MozillaZine

Mozilla 0.9.5 Released

Friday October 12th, 2001

mozilla.org today released Mozilla milestone 0.9.5. This release contains both the famed tab browser and the new links toolbar along with the new JavaScript debugger, Venkman. Along with those new features, 0.9.5 also now has reorderable columns in mail and history, and updates to the view source window and the JavaScript console.

You can grab a build from the releases page or right from the FTP server, and check out the release notes for more info on what's new.

#1 great!

by cyfer

Friday October 12th, 2001 6:20 PM

great! i love javascript debugger!

#2 Excellent -- Two Questions

by Mike_Cornall

Friday October 12th, 2001 11:41 PM

Excellent work, and congratulations to the Mozilla developers. I have been enjoying Mozilla 0.9.1 since June. It has great features, and has proven to be very stable. It is already in better shape than the 1.0, or even the 2.0, releases of some other major Linux software suites.

I have two questions that I am hoping someone might be able to answer.

The first question involves fonts. My fonts look perfect in Mozilla 0.9.1, yet, on some sites (e.g. news.cnet.com), the fonts don't look right in later Mozilla releases (e.g. 0.9.4 or 0.9.5). I can't see any difference in the configuration, and changing the font resolution in the Mozilla preferences does not seem to fix the problem. Therefore, my first question is this:

1) Did anything change in the font handling, after Mozilla 0.9.1, and, if so, what do I need to do to make my fonts look as good in Mozilla 0.9.5 as they do in Mozilla 0.9.1?

My second question involves Netscape 6.1. For various reasons, I would like to be able to run Mozilla 0.9.x, and Netscape 6.1, at the same time, on Linux, under the same user (as I currently do with Netscape 4.7x and Mozilla 0.9.x). My question is this:

2) How do I configure either Mozilla 0.9.x, or Netscape 6.1, on Linux, to use a different directory than ~/.mozilla?

#5 Re: Excellent -- Two Questions

by rginda

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:54 AM

I fixed my font problems by adjusting the DPI in Prefs->Apperance->Fonts.

#16 Re: Excellent -- Two Questions

by Gerv

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:51 AM

rbs did rewrite the fonts system in this milestone. If you are having problems, please file bugs, giving as much detail as possible.

Gerv

#43 Re: Excellent -- Two Questions

by filsed

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:17 PM

Hi there, I have had the same problem with fonts on some pages like pricewatch.com since mozilla 0.9.4, but when I specified the resolution of 96 dpi in fonts preferences everything is OK. Otherwise 0.9.5 is very usable and stable and even my previous problem with loging to Bank of America is fixed.

#52 Yes, that worked for me too

by Ripat

Sunday October 14th, 2001 1:50 AM

Setting the resolution to 96dpi solved the problem for me too.

#3 Release goals?

by cyd

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:34 AM

I don't follow Mozilla development closely. Can someone tell me what the primary goal of this release was? Is it a performance release? Stability? Usability? Features?

Thanks.

#4 Re: Release goals?

by cyfer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:41 AM

i suppose it is for new feature. The link tool bar is pretty good. And it is really helpful. And the javascript debuger is great too.

#26 how about the mozillaquest

by cyfer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 2:08 PM

So, there are some information at mozillaquest.com aobut the bugs in mozilla, they said there were more and more bugs in mozilla, thouth I feel mozilla is stabler and stabler. how do you think about that?

#31 that's sorta right...

by gob

Saturday October 13th, 2001 3:57 PM

There are more bugs now because you have more people using the browser and finding bugs, and not all bugs are necessarily "bad". As you said it's more stabler every release, Mozillaquest seems to only point out what is wrong with Mozilla then whats good. Take a look at what has been fixed so far and what additions have been made. Overall Mozilla is in pretty good shape, basically don't listen to Mozillaquest... :) There is a good graph showing the number of bugs versus the number of bugs fixed that gives you an idea on how much progress the project has made... I think Asa posted a link to it a while ago, I will see if I can find it again.

#33 bug chart

by gob

Saturday October 13th, 2001 4:13 PM

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi <- Just choose output as "chart" and select the bug types you want to view

#34 great chart!

by cyfer

Saturday October 13th, 2001 5:03 PM

great chart! I use mozilla from the late 1999, and now it has been two years. I really know what progress we have made. And I believe we could make it.

#54 graph

by johnlar

Sunday October 14th, 2001 2:18 AM

so? whats up with the jump in resolved around july 2000. I figure its a error or something weird in the database. But interesting vertical. :)

#130 jumps

by niner

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 11:15 AM

those jumps usually show that something has changed in Bugzilla, like introducing a new State (like unconfirmed or verified). That just shows how Bugzilla evolves :)

#9 Re: Release goals?

by ipottinger

Saturday October 13th, 2001 2:08 AM

My understanding is that milestones are release according to a schedule and they are meant to be only "let's-see-where-we-stand" checkpoints.

It is true that particular attention has been paid to one aspect or another between checkpoints and the resulting milestones labeled "performance releases" or "stability releases." However, all that is required to trigger a milestone release is the passage of a certain amount of time.

In other words, this is a "just-because-it-is-October-12" milestone release.

#10 Re: Release goals?

by asa

Saturday October 13th, 2001 2:35 AM

The primary goal of this and every Milestone is to fix lots of bugs http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bugidtype=include&order=Importance&bug_id=,1582,2888,4920,6061,6171,7717,8647,9656,10434,10523,10816,11756,12189,12591,16029,18289,18313,20158,20394,20847,22022,22091,22458,22526,22899,22924,23569,24337,24432,24847,26199,27478,28709,29033,29063,30530,30597,30731,30910,30971,31159,31770,32313,32536,32704,32923,33014,33313,33498,33723,34145,34804,34809,35293,35324,35613,36031,36196,36293,36510,36969,37410,37470,37592,39389,40075,40194,41549,41765,42313,42337,42640,42758,42898,43306,43315,43729,44340,44947,44951,45073,45678,45737,45797,46055,46268,46833,46925,47056,47353,47551,47821,48053,48290,49006,49228,49776,49786,49874,50133,50292,50529,50531,51265,51353,51844,52460,52885,52902,52912,53135,53157,53349,53463,53549,53665,53707,54546,54741,55086,55103,55264,55291,55376,55418,55676,55916,56089,56109,56410,56696,57007,57123,57172,57337,57350,57376,57382,57443,57490,57537,57674,57679,57732,57763,57902,58104,58117,58228,58384,58413,58436,58559,58567,58571,58753,58763,58792,59016,59035,59208,59211,59449,60124,60248,60511,60658,61173,61316,61328,61901,62250,62437,62613,63032,63048,63239,63728,63760,63870,64052,65302,65486,65678,65722,65852,65858,65892,66206,66535,66543,66579,66819,66840,66866,66988,67196,67409,67763,67836,67947,67975,68009,68168,68203,68488,68651,68916,68919,68950,68998,69002,69167,69616,69623,70223,70252,70378,70428,70549,70587,70647,70750,70760,70770,70785,70803,71171,71377,71401,71498,71517,71565,71664,71718,72009,72152,72203,72455,72583,72724,72878,73049,73235,73548,73750,73778,73847,73959,74574,74703,74759,74870,74938,74966,74982,75005,75046,75125,75288,75372,75434,75510,75572,75607,75615,75741,75978,76133,76140,76426,76684,77050,77061,77135,77207,77329,77354,77603,77647,77736,77788,77873,77909,78021,78068,78083,78148,78199,78239,78311,78474,78480,78622,78641,78663,78857,78939,79063,79199,79245,79356,79416,79515,79613,79668,79798,79842,79935,79965,80051,80120,80167,80239,80244,80245,80494,80789,80931,81132,81304,81360,81398,81415,81599,81664,81679,81690,81847,81928,81956,82088,82104,82120,82401,82412,82517,82625,82873,83084,83125,83141,83161,83228,83526,83529,83566,83570,83639,83679,83683,83741,83805,83881,84017,84181,84239,84240,84260,84365,84398,84506,84562,84645,84896,85016,85046,85054,85217,85298,85327,85388,85404,85448,85462,85545,85588,85636,85701,85708,85861,85925,86028,86064,86170,86279,86642,86694,86771,86773,86869,87021,87143,87284,87285,87395,87428,87434,87436,87481,87578,87661,87714,87739,87817,87818,87832,87905,87923,88079,88081,88109,88132,88258,88315,88328,88350,88425,88463,88502,88575,88576,88740,88768,88772,88789,88844,88879,88881,88970,88973,89151,89166,89236,89309,89315,89480,89500,89532,89556,89561,89574,89587,89630,89669,89698,89734,89740,89758,89784,89911,89921,89950,90205,90228,90235,90253,90278,90284,90333,90380,90580,90581,90614,90702,90704,90769,90774,90886,90910,90944,90957,90968,91054,91071,91095,91097,91117,91193,91197,91241,91248,91257,91349,91352,91366,91390,91519,91646,91731,91741,91742,91744,91751,91759,91794,91801,91808,91823,91840,91871,91936,92131,92143,92215,92222,92322,92348,92350,92414,92416,92447,92507,92573,92575,92576,92581,92582,92664,92675,92697,92750,92786,92816,92824,92839,92955,93021,93071,93103,93109,93113,93159,93164,93180,93294,93324,93330,93371,93388,93475,93519,93691,93736,93857,93945,93968,93977,93999,94004,94026,94055,94078,94079,94087,94108,94135,94138,94151,94167,94180,94189,94246,94261,94289,94319,94341,94437,94467,94491,94506,94524,94568,94580,94590,94639,94668,94761,94794,94796,94807,94834,94839,94859,94942,94979,95060,95100,95113,95116,95124,95127,95258,95353,95489,95501,95504,95512,95514,95518,95534,95584,95642,95677,95688,95721,95729,95768,95773,95808,95817,95819,95836,95840,95847,95852,95858,95876,95902,95906,95922,95935,95962,95981,96015,96018,96031,96050,96053,96056,96126,96151,96153,96160,96162,96206,96212,96213,96227,96228,96244,96256,96259,96268,96291,96318,96334,96335,96354,96362,96364,96365,96385,96386,96414,96438,96457,96466,96473,96475,96497,96510,96511,96523,96527,96543,96563,96571,96610,96624,96631,96657,96660,96664,96668,96676,96703,96710,96721,96723,96735,96743,96744,96747,96754,96758,96761,96779,96782,96795,96804,96827,96828,96882,96899,96914,96921,96928,96936,96969,96979,96986,97074,97103,97107,97110,97193,97217,97220,97224,97226,97228,97238,97240,97249,97256,97265,97334,97345,97351,97352,97361,97362,97369,97371,97380,97383,97387,97395,97398,97404,97405,97444,97461,97468,97480,97491,97497,97502,97514,97516,97519,97528,97530,97533,97541,97549,97560,97563,97571,97574,97585,97588,97606,97611,97614,97619,97620,97646,97652,97653,97657,97664,97667,97676,97677,97682,97685,97697,97771,97775,97797,97799,97813,97834,97844,97851,97852,97859,97866,97877,97887,97905,97907,97921,97944,97945,97967,97970,97971,97983,97988,97997,98018,98026,98031,98037,98041,98048,98071,98101,98107,98109,98153,98154,98177,98180,98187,98207,98220,98233,98261,98262,98270,98281,98285,98287,98290,98291,98292,98294,98306,98316,98337,98345,98358,98371,98375,98377,98381,98382,98384,98387,98391,98420,98432,98433,98450,98453,98456,98468,98469,98470,98484,98500,98524,98543,98551,98566,98567,98573,98579,98582,98594,98597,98600,98603,98615,98645,98650,98651,98656,98660,98661,98663,98686,98689,98701,98704,98705,98711,98721,98723,98729,98732,98735,98741,98744,98752,98764,98768,98770,98771,98773,98777,98781,98785,98786,98792,98793,98810,98816,98828,98838,98844,98846,98849,98852,98882,98883,98887,98913,98931,98943,98974,98983,99010,99020,99035,99044,99052,99056,99057,99063,99081,99086,99099,99101,99102,99107,99108,99114,99118,99121,99123,99130,99134,99144,99146,99150,99168,99171,99181,99183,99184,99188,99192,99198,99222,99228,99229,99230,99233,99234,99245,99246,99249,99253,99286,99291,99293,99311,99318,99320,99340,99358,99364,99368,99370,99375,99387,99391,99393,99395,99403,99409,99410,99415,99442,99443,99453,99456,99465,99473,99476,99485,99491,99497,99510,99515,99522,99524,99525,99526,99529,99538,99552,99554,99556,99562,99564,99568,99569,99582,99614,99623,99646,99657,99663,99666,99671,99677,99687,99690,99696,99698,99702,99705,99719,99722,99729,99732,99792,99797,99838,99845,99846,99869,99876,99879,99910,99911,99920,99947,99948,99962,99984,99988,100015,100021,100037,100065,100074,100106,100116,100118,100119,100122,100124,100128,100153,100178,100193,100194,100204,100213,100215,100216,100220,100222,100260,100270,100272,100275,100293,100300,100310,100312,100315,100323,100326,100371,100403,100404,100412,100428,100433,100448,100451,100457,100464,100469,100476,100498,100509,100542,100549,100551,100568,100608,100634,100645,100656,100665,100668,100669,100682,100700,100702,100722,100731,100732,100747,100753,100755,100763,100764,100765,100772,100773,100779,100782,100791,100795,100796,100797,100799,100816,100834,100847,100851,100852,100870,100873,100877,100878,100888,100897,100906,100907,100921,100923,100943,100964,100966,100978,100983,101014,101021,101027,101057,101061,101072,101093,101123,101128,101133,101134,101139,101142,101143,101150,101177,101209,101221,101231,101234,101236,101246,101251,101259,101261,101265,101270,101274,101325,101355,101364,101370,101389,101390,101420,101421,101424,101426,101429,101434,101449,101452,101455,101467,101487,101494,101498,101510,101559,101562,101571,101602,101615,101617,101637,101640,101657,101658,101659,101672,101674,101677,101679,101710,101718,101750,101758,101759,101763,101773,101775,101785,101795,101796,101828,101832,101885,101888,101925,101946,101949,101959,101962,101984,101988,102002,102004,102027,102037,102039,102041,102060,102066,102071,102073,102085,102089,102096,102146,102154,102208,102215,102221,102243,102257,102267,102291,102294,102300,102305,102319,102332,102379,102416,102424,102426,102429,102442,102446,102448,102460,102475,102498,102523,102534,102572,102588,102607,102620,102626,102627,102628,102650,102652,102654,102686,102723,102736,102753,102809 and to put the resulting fixes in front of 150K testers for validation. This time around we fixed about 1,250 bugs in a slightly shortened 4 week cycle.

--Asa

#6 My eBank stopped to work

by robertcz

Saturday October 13th, 2001 1:00 AM

Login screen https://klient3.ebanka.cz/ebts/version_02/banka.html asks for L/P, when I enter anything (xxx/yyy), Mozilla warns about resending POST data a shows login screen again. It used to work with nighly builds a week or two ago - anybody experienced similar problem? Should I fill a bug?

#72 Re: My eBank stopped to work

by johnlar

Sunday October 14th, 2001 11:19 PM

Well retry downloading a nightly from a few weeks ago to test. As it may have been the site changing itself, inwhich case its probably evangalism. If it really does work in a build from a few weeks ago. Yes file a bug on it.

#7 AutoScroll"/Panning support discussion

by Nemo_NX

Saturday October 13th, 2001 1:27 AM

I can't believe we have to do this but Brian "NeTDeMoN" Bober wants a discussion on how to implement auto scrolling down a page. It's the last comment on the page that asks for this.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63712

Personally if a platform independent version can be done without taking to much memeory resources than I'm all for it. If not then I think my Intelipoint 4.1 mouse drivers will do the trick quite nicely. :) Other things to consider are: -Time it takes to get it done either way. -Places where autoscroll should work but doesn't. Like scrolling down a long list of bookmarks or other dialog boxes. I think this is where autocscroll wouldn't work best if it was done by Mozilla instead of system software. -Debate about platform independent code for autoscrolling. Which leads to do we implement it really quick on Windows until a better solution comes available or sit on are hands and wait for something else to come along. -Frequency of Mozilla crashes. Everyone says that letting MS software work with Mozilla will caused this problem has to prove to me that it has caused problmes because I simply won't except this to be a true then. I.E. Lets try using M$'s software to test it out. Kinda like tabbed browsing and see the reaction we get. Btw, Hyatt kicks ass! :)

Folks we really do need to consider getting this bug fixed(i.e. please vote or fix bug). I use autoscroll on a daily basis and I just can't stand it anymore how were going on to 0.9.6 without any autoscroll support. :(

As for 0.9.5 itself. Gonna test it for a few hours and see how it does. :)

#27 Re: AutoScroll

by slate

Saturday October 13th, 2001 2:39 PM

The reason Intellipoint drivers won\\\'t work with mozilla is because mozilla uses it\\\'s own widgets, not the standard MS ones. I\\\'ve suggested that people try to hack mozilla to work with intellipoint, but this has been rejected.

That being said, I really really really hope they can just make autoscroll work like it does with intellipoint. There\\\'s some discussion going around about having panning support (hold down the button, drags the page like acrobat) but this seems pretty useless and I\\\'d much rather just be able to click and drag to autoscroll.

#28 Re: AutoScroll"/Panning support discussion

by Xeno

Saturday October 13th, 2001 2:55 PM

I agree this bug needs to be fixed ASAP, I use a graphics tablet instead of a mouse so auto-scroll is a must. I don't see what there is to discuss, just see how it's done on other browsers/apps on each platform and DO IT. This was supposed to be an easy feature to impliment and here we are 10 months or so later and I don't see ANY progress for this bug.

Brian "NeTDeMoN" Bober needs to get it done or hand autoscroll over to someone who can impliment it IMO.

Lack of autoscroll is my #1 gripe about mozilla and its truly just about the only issue holding me back from using Mozilla instead of IE.

#108 Re: AutoScroll"/Panning support discussion

by caspy7

Monday October 15th, 2001 9:48 PM

Several months ago I was told that this would be an easy feature to implement. Did something happen? What is the debate really about here? Yes, it should be cross platform. Yes, it should work in the browser and in message panes - we know that much. So lets implement that much and go from there. Is it not known how do this? The Javascript here: http://www.bookmarklets.com/tools/look/index.phtml seems to indicate it can be done in JS without a big problem.

#8 Image rollover regression

by bugs4hj

Saturday October 13th, 2001 1:38 AM

I hate to do this but, image rollovers has regressed again in 0.9.5. I keep getting white stuff instead of the images. Grrrrrr.

/HJ

#14 Re: Image rollover regression

by bcwright

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:41 AM

Can you give an example URL? The web pages I've looked at that use image rollover all seem to be working correctly.

In fact so far this build looks pretty good, haven't run into any crashers although I know that there are still quite a few left in bugzilla. A few major sites don't render correctly (eg, http://www.msnbc.com/news/default.asp) but by and large I think that's the fault of the sites not conforming to W3C standards rather than Mozilla. I know that it's not considered politically correct to say this, but Mozilla is likely to be fighting a losing battle on this front. Lots of less technically-inclined users will see things like this and assume that it's Mozilla's fault, and assume that nothing is being done about it since it just keeps failing from release to release (if they even investigate that far). The better part of valor might well be to put in a few more of these "quirks" -- even if the user has to enable/disable it somehow in order to view the deprecated interpretation.

Also a few of the dialogs still seem to have minor problems (eg, the Edit->Preferences dialog in the subsection Appearance->Themes). This is "only" cosmetic but it looks amateurish.

--Bruce

#29 Re: Re: Image rollover regression

by garfieldbond

Saturday October 13th, 2001 3:16 PM

Perhaps the Help files should include a section explaining why some pages do not appear to render correctly, explaining it towards the confuzzled audience. It should probably include explanations of web standards and the fact that many pages do not follow the standards.

#51 RE: Image rollover regression

by basic

Sunday October 14th, 2001 1:44 AM

see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92248

#11 Can't go to symlink directories...

by benmhall

Saturday October 13th, 2001 4:18 AM

Try it.. In my home dir I have a link to /some/other/place/ If I double click on the link Mozilla does nothing. I have to actually go back to the root and explicitly go to /some/other/place. This is very new, certainly not a problem in 0.94. Can anyone else verify?

<p>

Otherwise, I'm happy. I'll be even happier when the .debs show up.

#12 Re: Can't go to symlink directories...

by jonik

Saturday October 13th, 2001 5:28 AM

Symlinks seem to work fine with build 20011012, except for save dialogs. In a save dialog, nothing happens if you click on a directory that\'s actually a symlink.

I wonder if there\'s a bug filed for this..

#24 linux?

by johnlar

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:58 PM

Your not using the 2.4.11 kernel are you? It has a symlink bug in it. 2.4.12 is out now, was released quickly to fix that problem.

#37 Re: Can't go to symlink directories...

by jonik

Saturday October 13th, 2001 5:42 PM

Nope, I have 2.4.10.

Mozilla's save dialog is the only place where symlinks don't work.

#65 Re: linux?

by benmhall

Sunday October 14th, 2001 3:00 PM

If I recall, this bug had something to do with _creating_ symlinks, not traversing them. Works fine in 0.94, Konq, NS 6.1 and Opera, so I\'d say with some confidence that this is a Mozilla bug..

#53 Press enter on the link and it works

by Ripat

Sunday October 14th, 2001 1:55 AM

I noticed that nothing happened when you click on a symlink in the save dialog too, but if you press enter on it it works.

#89 Ok

by jonik

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:02 PM

Thanks for the tip.

I filed a new bug for this, and it turned out to be a duplicate of this one: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93970

#13 Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by rowi

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:05 AM

is there a documentation of the Site Navigation bar? I tried a little bit with it but without knowledge which <link> tag activates which element of the Bar it's a little bit annoying.

#17 Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by Gerv

Saturday October 13th, 2001 9:56 AM

choess is writing a spec. The problem is that no-one's ever defined this before. Check Bugzilla - it's attached to a bug somewhere. He also mentioned it in the newsgroups - probably .ui.

Gerv

#20 Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by thelem

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:14 PM

AFAIK Mozilla is the first visual browser to actually pay any attention to these specific LINK tags, but any HTML reference (not just HTML4 - this is actually from HTML2) should tell you how they work. HTML Help http://www.htmlhelp.com/ has got a section on them for example.

Don't try and make the links toolbar work, rather add the link tags to the top of the page and see how the link toolbar manages to handle them. Even if the link toolbar doesn't support it, some other browser may.

Now I've posted this I bet someone will say that Lynx or opera has them...

#22 Re: Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by asa

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:44 PM

>>Now I've posted this I bet someone will say that Lynx or opera has them...

Not that I know of but iCab does and it looks and works great. The only problem with the iCab implementation is that it doesn't have Mozilla's very cool auto-show/hide functionality.

--Asa

#68 Re: Re: Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation B

by JanC

Sunday October 14th, 2001 5:16 PM

Lynx, iCab and some post-Netscape versions of Mosaic support <link> tags.

#23 Re: Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by rowi

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:56 PM

I've read the HTML reference but my problem is since mozilla is the first browser which supports these Tags I am not sure how they are intended. Some examples would help or just a documentation by mozilla so that I clould see how they think of it.

#41 Re: Re: Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation B

by asa

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:12 PM

see iCab for another browser that does a pretty good job of supporting <LINK>.

--Asa

#67 Re: Re: Re: Documentation of the Site Navigation Bar

by choess

Sunday October 14th, 2001 3:42 PM

Rowi: the format of <link> tags is <link rel="keyword" href="scheme://example.com">. By including the appropriate "rel" attribute (which tells you about the relationship of the URL in the "href" attribute to the current document), you can make it appear in the toolbar. The ones you'll probably find most useful right now are "start", "previous", and "next" (although I can't remember whether "top" or "up" gets activated by "start" right now-I think our behavior there needs to change a bit), and maybe "index" or "contents". In any case, except for some special cases such as "stylesheet", any other links you put in will show up in the "Other" menu; so if you put <link rel="foo" href="scheme://example.com"> in a page, you'll get an item in the "Other" menu with the title "Foo".

If you're looking for an article about what the purpose of <link> is in life, see <http://www.useit.com/papers/icab.html>; this is a nice little review of iCab's link toolbar which talks about structural navigation. <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000109.html> is a bit more forthcoming on the concept.

Good luck!

#15 bookmarks in personal toolbar...

by billi_kid

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:51 AM

don't have Open in New Tab.. and folders in Personal Toolbar don't have context menu... something like bugs

#79 Re: bookmarks in personal toolbar...

by gssq

Monday October 15th, 2001 6:26 AM

Open In New Tab is there. At least in 200101117.

File a bug on the Personal Toolbar, then :)

#18 Funny.....

by archen

Saturday October 13th, 2001 11:28 AM

Strange... the build bar says that the Oct 12 build sucks... but I can't tell the difference between this nightly junk build and the rest of the junky builds. And yes I'm unhappy with Mozilla at the moment. Between me running out of system resources over time, and the low quality of the mail client, I've been rather unimpressed as of late. Well off to get .9.5 ... the mail client better start working ....

#73 Re: Funny.....

by quarkness

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:31 AM

Could you be a little more specific? I've been using the mail client as my only mail client for months now, and I have been rellay happy with it.

#74 Re: Funny.....

by dipa

Monday October 15th, 2001 1:57 AM

> but I can't tell the difference between this nightly junk build and the rest of the junky builds.

I suppose you can't tell the difference between nightlies and commercial software like NS6.x. Please try to understand that Mozilla is a "product" for developers and testers. Milestone releases are more stable "products", targetting for a larger user base but again solely for testing purposes.

Personally, I have no interest for slashdot type comments in Mozillazine. (And yes, I agree that Mail client is of low quality. But it's international support is years far from NS4.x.)

#102 Re: Re: Funny.....

by archen

Monday October 15th, 2001 5:57 PM

Yes I can tell the difference between N6 and Mozilla. I consider N6 to be a downright disaster, but at least Mozilla tends to be moving in the right direction. Besides which, "slashdot type comments or not", Mozilla will get no where until regular people can use it and give input. People don't want to use a browser for "testing perposes", they want to use a browser that works out of the box. If people can't give they're input at the level of Mozilla, then surely Netscape will never be any better. If Mozilla is a product for developers and testers, then that is all it will ever be (and the majority of people don't want to be a "tester"). Nightly builds I understand are 'you get what you ask for', but I'm finding milestones aren't much better (as of late). The main difference between a geek toy and quality product is USABILITY. And to be quite honest, I'm finding that Mozilla hasn't been gaining much in the usability department. Case in point: the text is jumping around in this text box as I try to type this comment.

#109 Re: Re: Re: Funny.....

by gssq

Monday October 15th, 2001 10:38 PM

Oh yes, Moz still has problems with text boxes/fields. Any bugs been filed on that yet?

#135 Re: Re: Re: Funny.....

by gwalla

Wednesday October 17th, 2001 2:01 AM

Okay, it looks like you missed something. The Mozilla *project* isn't just for "developers and testers"...it's meant to produce a useful and usable app for all users. On the other hand, the milestone and nightly *builds* provided by mozilla.org *are* meant only for testing. The milestones and nightlies aren't Mozilla's "product", the code is.

#19 Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by mfblitu

Saturday October 13th, 2001 11:57 AM

Hello,

I would like to know why moz have to download the file to a temporary one? I don't see why this is good. For instance when downloading big files, copying when it is done can take long time and the disk can run out of space. In addition sometimes I would like to open the file before it is finished. I find this "feature" very annoying.

#21 Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by archen

Saturday October 13th, 2001 12:17 PM

I totally agree. There IS a way around this though. Mozilla will still download the old N4 way if you use shift+click on a link to save. Weither you can open a file before it's finished sometimes depends on the program opening the file. MS Media player for instance, cannnot open a file before it's downloaded. Winamp on the other hand, will play partial files wile downloading.

#30 Re: Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by niner

Saturday October 13th, 2001 3:55 PM

a Workaround for Programs that cannot open files while they are downloaded is just to copy this file and play the copy. It's not as good as playing with Winamp and having even the latest bytes but at least you can open them...

It would be really cool to have Mozilla saving the file where I want it and not always first in the temporary folder. If you have a very small system partition where the temp dir lies and are downloading a large file you can easily run out of space even if you want to save this file on another disk where plenty of space is free.

#36 Re: Re: Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by mce

Saturday October 13th, 2001 5:42 PM

I don\'t know how this is implemented (my ancient dual P5 is way too slow for Mozilla), but i sure hope that it does not actually copy the file when moving it would be sufficient! That would temporarily double the amount of space required, which definately would be a Very Bad Thing (TM).

I must say I really don\'t understand the use of a temporary file, though, even if the thing isn\'t actually copied. Not at all.

#48 Re: Re: Re: Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by gwalla

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:58 PM

By downloading to a temp file, it can start the download before the Save As dialog even shows up, saving you some time. Otherwise, it would have to know where you want to put it before it could start the download, which means waiting for you to click the "Save" button on the Save As dialog.

#63 that's not very helpful though

by stylo

Sunday October 14th, 2001 10:38 AM

that only saves one second. Then afterwards I have to copy the file to where I want. -and if I don't, good luck finding it afterwards.

#81 That's silly.

by JBassford

Monday October 15th, 2001 7:42 AM

It saves a couple of seconds in the short term - but it ends up taking longer in the long term (copy afterwards) as well as using up disk space unnecessarily. Also, I'd rather not have the program do anything until I tell it to explicitly. (I don't want it to start saving until I click on the button telling it to do so.) The old 4.x method was far better - I've always hated the way that IE save to a temporary location. Actually, I had not realised that the latest Mozilla builds did it this way.

Jason.

#84 Re: That's silly.

by AlexBishop

Monday October 15th, 2001 9:29 AM

"The old 4.x method was far better - I've always hated the way that IE save to a temporary location. Actually, I had not realised that the latest Mozilla builds did it this way."

IIRC 4.x started saving the file before you chose a download location. There's a bug in 4.x that means it doesn't start timing the download until after you've selected a download location. If you choose to save a file and spend a long time choosing the name/location, you'll notice that the initial download speed is impossibly high - this is due to that bug.

Alex

#98 Re: That is silly indeed

by thomanski

Monday October 15th, 2001 3:55 PM

"IIRC 4.x started saving the file before you chose a download location. There's a bug in 4.x that means it doesn't start timing the download until after you've selected a download location. If you choose to save a file and spend a long time choosing the name/location, you'll notice that the initial download speed is impossibly high - this is due to that bug."

That (except for the late timer start) is pretty much the behaviour I'd love to see in Mozilla. Why not start the download and save to a temporary file while the user chooses location and name, then move the temp file to the desired location and finish downloading? I, too, always hated IE for saving to a temp file out of my reach. Here Netscape 4.x follows the rule of least surprise. I think Mozilla should, too.

#99 Re: Re: That is silly indeed

by strauss

Monday October 15th, 2001 4:38 PM

Why not just behave like Download Manager on Mac IE? Works great for me. You can see and control downloads in progress, but starting a download is minimally intrusive and does not throw any sile dialogs in your face.

#103 Re: Re: Re: That is silly indeed

by AlexBishop

Monday October 15th, 2001 6:05 PM

Netscape are planning to add a download manager to Mozilla (well, MachV but obviously it will also appear in Mozilla). See this bug http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102477 for details. I'm not sure how much it will be like Mac IE's (or if it will handle files in a similar way) but this document http://mozilla.org/xpapps/MachVPlan/MachV_NavPlan.html says "we can go for something a bit more streamlined and IE5/Mac like".

Alex

#38 Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by astrosmash

Saturday October 13th, 2001 6:04 PM

The point of this "feature" is that it allows the download to start before you've chose a download location / file name. Both Moz and IE do this. In some situations it can be really handy. But if you always download to the same path, or you like to listen to MP3s as they download, it's a bit of a pain -- a pain with work-arounds, however. (shift-click)

#46 Re: Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by bzbarsky

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:42 PM

The point of this feature is actually to not have to drop the connection, wait for the user, and then reconnect.

Since we don't know whether we can just view the file or whether we need to pop up a dialog till the file is coming down the wire, it makes sense to just keep downloading it instead of dropping the connection and hoping we get the same content later....

#93 Re: Re: Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by groomed

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:52 PM

Yeah, but then perhaps the problem is with the design of popping up a dialog and asking the user for a filename. In older Nav versions (at least on the Mac) there was an option to set the default download path. This way you only need to consult the user once, viz. the first time he downloads something, and after that you just always create the file in the default download directory. It would greatly streamline the download process, given the fact that (on Linux in any case) it takes a long time for the filedialog to appear, plus it works rather badly (loses the selection, is too small, looks awkward, etcetera).

If you really want to then you can give the user another chance to move the file somewhere else in the transfer progress window, perhaps by adding a browse... button.

#55 Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by thelem

Sunday October 14th, 2001 2:20 AM

I always thought this was a download recovery feature - if the download broke halfway through and you tried to download the same file again, it would just pick up where it left off (but you don't want to do that if the user has access to the file).

#92 Re: Download to a temp-file - WHY?

by groomed

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:31 PM

Yes, I agree, this is a stupid feature inherited from IE, which may make some sense on Windows but is just totally out of place on both Unix and MacOS ...

#25 always better

by kayaoguz

Saturday October 13th, 2001 1:24 PM

i'm using mozilla since the M17 i think. it's been growing very fast, and becoming better in each release. after 0.9 it's getting much more better, congratulations and keep up the good work! --kaya

#32 Memory leaks

by jmisak

Saturday October 13th, 2001 4:03 PM

After several hours of browsing, Mozilla is using 125 MB of memory, which makes my system difficult to use. Is it just me or is Mozilla (in certain aspects) getting worse and slower in recent releases? 0.9.1 was excellent, so was 0.9.2... At least this release is very stable, no crashes so far.

#95 Re: Memory leaks

by tny

Monday October 15th, 2001 2:20 PM

It's you. ;-) I've been running 2001100803 on Windows 98SE all day (since 8 hours) and it's only using ~32 MB (with two tabs open and lurking on an IRC), using numbers from Norton. I don't know what the target footprint is (I'd like to think that it's smaller than 32 MB), but at least 32 is better than 125.

#100 Same problem here...

by CatamountJck

Monday October 15th, 2001 4:45 PM

No, not necessarily - I have had a similar problem on nightly builds in the past week although I am sure it is an ongoing problem. I have 256MB on my machine and have used 120-130 before to the point where my system is swapping constantly.

#113 No less than 70-100MB

by dipa

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 12:19 AM

Numbers for private memory. Propably not leaks but footprint issue (just guessing).

#119 Netscape 6.5 for Dummies

by tny

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 6:41 AM

What OSes are you folks using (not that I can do anything about it, but it seems funny that everyone would have that problem but me)?

#120 Sorry about that title . . .

by tny

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 6:44 AM

I just can't seem to get it to stop that.

#123 Re: Sorry about that title . . .

by dipa

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 7:40 AM

Ok, I didn't take it seriously :)

I use Win95, Win98, Win2k. Win9x vm management is horrible. Regardless of that, I always see Mozilla foortprint increasing when opening new windows, reading email and news, hovering over menu items etc. There are some bugs filed on these issues but users like me don't have the tools required for some meaningful investigation :(

#134 Re: Memory leaks

by cobar

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 3:54 PM

There are probably a lot of memory leaks in mozilla. Simply opening and closing windows seems to eat 300K each time. I can't seem to find the tracking bug at the moment, but there are at least 30+ bugs on the list. Personally, it's the biggest issue I have with mozilla since it is basically like a crash - you have to stop working and restart at some point when memory use gets too high.

#35 too slow

by leet

Saturday October 13th, 2001 5:04 PM

is it me or is mozilla made for people with fast cpus? i'm using win98se on k6-2 380mhz with 128mb ram, but mozilla takes so long to load and run and it's memory requirement impacts other programs i need (usually not memory-intensive). i haven't even tried the email program because it's so slow.

this is strange but in the past week or so, netscape 4.x crashes all the time, whether i'm on my own computer or at the school's compter lab. i finally gave up on it. unfortunately i still need messenger, which i think is one swell of a program.

#76 Re: too slow

by dipa

Monday October 15th, 2001 2:15 AM

I think we 'll never see a browser/mail client combo as fast as NS4. OTOH, we 'll never see a browser so prone to crash due to various html errors and peculiarities. This is a place where Mozilla shines. Which it isn't a fact when we are discussing about leaks, footprint and cpu usage issues :(

On the other side, I prefer to see Mozilla fixing all nasty ui/backend reliability/security bugs first. Performance tuning is a nice goal but essential features and disappointing user interface imperfections are most important at the moment. My oppinion only.

#137 while features/stability/etc are very important

by leet

Sunday October 21st, 2001 12:04 AM

i just don't have hope in mozilla if it can't be as fast as ns4. just consider the fact that ns4 is now much slower than ie. even on p3-500 that i've tested, moz is very slow. while 1+ ghz machines are becoming ever more common, there are still lots of people, including most of those i know, who have 600- mhz computers. moz being so slow is just cutting off a huge market, which i'm guessing is a relatively stronger ns base (they're "older" in online years, etc.) i'm speaking of my own interest here, but i don't know any of my non-cs friends who would use moz.

#39 Blocker in this milestone?

by don

Saturday October 13th, 2001 6:57 PM

Has bug 104421 (crash entering msn.com - also crash on chatzilla startup) http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104421 slipped into the milestone? Yesterdays nightly build had the bug, builds later in the day do not. I just installed 0.9.5 under Linux and I still experience the crashes. What about releasing 0.9.5a?

#44 No.

by asa

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:23 PM

0.9.5 does not have this bug.

--Asa

#45 Re: Blocker in this milestone?

by don

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:26 PM

No, indeed not. I confused two tar.gz builds. Sorry for bothering.

#40 Warning: RPM builds are broken

by rajendra

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:04 PM

I downloaded the RPMs for RH7x and found that a couple of things don't work on it. First of all, the Javascript Debugger does not come up in the Tools menu. Also, some aspects of Javascript seem to be broken. If you click on a link that opens a new window using Javascript window.open, it doesn't do anything.

Went back and downloaded the tar.gz build and everything seems fine. Looks like whoever made the RPM builds missed something.

#42 grudging praise frmo mangelo

by strauss

Saturday October 13th, 2001 7:15 PM

http://mozillaquest.com/Mozilla_News_01/Mozilla_0-9-5_released_Story01.html

"Nevertheless, pre-Mozilla-1.0 development builds now are pretty much features-complete, stable, and usable. Mozilla development work now is focused on bug squashing, improved stability, and better performance. Browser-wise, we find current Mozilla Milestone releases good enough for regular use. We also find the latest Mozilla Milestones to be better, browser-wise, than Netscape 6.1."

And yet, somehow, he still says at the top of the same article that "Mozilla 0.9.5 is the buggiest Mozilla Milestone ever." Which is it? He's a bit of a broken record.

#47 Re: grudging praise from mangelo

by AlexBishop

Saturday October 13th, 2001 8:56 PM

It's just the standard 'new milestone released' article. The "We also find the latest Mozilla Milestones to be better, browser-wise, than Netscape 6.1" bit has been there in every 'new milestone released' article for ages. Before 6.1 was released it compared the milestones with 6.0.

The previous MozillaQuest article http://mozillaquest.com/News01/Netscape_6-2_coming_Story01.html is worse. Take this statement for example: "Should AOL-Time-Warner's Netscape division release a buggy Netscape 6.2 browser sooner or a less buggy Netscape 6.2 browser later? Either way, AOL-Time-Warner's Netscape division will be criticized. There will be criticism if Netscape 6.2 is buggy. And there will be criticism if there is any further delay in releasing Netscape 6.2." Now tell me how Netscape can be criticised for delaying the release of a product they haven't even announced? And have you read the rest of the article? Catherine Corre should sue!

The article before that http://mozillaquest.com/Mozilla_News_01/Mozilla_w3c_patent-01_Story-01.html actually managed to report the facts accurately (to my limited knowledge). Quite how this amazing feat was achieved is beyond me. The quote is far too long (didn't this guy do any journalist training? Actually, probably not...) but other than that it's okay. Obviously the last two articles were designed to make up for this. ;-)

Alex

#60 Re: Re: grudging praise from mangelo

by locka

Sunday October 14th, 2001 9:00 AM

Hmm, he admits in his 6.2 piece that's he's just guessing and that Netscape's PR people won't speak to him. That should say something about the weight you should place on his stories.

Funnily enough, I'm sure the version number for the next release of 6.x is sitting on his server already if he were smart enough to know where to look for it.

#49 Can we please stop giving this moron publicity?

by gwalla

Saturday October 13th, 2001 9:03 PM

Complaining on MozillaZine that Mozillaquest is full of crap is pointless. We already know Angelo is brain dead--it's just preaching to the choir. Now, it's helpful to debunk him on places like Slashdot, where some people have been suckered into thinking that he knows what he's talking about, but here it's just a waste of time and bytes.

#59 Re: grudging praise frmo mangelo

by locka

Sunday October 14th, 2001 8:46 AM

He's a guy who seems to have an ever-increasing chip on his shoulder about this project. If the bugs bother him that much maybe he should lend some weight toward fixing them instead of rattling off yet another misinformed whinge.

#50 Yay!

by zeroGravitas

Saturday October 13th, 2001 11:21 PM

I can finally run mozilla again. (it's been no-go for several dot releases) I look forward to testing your dom compatibility? Can I load a document into a layer? How about a jsp page? Enquiring minds want to know. :)

#56 Re: Yay!

by macpeep

Sunday October 14th, 2001 6:08 AM

If you can "load a document into a layer" then you can also load JSP, ASP, PHP and any other pages into it. All those do is *run on the server* and produce HTML for the web browser to display. There's absolutely NO difference at all between a static HTML page and a dynamic JSP page from the web browsers perspective. In fact, many dynamic pages use aliases so that their name would end with .html while they are actually .jsp files (or using some other similar technology).

#71 try...

by stylo

Sunday October 14th, 2001 8:47 PM

post to wdf-dom group on yahoo groups for advanced stuff. or try wsabstract.com

#61 Re: Yay!

by bzbarsky

Sunday October 14th, 2001 9:30 AM

> Can I load a document into a layer?

Sure. Can you do it using IE-specific JS? No. :)

#57 Back button reloads page?

by pimlott

Sunday October 14th, 2001 8:42 AM

I just upgraded from 0.9.4 to 0.9.5 on Linux. In .4, the back button had the nice behavior of displaying the page as it was previously seen. This is both fast and (IMO) intuitive. In .5, mozilla appears always to reload the page. (Well, not always, as I just found. Slashdot "message center" pages seem always to reload, but bugzilla bug pages seem not to.) This means that it is easy to lose a page that you wanted to see again, and that one must always wait for reloads (especially annoying if you want to browse quickly through your history). My ideal is that the back button should always take me to the previously displayed screen with no noticeable delay.

<p>

There does appear to be a workaround, which is to switch to "offline" mode before going back. But this is annoying and easy to forget.

<p>

What I would really like (in addition to network-less back) is an indicator somewhere on the page that tells me the cache status of the page. This could include whether the page was loaded from cache or the net, why (back button, expires header, Etag, forced refresh, etc), and the date on which the page was retrieved from the net. I'm sure web developers would especially like this.

<p>

<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33269">Bug 33269</a> has some background on this.

<p>

My cache setting is "Automatically".

#58 Back button reloads page? (take two)

by pimlott

Sunday October 14th, 2001 8:44 AM

I just upgraded from 0.9.4 to 0.9.5 on Linux. In .4, the back button had the nice behavior of displaying the page as it was previously seen. This is both fast and (IMO) intuitive. In .5, mozilla appears always to reload the page. (Well, not always, as I just found. Slashdot "message center" pages seem always to reload, but bugzilla bug pages seem not to.) This means that it is easy to lose a page that you wanted to see again, and that one must always wait for reloads (especially annoying if you want to browse quickly through your history). My ideal is that the back button should always take me to the previously displayed screen with no noticeable delay.

There does appear to be a workaround, which is to switch to "offline" mode before going back. But this is annoying and easy to forget.

What I would really like (in addition to network-less back) is an indicator somewhere on the page that tells me the cache status of the page. This could include whether the page was loaded from cache or the net, why (back button, expires header, Etag, forced refresh, etc), and the date on which the page was retrieved from the net. I'm sure web developers would especially like this.

Bug 33269 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33269" has some background on this.

My cache setting is "Automatically".

#75 Could be related to this

by paulm

Monday October 15th, 2001 2:06 AM

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101832 Seems to me the whole thing got filed and rammed through as quickly as possible without any community consultation (most bugs do not get fixed that fast) and seems to be contrary to the http spec as far as I can tell.

Good work on the whole folks, but that one made me unhappy :(

#83 Open new bug against this behaviour?

by JBassford

Monday October 15th, 2001 7:55 AM

Why don't you open a new bug saying that Mozilla's back/forward functionality is no longer working as it should - it's reloading rather than simply redisplaying? Site the RFC again too.

After looking at the bug I agree with you, at least in the sense that the fix was checked in too early - it was done so without addressing your concerns about HTML specs. If the specs are to be ignored, there should be a clear reason for doing so. If not, then an alternate solutions should be proposed with respect to those security Web sites that initiated the need for the bug in first place.

Jason.

#62 Tabs crash Mozilla in Win32?

by d_a_n

Sunday October 14th, 2001 10:35 AM

Though I love multizilla and am happy to see it integrated in 0.9.5, it doesn't work for me. Closing a tab almost always results in a crash, Windows 2000 says something about a failed 'read' operation in memory. Anyone else got that prob? For now I'm back to 0.9.4 ...

#64 Re: Re: Tabs crash Mozilla in Win32?

by d_a_n

Sunday October 14th, 2001 10:59 AM

Whoops, I didn't realize the new tabbed interface is NOT multizilla. I installed the latest multizilla pre-release and everything is fine again :). Mozilla's own browser tabs seem to be broken, anyway.

#69 Re: Tabs crash Mozilla in Win32?

by DavidGerard

Sunday October 14th, 2001 6:51 PM

"Closing a tab almost always results in a crash, Windows 2000 says something about a failed 'read' operation in memory."

Hmm. Would that be bug 102111? http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102111 "Crash on quit: "The instruction at "0x642090db" referenced memory at "0x73736369"."" No-one's managed to reproduce it yet, but it keeps happening on rare occasions ... If you get a talkback, add its ID to the bug!

#77 Re: Re: Tabs crash Mozilla in Win32?

by d_a_n

Monday October 15th, 2001 5:14 AM

\"Hmm. Would that be bug 102111? (LINK) \"Crash on quit: \"The instruction at \"0x642090db\" referenced memory at \"0x73736369\".\"\" No-one\'s managed to reproduce it yet, but it keeps happening on rare occasions ...\"

I get the same message (except that the referenced memory address is 0x0 here), but it does happen frequently and can be reproduced (on my pc, that is). I have already sent several talkbacks ... Note: this happens only with mozillas own browser tabs, not with multizilla.

#78 Re: Re: outliner status

by DavidGerard

Monday October 15th, 2001 5:40 AM

>>"Hmm. Would that be bug 102111? (LINK) "Crash on quit: "The instruction at "0x642090db" referenced memory at "0x73736369"."" No-one's managed to reproduce it yet, but it keeps happening on rare occasions ..."

>I get the same message (except that the referenced memory address is 0x0 here), but it does happen frequently and can be reproduced (on my pc, that is). I have already sent several talkbacks ... Note: this happens only with mozillas own browser tabs, not with multizilla.

Please, please, add the talkback IDs to bug 102111 itself http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102111 . This one needs actual data to be nailed. Or if you don't have a Bugzilla login, email the talkback IDs to me and I'll add them!

#82 Re: Re: Re: outliner status

by d_a_n

Monday October 15th, 2001 7:50 AM

"Please, please, add the talkback IDs to bug 102111 itself (LINK) . This one needs actual data to be nailed. Or if you don't have a Bugzilla login, email the talkback IDs to me and I'll add them!"

Errr...how can I get the talkback ID?

#87 Re: Re: Re: outliner status

by dave532

Monday October 15th, 2001 11:43 AM

On Windows... In the components directory should be a talkback.exe, double click on it and you'll get a window up listing all the talkbacks submitted by you from that machine, plus their incident ID's. Just look for the ID's of the bugs that you've submitted about this problem.

I don't think there's a mention of this procedure anywhere on mozilla.org.

#97 Re: Re: Re: Re: outliner status

by d_a_n

Monday October 15th, 2001 3:18 PM

"On Windows... In the components directory should be a talkback.exe, double click on it and you'll get a window up listing all the talkbacks submitted by you from that machine, plus their incident ID's. Just look for the ID's of the bugs that you've submitted about this problem."

Thanks! I just posted them to bugzilla with the suggested link.

#66 crash-a-roonie

by strauss

Sunday October 14th, 2001 3:17 PM

You know, I was enjoying using Mac 0.9.5 for some hours, starting yesterday. I was starting to think I had been a bit too hard on the old horse. Then, half an hour into editing an online message, my Finder started throwing out of memory messages at me, and then in mid-typing I crashed, losing of course my entire message. This is the best Mozilla experience I've had -- usually there's so much flakiness within the first five or ten minutes that I give up right away. Using it for hours was definitely a fun experience. But I can't afford to be losing work this way. It's not quite there yet for daily use.

Oh, and BTW, I did not do anything to disable TalkBack, but I did not get any sort of query as t whether I wanted to to send information about the crash.

#70 Re: crash-a-roonie

by asa

Sunday October 14th, 2001 7:25 PM

Packaging talkback with Mac builds is a bit harder than linux and windows. We only manage to gete it included some of the time. There are several bugs in the Build Config component about making Talkback part of the nightly builds and Milestones.

If you're using Mac OS 8.5-9.2.1 you can install macsbug http://developer.apple.com/testing/docs/TNmacsbug.html and it will give you very useful stack traces that can be attached to bugs. When you crash with macsbug installed it will drop you to the macsbug console. Type "log <some name>" then "sc" then "log" (to end the log). You can attach this log to a bug and someone will probably be able to use it to find the correct component and assignee for the bug. If you're curious or want to help dig a little deeper you can look at the bottom of that log for the name of the function and class where the crash happened (in the form of class::function). Using LXR http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/search you can search the code for occurrences of that function. The search result should show you the directory and file where this function is defined. You can figure out who wrote the code that crashed by following the link to that file, going to the top of page, and clicking the link to CVS Blame. This shows you who wrote each line of code in this file. With a look at the path to that file and the person who wrote the code around that function you should be able to get a decent idea of where to assign that crash bug.

I'm glad you had a better experience with 0.9.5. Sorry to hear about the dataloss crasher. I haven't had a dataloss crash in some time but I spend about 70% of my time on windows Mozilla and split the remaining 30% evenly between Mac and Linux. My experience is that windows Mozilla is about twice as stable as Mac Mozilla. With more Mac folks like you running the builds and reporting crashers http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi we should be able to remedy that situation. One of the reasons that Mac lags behind windows and linux is that there are fewer people testing, reporting and fixing Mac bugs. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make reporting these kinds of bugs easier.

--Asa

#110 Release notes bugs/mac advocacy

by thehood

Monday October 15th, 2001 10:59 PM

It's a sad fact that mozilla is still more stable, with all it's crashiness, than the leading Mac browser, IE (particularly the osx version, which makes Mozilla's ui seem lightning fast). Still, as I recall, there have been a couple of blockers which prevented a large portion of mac users from using the browser at all. First was the atm font smoothing font, I believe, and more recently the os X dual-processor blocker. These weren't noted in the announcements of milestones to external site, so if you look at old reviews of mozilla on say, versiontracker, there's quite a few angry messages about the browser simply refuses to function. This makes moz look really bad. Even more amazing is the fact that netscape X didn't announce the problem either (maybe they buried it in the release notes.) If any milestone has a platform-specific bug which makes the browser non-functional, it really should be noted in the header. If these were windows bugs they would have been fixed within days, and I know macs have a relatively small portion of the browser audience, but still. And when these bugs are fixed, it'd be great to find some way to announce it to the relevant user base so we get more people finding bugs. Anyways, the .95 release notes suggest the dual processor bug is still there, which I'm quite sure is incorrect (I don't have a dual processor to check but I assume the fix went in). And the bugzilla link is for a linux bug! Does mozilla actually update the release notes for each milestone? That?s all, thanks for reading my mac advocacy rant :)

#80 Great Job Dev Team

by rstalnecker

Monday October 15th, 2001 6:50 AM

I have been using Mozilla since 0.9.1. I think you've got a great browser here. I use Mozilla and Netscape 6.1 as my defaults without many problems at all. Also, being a web developer, I use Mozilla/Netscape as my primary testing tool. Keep up the good work.

#85 geeks' own browser?

by johann_p

Monday October 15th, 2001 10:11 AM

I have been watching the development of Mozilla for some time (though I am not a programmer and I did not contribute code). I was enthusiastic about the idea there would be an alternative to IE some day. I loved the idea that the same program would be available on linux and other OS's. But obviously the opensource development model won't deliver what I (and probably others) expected. Programmers obviously would rather spend manymanyears to add their own favorite feature instead of working on functionality that has been in 4.x and is still missing in mozilla. Or putting effort into enhancing those functions which will be needed by users in bigger companies. I wont promote my favorite bugs here, but I am sure you all wont have difficulty to find such boring bugs easily. So I get the impression that there will be 1.0 some day, it will have a lot of really cool features and it will be loved by programmers and geeks. I am, alas, not so sure any more about the likelihood of getting any significant number of users outside that community though. (And i havent even touched the subject of standards-resistant webprogrammers and their impact on perceived mozilla functionality yet)

#101 Re: geeks' own browser?

by bugs4hj

Monday October 15th, 2001 5:34 PM

Hey, my kids use it everyday, so what's the point here? They are most certainly no programmers or geeks. So what? They must be really smart then, or are you just to stupid to use an advanced product like mozilla?

#106 Re: Re: geeks' own browser?

by trelane2

Monday October 15th, 2001 8:25 PM

Please stay positive. Microsoft has marketing. We have people with experiences. We need to keep these experiences positive, not negative.

#107 the point seems to be

by stylo

Monday October 15th, 2001 9:21 PM

that there are bugs ruining daily browsing experience, and - I'll suggest - that we don't even need to vote for such bugs: this is what the managers of the project have to get fixed, regardless of votes. They know what they are and just need to clean them up based on their good judgement. I have daily frustrations trying to post with moz because it doesn't handle textarea text well and get's all confused. The project managers must know this needs to be fixed without even looking at vote counts.

I'm sure at this time - 0.95, with major features added - they are now moving into a new phase of sorts and will focus intently on the top bugs most annoying to the daily browsing experience and will produce a 0.96/0.97 version that is quite a bit cleaner. Looking forward to it.

#117 Votes and talkback

by johann_p

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 5:29 AM

As much as I think that bugzilla, the voting feature and the talkback manager are wonderful to get certain types of feedback: dont forget that those votes are coming from an extremely biased sample of users, that many actual/potential users wont even touch bugzilla and that the most terrible crashes might be underrepresented in mozilla just *because* they happen so frequently for individual users that they will at once turn away from using mozilla. Technical solutions will be a nice help for all this, but it will require management decisions and hard management work to get the important work done.

#115 No comment on this

by johann_p

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 5:01 AM

you obviously dont get the point and as I said, that attitude shows in the product.

#104 Re: geeks' own browser?

by sacolcor

Monday October 15th, 2001 6:49 PM

Which particular features from 4.x are you looking for? Have you gone to bugzilla and voted for them?

#116 particular features

by johann_p

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 5:15 AM

I hesitate to use this primarily to promote my favorite bugs or missing 4.x features. (but yes I have posted/voted). I just wanted to solicit comments on the impression I got that the allocation of ressources, the decisions on priorities, decisions on overall design etc. seem to more go into the direction of "cool" instead of "working horse". Dont get me wrong: I love those cool features too. But well, I'd rather have a working back button at the moment. Or a decent way to let people using movemail use the mailnews. Or the simple "quote original message" option from 4.x. Or some documentation/help. Others might have requests for still more boring stuff, with even more importance to non-geeks (and non-kids). There is nothing wrong with this: nobody is forced to use Mozilla. The thing is just, that I and others who are fans of this project and would really love to see Mozilla kick ass, fear that only few people will end up using it (except bugs4hj's family members of course).

#126 Programmers paid by AOL

by abraham

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 9:15 AM

I suspect AOL don\'t pay their programmers to make a product that is cool only for developers and geeks, so even if the prgrammers from the free software community doesn\'t care about the bugs affecting ordinary users, most of the effort is likely concentrated there.

Most of the *talk* is probably concentrated on new features, since that is a more interesting conversation topic than what bugs have been fixed.

Back button: It doesn\'t work? Everybody needs that, so I doubt the free software community is likely to put less effort in that.

movemail: Is that something for ordinary users? I thought it was a geek thing for geek sites, it is an Emacs binary!

\"quote original\": I\'d think most free developers use stand alone mail and news agents, so that will probably be up to AOL to lift. But that is just a guess.

#133 Re: geeks' own browser?

by pimlott

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 3:04 PM

There may be some truth to what you say, but frankly the strongest impression I get is that the geeks don't really care about mozilla--or specifically, that they don't care about making it really usable for themselves. If they did, it simply wouldn't be so bloody annoying.

Maybe what you means is that the geeks inside AOL are the source of feature creep. That is plausible--maybe they don't care much about mozilla as users, but just prefer projects that make their job more fun. Or maybe it is the geeks who are in it for the cool value. (This is not a slam against anyone.)

But if there were geeks who were really cared about mozilla--not as a toy or a job or an Open Source showpiece, but as a day-to-day tool in which they felt some ownership--they would be hacking at the abysmal UI performance and the terminally broken textarea. If there were strong technical leadership, history and focus wouldn't keep breaking. At least, this is my sense as a programmer. I don't know the mozilla project intimately, so please don't take offense if I've misread it.

What's the cause? Does the mozilla project not give the geeks enough control? Does size, complexity, and perhaps poor design scare hackers away from the real problems? Is the process too confusing? Do geeks just not care enough about this sort of program? Again, I don't know mozilla well enough to be sure.

But I will say that I continue to believe that as soon as mozilla gets a really usable (as good as Navigator 4 in all areas) and hackable (programmers find both the code and the process approachable) browser into the hands of geeks, development will take off. That hypothesis hasn't been tested, because mozilla basically still sucks. (I mean that in the best possible way.)

#86 Problems with CNN

by bfagan

Monday October 15th, 2001 11:43 AM

DOes anyone else experience problems with the back button and http://www.cnn.com ? The back button never seems to work there, even thought it works whe looking at all other sites.

#91 Bug 103978

by AlexBishop

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:23 PM

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103978

Alex

#94 Re: Problems with CNN

by starless

Monday October 15th, 2001 1:03 PM

Yes, I have similar problems with many web sites (e.g. news.bbc.co.uk, wired.com). This makes 0.9.5 useless for me. I'm very disappointed that this release was allowed to go out with such a bad bug (#103978) in it.

#88 JRE

by rstalnecker

Monday October 15th, 2001 11:43 AM

Is it possible to get Mozilla to recognize the currently installed JRE? I have the JRE installed from my Netscape 6.1 install but after installing Mozilla 0.9.5 when I go to sites requiring the JRE (http://java.sun.com) I see the plugin not installed graphic. Any help appreciated.

#111 Re: JRE

by dratliffe

Monday October 15th, 2001 11:23 PM

It\\\'s a bug: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70856

This work-around worked on Windows: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=2050&message=62#62

Hope that helps.

#90 O.T.: News posting problem

by dipa

Monday October 15th, 2001 12:22 PM

Has anyone of you seen this:

A News (NNTP) error occurred: Too_many_open_files_writing_article_file_--_throttling

Damn. I can't post a specific message to npm-performance. Any help (before filing a bug I don't know how to reproduce) would be appreciated. The problem appears on both 0.9.5 and the recent nightlies.

#96 Server problem

by generaltao

Monday October 15th, 2001 3:16 PM

That error message is generated by the NNTP (news) server. It's not Mozilla's fault. It just means that the system administrator is not paying attention. I'm sure you'll find things working again in no time. (News servers are a bitch to maintain).

#112 Thanks! (n/t)

by dipa

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 12:14 AM

n/t

#105 FTP parent directory missing?

by leeal

Monday October 15th, 2001 7:49 PM

I noticed that the 'parent directory' link that appears when browsing ftp site is removed. What is the purpose? It's quite inconvenient.

#127 Re: FTP parent directory missing?

by schapel

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 9:54 AM

With the latest nightly build, when I'm using FTP and the current directory is not the root directory, I get an "Up to higher level directory" option above the listed files. However, I was able to find this bug http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12707 which sounds like what you're describing. Remember to vote for and report bugs in Bugzilla!

#114 W2K Crash

by taxexile

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 5:00 AM

Not sure where to start with this bug, so I'm hopin u guys won't bite my head off. Have been using Moz on+off for the last 2 years, and have recently moved to a MS-shop where they run Win2K and make use of Win Roaming Profiles. Am trying to run Moz 0.9.5 [also tried 0.9.4 previously] and it "installs" ok, but on startup.. Nada/Nothing.

The only way I can get Moz to run is to run it with the Profile Manager. Every time I run it this way, none of the previously created Profiles appear in the list, so I have to tediously recreat the profile again and again.

I have tried removing all traces of Moz in the registry, from the WinNT folder and Uninstalling and clearing the folder, and then doing a full install, and yet it still doesn't run.

Any tips on getting the beast to run? or even to trace where things might be going wrong? [It could be the App doesn't have perms to access a folder or something....]

#122 Re: W2K Crash

by dipa

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 7:29 AM

>I have tried removing all traces of Moz in the registry, from the WinNT folder and Uninstalling and clearing the folder

To clear a Mozilla installation, you have to erase:

\Program Files\Mozilla.org

$home\Application Data\Mozilla

\Winnt\Mozregistry.dat

\Winnt\Mozver.dat

\Winnt\temp

Did you perform all the above operations ?

#124 Re: Re: W2K Crash

by taxexile

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 7:41 AM

Yep. Everything was cleared down. It is certainly having problems with the Profile as when mozilla is run [the only way it will on this setup] using \'mozilla -profilemanager\' or \'mozilla -profilewizard\' all previous Profiles created are missing. Does Moz 0.9.5 attempt to stuff the Application Data into an ApplicationData folder under my profile? It might be related to that [any problems if this is on a network path?]

this is kinda besides the point if there is a way to get Moz to spit out what it\'s failing on... is there *any* way of getting this? I\'ve tried \'mozilla -console\' and it just reports StdErr and StdOut are \".. directed to dynamic console\'.

any ideas ppl?

#125 Re: Re: W2K Crash

by taxexile

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 8:45 AM

Hmm.. yep. "APPDATA" is a UNC path.. this gonna cause probs?

#118 \'Search on page\' problem

by bytehead

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 6:10 AM

Hey! Seems that \\\"Find in this page...\\\" command doesn\\\'t work as it should -- you have to close the dialog window and then run \\\"Find again\\\". Is it a known issue with 0.9.5?

#121 Re: 'Search on page' problem

by dipa

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 7:21 AM

It has been fixed on recent nightlies. I would be a bit surprised if they didn't fix it on the branch (milestone) too.

#128 AOL 7.0 has no Mozilla support

by strauss

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 10:51 AM

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7540458.html?tag=mn_hd

#129 Re: AOL 7.0 has no Mozilla support

by Tanyel

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 11:12 AM

Did you think it would?

#131 Re: Re: AOL 7.0 has no Mozilla support

by strauss

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 11:54 AM

No, I didn't, but people both here and on /. have been claiming all year that AOL would support Mozilla (and flaming anyone who said otherwise....)

#132 Re: Re: AOL 7.0 has no Mozilla support

by jcf76

Tuesday October 16th, 2001 12:54 PM

A lot of the "AOL will use Mozilla" came when the talks between AOL and MS broke down (I'm assuming there was some kind of extension for IE to be the base of AOL 7). My gut tells me that when Mozilla can match IE feature-for-feature and is comparable in load time, AOL will switch as soon as possible. Right now, Moz just isn't quite ready yet. I know it, you know it, Mozilla.org knows it, dogs know it. The nightlies have had a good feel to them for quite a while now (except for the broken ones a few days ago) so, in my in-no-way-informed opinion, I think that we'll see Mozilla 1.0/Netscape 6.5 by February 1. So maybe it'll make it into AOL 8.

#136 View Page Info - Images Tab Broken

by xerxes

Thursday October 18th, 2001 10:15 AM

I don't know if anyone else has this problem but it's been happening to me since 0.9.4. When you click a URL in the View Page Info->Image Tab section, the image displays for a fraction of a second and disappears. Other than that, I think 0.9.5 is a very good build.

#138 Mozilla with Xmms

by filsed

Sunday October 21st, 2001 9:51 PM

Hi there. I have got problems with Mozilla 0.9.5. I use Xmms player for streaming MP3 files over Internet for listening my radio on my Linux box. In previous versions everything worked without problems, once I clicked on the MP3 file, the Xmms player started and handled it correctly, but now, It does not work. I am pretty sure that the audio/x-scpls setup in \\\"Helper Applications\\\" tab is OK. Any help? Thanks.

#139 Moving from 0.9.4 to 0.9.5

by JBourne2

Wednesday October 24th, 2001 1:35 PM

I want to move to mozilla 0.9.5, but I don't want to lose all my bookmarks and mail messages. Can someone help a newbie go to 0.9.5 without losing all this data? I'm running RH Linux.

Thanks