _re-download_

No, you don't. Do Save As... on the XPIs and save them locally.

> I must start Mozilla as root to install anything XPI-like!!

Only if you originally installed Mozilla as root, or you install Mozilla somewhere your user doesn't have access. I keep all my builds in ~/mozilla and have no problems installing XPIs.

Gerv

#51 Re: Re: OFFTOPIC - Users' XPIs

by prokosch

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 4:34 PM

Reply to this message

> No, you don't. Do Save As... on the XPIs and save them locally.

Ok, but I still need to _re-install_ them, right? That's also time-consuming (not that much, but daily is it a big chunk).

> Only if you originally installed Mozilla as root, or you install Mozilla somewhere your user doesn't have access.

Like I've said - I use Debianized packages. The question is actually the usefullness of Mozilla in a working environment (I know it's not an end-user-product, I wish it were - Netscape is too commercialized :))) where user really have an _own_ _profile_.

#27 Developer software

by jturner

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:14 AM

Reply to this message

I think Moz/Netscape is quickly becoming a web developers browser of choice, as opposed to the consumer oriented MSIE. As a browser in use by developers, i think it appropriate to include developer tools like the javascript debugger and the DOM browser. Anything geared toward making our life easier should be thrown into the nightlies for us to review.

#30 Developers vs End Users

by WillyWonka

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

The nightlies is where the "stable" experimenting should take place. Try out new interfaces and tools on a larger audience. It, and the milestones, should be examples of what Beonix and Netscape have available for their builds. If they don't want something, they can remove it. But it's a good way of showing what it can do.

People downloading the nightlies should know enough about it to know how to remove the packages already. There is already stub installer available for people in europe who have to pay by the minute. I do think that more of the tools should be listed under the custom portion of the installer though.

As for the interface, I'm starting to think that its leaning towards developers, which is fine because I am one, but I know a lot of people out there are not, and they outnumber me... so there should be an option to change the interface based on if you are a developer or if you are an end user.

An end user doesn't want a javascript debugger, hell if there is a javascript error, they probably don't even want to know what it is with any detail, they just want to know it's there. If a page doesn't display properly all an end user wants to know, is if they messed up something on their side or if it's on the server side.

The Link^H^H^H^HSite Navagation Toolbar, I feel, helps out both users and developers. It's interface still needs a little cleaning, but it will get there. (I'm biased though, my icons made it into the classic version of the link toolbar) The tabs I think help out the advanced end user. People who don't know a lot about computers have a hard time understanding "layers". Windows "dissapear" on them and stuff. Take a look at word, there is probably a reason that they disabled MDI windows from their newer versions. And there is probably a reason you don't see mdi windows on the mac.

And that is all I have to say about that ;)

#38 Re: Developers vs End Users

by niner

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

>As for the interface, I'm starting to think that its leaning towards developers, which is fine because I am one, but I know a lot of people out there are not, and they outnumber me... so there should be an option to change the interface based on if you are a developer or if you are an end user.

Wouldn't the traditional Mozilla answer be that Mozilla does privide binaries only for testing purposes and it's customers like Netscape are for the end user.

Although I can understand this, my only problem is that Netscape releases it's browsers only twice a year or so, with a really outdated 6.1 as it's currently newest available version, so Mozilla works better in many points and that's what every end user wants. On the other hand it's much effort every time to build a new Netscape Version and since many of the Mozilla developers work for Netscape this is propably taking time which would otherwise be used to improve Mozilla even further so it's a nice dilemma...

But I consider myself as an developer and I like Mozilla like it is :)

#35 DOM-Inspector vs DOMViewer

by mielke

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

I have no clue why we have that non functional domviewer included and there is even a need to discuss the shipping of the working dom-inspector

#93 Re: DOM-Inspector vs DOMViewer

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday October 12th, 2001 1:18 AM

Reply to this message

"I have no clue why we have that non functional domviewer included"

Bugzilla is full of clues. You can find the relevant one here <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92892>

--Asa

#46 Mozilla - the developer's browser.

by jelwell

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

I think the biggest win would be to include all the extensions that work relatively well, make them optional in the install. And perhaps still offer a bare bones installer that only offers the minimal components. Getting visibility for some of the underused extensions, might allow third party vendors to see and use applications they did not know about. Then we could end up with more third party vendors who are excited about our application suite, and we might just find some new vendors.

Joseph Elwell.

#48 Java?

by smudge

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 3:27 PM

Reply to this message

Is Java included in the builds? I haven't found a setting to turn it on?

#79 Re: Java bugs

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

Here's a list of "important" Java bugs in Bugzilla: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…mp;order=%27Importance%27>

#94 Java isn't open source

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday October 12th, 2001 1:24 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is licensed under combinations of the MPL, NPL, GPL and LGPL (with a couple of other compatible licenses thrown in for fun). Java is not available as free software so it cannot be included in Mozilla builds. The same is true for flash, Real, and other plugins. You can get them from the plugin vendors and install them with Mozilla if you want that functionality.

--Asa

#49 Java?

by smudge

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

Is Java included in the builds? I haven't found a setting to turn it on?

#62 Re: Java?

by dovik <egg@moncourrier.com>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

Java isn't included in the builds. To enable it under Window, take the NPOJI600.dll file from JRE(JavaRuntimeEnvironment)/lib and place it in your Mozilla Plugins directory then Enable Java in your Mozilla Advanced Preferences and restart your browser.

#53 Plug-ins?

by flacco

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

I'd like the option to install plug-ins at the time of install - with an install procedure that works.

#98 Re: Plug-ins?

by schapel

Friday October 12th, 2001 8:13 AM

Reply to this message

It sounds like you're having trouble with plug-ins. Here's the "important" bugs on plug-ins from Bugzilla: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

If you can't find a problem you're having, be sure to report it. If you have additional information that could help fix the problem, be sure to share it.

#54 What I Think

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:05 PM

Reply to this message

I'd like to see it handle onmouseover and onmouseout again. I think the Chatzilla thing should not be included by default.

#70 Re: What I Think

by stfh

Thursday October 11th, 2001 12:45 PM

Reply to this message

> I'd like to see it handle onmouseover and onmouseout again.

Pardon?

Are you having problems with event handling?

#74 Re: Re: What I Think

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

Yes. I think bugs #24974 and #103558 refer to the problems I experienced.

#73 onmouseover and onmouseout

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

Here's a list of Bugzilla bugs for onmouseover and onmouseout: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

#75 Re: What I Think

by WillyWonka

Thursday October 11th, 2001 2:53 PM

Reply to this message

Am I the only one who uses Chatzilla all day long?

#78 No. (n/t)

by klee

Thursday October 11th, 2001 4:08 PM

Reply to this message

(n/t)

#95 No

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday October 12th, 2001 1:26 AM

Reply to this message

Plenty of people use Chatzilla. I see more IRCMonkey joins in #mozillazine and #mozilla than I can count.

--Asa

#55 I wish

by loki77

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:41 PM

Reply to this message

that Moz would see my system prefs for what is used for what. I am in Mac OS X and have Moz set for browsing and Mail for emailing. Unfortunately, I must select 'copy email address' whenever I click on an email link. I don't care if it is there or not, as long as it could realize there are other email apps, via the system prefs or a pulldown menu in Moz's prefs. This could be like the search engine prefs, but it would be 'use (whatever) for email...'

#58 Re: Alternate Mailer

by afranke

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:31 PM

Reply to this message

#60 Re: I wish

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 10:46 PM

Reply to this message

I think Mozilla should use the Windows internet settings too. It should also be an option in the Programs tab of the Internet Properties. Somebody might actually want to choose Mozilla as the default HTML editor or e-mail program that way.

#63 Re: Re: I wish

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 2:29 AM

Reply to this message

"It should also be an option in the Programs tab of the Internet Properties. Somebody might actually want to choose Mozilla as the default HTML editor or e-mail program that way."

Once Mozilla gets MAPI support, it will be listed in the list of possible default email programs.

Alex

#72 MAPI

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 1:24 PM

Reply to this message

Here's a list of MAPI bugs in Bugzilla: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

#56 More, more, more!

by blockcipher

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 7:53 PM

Reply to this message

I fully agree with everyone who wants says that Mozilla is the developers browser. I was very excited with the inclusion of the JavaScript debugger, which I didn't even know existed! Shows you how much I cruise the mozilla web site :-)

Anyway, I like the inclusion of tools in the browser to assist in debugging a web page. This would help ensure that we are properly designing our web pages. Now, one could argue that an editor could perform the same function, but what if you're working with a language such as PHP or Cold Fusion? These are server side technologies, thus the actual page presented in the browser may not be what you think it should be. With the debugger, I can now better debug my applications because it will show me where the error occurs in the JavaScript instead of getting a line number and having to find it in a Cold Fusion page where the line numbers probably won't match.

Also, any functionality that directly relates to a standard, such as the links bar, should be included by default. This also includes MathML and SVG. I personally have been wanting to delve into using both technologies, however I currently have to ensure that user's have the appropriate plugins. Since these are web standards, I would like to see them as supported natively in browsers.

As a final note, I love the tabs!!!!

#57 include dev tools

by tvinci

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 8:08 PM

Reply to this message

Any development tools I fully welcome and would make my job a lot easier. I would love to see an option css files for the page like the js files in the javascript debugger or something that shows bugs in the HTML like the javascript tool (I\\\'m not sure if the DOM viewer would do this or not).

#65 Re: include dev tools

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 10:09 AM

Reply to this message

> I would love to see an option ... that shows bugs in the HTML

You can vote for: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47108>

Remember to use Bugzilla to report and vote for your favorite bugs and feature requests!!!

#96 Re: include dev tools

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday October 12th, 2001 1:32 AM

Reply to this message

The Document Inspector (maybe it's called the DOM Inspector now) replaced the old DOM viewer. The new tool is considerably more sophisticated and can be used to debug both web pages and XUL (and more). Much of the code for this tool has not been reviewed and that is why it is not a part of the default builds yet. As soon as folks have time to do some code review this should make it into the builds.

--Asa

#59 Components

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday October 10th, 2001 9:13 PM

Reply to this message

It is my believe that all the components should be included. There is already seperate xpi for each component in the net install builds on the ftp site. I think that these xpis should be downloadable manually as not everyone likes the net-installer. If they are already downloadable manually (and installable after that), instructions should be given.

The other thing is that many of the "backend" components for these "addons" are not in these xpis but in the main download. Shouldn't it be possible to put those in the xpis as well? I'm not sure why the "backend" stuff is not seperate, but I believe with some work it should be possible.

#64 Mail notification

by dave532

Thursday October 11th, 2001 7:10 AM

Reply to this message

Just noticed on the latest nightly - The new mail notification on Windows now doesn't use the system beep by default but uses the sound you set in the control panel for "New Mail Notification". This is great, I know know when I've got mail, rather than having to wonder if it's one of 4 apps that regularly use the system beep.

#68 why not generate more nightly builds?

by cyfer

Thursday October 11th, 2001 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

hello every one! do you think generate more nightly builds, that, but for the standard ones we could get from here every day, compile more those contain the additional packages, is a good idea?

#71 my aqua is gone

by mapopa

Thursday October 11th, 2001 1:04 PM

Reply to this message

i had the aqua theme in the previous build now the mozila tell me that the theme is too old and if i want to erase it ... pls help i want my aqua ,littlezilla back

#76 Re: my aqua is gone

by strauss

Thursday October 11th, 2001 3:31 PM

Reply to this message

The Aqua theme was a violation of Apple design patents and has been terminated.

#82 Re: Re: my aqua is gone

by cobar

Thursday October 11th, 2001 5:24 PM

Reply to this message

He received permission from Apple to continue a few days later. AFAIK, the current situation is that he can develop the Mozilla theme but not the other ones (gtk, enlightenment, etc.) since there is no native skin for Moz.

#84 Re: Re: Re: my aqua is gone

by strauss

Thursday October 11th, 2001 5:44 PM

Reply to this message

According to /.'s coverage, the resolution was that Mozilla needed to use native Mac OS X widgets if it wanted to have the OS X appearance. A theme was not acceptable because it would provide the Apple appearance on non-Apple platforms, which damages the value of their intellectual property.

#92 Re: my aqua is gone

by mariuz

Friday October 12th, 2001 12:53 AM

Reply to this message

still somebody can halp me with the old themes to work with current builds

#97 Re: my aqua is gone

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday October 12th, 2001 1:38 AM

Reply to this message

The posts made above by strauss and others have nothing to do with your problem or your request for help. Mozilla has versioning for its themes. This is so that when we make extensive changes to XUL which would affect the functioning of the theme we don't end up with a broken app. If you want to continue to use the Aqua theme you will have to use it in the Mozilla release for which it was created. I'm not sure which release that is but going back to whatever build you had it installed on is probably the only way to get it to work (unless you're willing to hack the theme to update the version but be warned that it might make your browser completely unusable).

--Asa

#99 Re: Re: my aqua is gone

by strauss

Friday October 12th, 2001 11:18 AM

Reply to this message

>> The posts made above by strauss and others have nothing to do with your problem or your request for help. <<

Yes, mine did.

>> If you want to continue to use the Aqua theme you will have to use it in the Mozilla release for which it was created. <<

Exactly. It's not being maintained for current versions because of the violation of Apple intellectual property.

#77 slimmed down option

by archen

Thursday October 11th, 2001 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

Personally I would like a slimmed down option, for people like me who tend to be on the lower end of things (300Mhz Intel). Overall I don't think it matters. As of right now I have a hard enough time using Mozilla. Viewing pages in Japanese runs my system out of memory usually within 10 to 15 minutes (and in my opinion 128 Megs of RAM should be sufficient for ANY program, I don't see any excuse)

#80 Re: slimmed down option

by schapel

Thursday October 11th, 2001 4:36 PM

Reply to this message

My wife uses a recent nightly build of Mozilla on our Windows 98 laptop with Celeron/366 and 64 MB of RAM to view pages in Korean. Quick Launch is enabled so that Mozilla runs for days at a time. If your system runs out of memory in 10 to 15 minutes, I'd report that as a bug in Bugzilla.

#101 Re: slimmed down option

by bzbarsky

Friday October 12th, 2001 10:44 PM

Reply to this message

I have to ask. Is this on Linux? If so, then 128M is decidedly not enough for 2-byte (read Kanji in this case) fonts at large sizes.

#83 Nightlys are for testing - so include everything

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 5:43 PM

Reply to this message

You can get the nightlys by net-installer if you only want the pieces.

I download a talkback zip every few days. I want the *lot*.

If you get nightlys, you're up for testing ...

Even though the current nightlys are so far beyond 0.9.4 that I'm close to recommending to people to get nightlys rather than milestones. These may be betas, but they're damned solid. (Even if Mozilla is still unbelievably fat in the arse, it's a fairly *stable* arse ...)

Perhaps the 'Are you sure you want to do this crazy thing?!' dialogue box when you go to download a nightly should be brought back ;-)

#85 Testing Tools

by wcrossman <wesley_crossman@yahoo.com>

Thursday October 11th, 2001 6:36 PM

Reply to this message

Could we get rid of the testing tools (such as testlibxpnet.exe) on the Windows build in the zip build files. Conservatively, they take half a megabyte. I have a modem, and it almost takes an hour to download each build. I would like to lean it up a bit. Could we get rid of those tools? Are they necessary in this stage of development?

#91 OFF TOPIC: Nice bug fix

by dipa

Friday October 12th, 2001 12:45 AM

Reply to this message

At last, url bar taking focus after using a bookmark has been fixed! (see <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62765> ) This alone could be a strong reason for using current nightlies over the upcoming 0.9.5 milestone.

#100 positive netscape 6.1 review

by strauss

Friday October 12th, 2001 2:25 PM

Reply to this message

#102 MOZILLATOR

by Lancer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 10:26 AM

Reply to this message

1.- It is that what we will have after intall and intall *.xpi files!, i ve just installed some demo of a Calculator... .I do not know how to uninstal it,

2.- Is the instant messenger window a I.M. only or is the Sidebar?

3.- i think that u have to start to work in a Mozilla OS, or somethig like it... ...i have a lot of good ideas about it.

<Lancer@tie.cl>

#105 Re: MOZILLATOR

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Saturday October 13th, 2001 9:31 PM

Reply to this message

A Mozilla *OS*?! Good lord man, why? Even MozOffice makes a certain amount of sense, but an OS?

#106 Re: Re: MOZILLATOR

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday October 14th, 2001 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

That would be a good way to justify the startup time. It would also be a good excuse for preloading Mozilla. That may also end all of the arguments about which platform gets the most attention. I think it would have to be POSIX-compliant to get all of the open source people to shut up. A rift may develop between the Linux users and the Mozilla users over which god they should worship. I would type much more if I thought there was a chance this would happen.

I think a Mozilla "office suite" would be pointless because nobody is going to wait 30 seconds for a word processor, database or spreadsheet to load. Also, there would be an argument about Microsoft preloading parts of Microsoft Office to make it seem faster than Mozilla. Mozilla flunkies would refuse to support Office documents even though everybody else uses them. That would result in a "standards body" producing "standards" for word processor files that nobody will ever use. In the event that any of the "standards" become widely accepted, the "standards body" will immediately give its members the right to charge royalties for everything they offered for free as part of a massive "bait-and-switch" campaign.

#107 re:re:re: Mozilla Desktop

by Lancer

Sunday October 14th, 2001 9:59 PM

Reply to this message

I was thinking about a little OS, a "Light Desktop" that works over the DOS ...with the menu in the up side of the screen, a Desk.

I think that s gonna mean, for the PC users, the "Light Alternative". WINDOWS START TO SUCKS! IT HAS TOO MANY THINGS, it is turning showy, ostentatious, is too big for an office or home user, who just want to make the homework.

#108 Re: re:re:re: Mozilla Desktop

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Monday October 15th, 2001 2:23 AM

Reply to this message

Okay, that's not an OS. It's a desktop environment. There's a big difference. An OS includes a kernel of some kind that handles low-level system IO, memory management, device drivers etc.

Mozilla may eventually grow to be usable as a desktop substitute--lord knows emacs already has--but probably through the use of third-party components (like Mozdev projects).

#103 Lancer

by Lancer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 1:15 PM

Reply to this message

*install

2.- *...window "is" a I.M...

#104 Lancer

by Lancer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 3:51 PM

Reply to this message

askdf naksdgjh kj asdg jk

Demons!

#109 Debugging Tools Please

by jmarranz <jmarranz@eresmas.com>

Monday October 15th, 2001 9:19 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla and Netscape 6.x lack today of good debugging utilities (JavaScript console is very poor): - JavaScript Debugger - DOM Inspector etc. - XML/XHTML/HTML debugging parsers (it would help to code W3C compliant pages and clean the web) - Tools to help develop and debugging of XPCOM and Plug-ins

Chat is not very important, but it would be usefull to the end user.