MozillaZine

AOLTW Announces Sony Pact

Tuesday November 13th, 2001

Normally we wouldn't mention this, except there was a key quote that we thought should be highlighted in the press release:

* The joint development of an Internet browser designed for optimal performance, a consistent experience, and greater convenience on networked consumer electronic devices. Both companies envision not only employing the browser in future Sony products but also making it available to other consumer electronics manufacturers.
Could we soon see Mozilla on Sony devices like the Playstation or other pc based devices?


#1 With a smaller footprint then yes

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 4:34 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is the business these days. Its main weakness is its footprint - or rather its memory usage throughout a session. Generally it starts off on my PC using about 10-12 meg, which these days is nothing. Problem is it just eats more and more memory up, especially the mail client. However, the current performance work will no doubt sort that out.

Gecko on its own seems tiny and seems efficient in terms of memory, making it ideal for embedding, which I guess is key to this partnership deal. Interesting to note that Sony are working with Ericsson as well on a number of projects, so a much bigger, device orientated collaboration could come into play here.

Be nice to see the AOL client using Moz though...

#7 Re: With a smaller footprint then yes

by macpeep

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 12:25 AM

Reply to this message

Sony isn't just working with Ericsson. They are now "Sony Ericsson" when it comes to mobile phones. However, in that realm, Mozilla isn't - at all - relevant for another couple of years.

#2 Well yeah

by fsterman

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, of course. Any game machine of the future must have internet acess, and why not dip into the honey of the low cost home area that those undpowered BE type machines have not been sucefull at?

#3 Pardon the skeptisism, but....

by brasten <brasten@creativers.com>

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 5:31 PM

Reply to this message

are we sure this "joint development on a browser" is refering to Mozilla? I realize Mozilla is the best thing AOLTW has going for them, in terms of a browser, and in my opinion it would be stupid to start over, but AOLTW has never seemed all that supportive of the Mozilla project. If Sony intends to throw it's weight (Developement, marketing, other) behind Mozilla, i'm ALL FOR IT... but I guess I want to hear the word "Mozilla" come out of one of those company's mouths in relation to this announcement before I rejoice.

Again, pardon the skeptisism....

#4 Re: Pardon the skeptisism, but....

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 5:59 PM

Reply to this message

That's what I was thinking too.

However:

"a consistent experience" = Cross-platform

"making it available to other consumer electronics manufacturers" = Open source

Sounds like they've just described Mozilla. They say that they're going to develop a browser, so that pretty much rules out licensing IE (particularly as the relationships between AOL Time Warner and Microsoft and Sony and Microsoft are cooler than they were a few years ago) or Opera. AOL Time Warner aren't developing any browsers other than Netscape and I don't think Sony is developing any browsers at all, so I'd say there's a good chance it will be Mozilla.

Alex

#5 Another small blurb

by WillyWonka

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

I got this off of bluesnews.com ...

<http://www.iemag.com/news/#ADCF0021>

#6 Read CNET more

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday November 13th, 2001 10:47 PM

Reply to this message

Both ideas you mention above (Netscape WAP browser and Netscape for PS2) have already been announced at News.com earlier in the year:

<http://news.search.com/cl…05%2D200%2D4520937%2Ehtml>

<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-5952674.htmlc>

#8 Mozilla sound like the obvious choice

by pointwood

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

IE will never the choice. The only other candidate is Opera imho. They have pretty good success in this segment.

#11 Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by mintSlice

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 2:14 PM

Reply to this message

The problem with Opera is that it is just a browser. Sony will want the whole deal, browser, mail, news, chat. Opera only stisfies one of these.

#12 Re: Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by sconest

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 2:59 PM

Reply to this message

Opera on windows is a browser, mail and news client and has a icq-compatible messenging client.

#13 Re: Re: Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

And the Opera 6.0 beta looks very nice as well.

Alex

#15 Re: Re: Re: Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by pirat

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 5:32 PM

Reply to this message

But still no useable DOM support...

#16 Re: Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by garfieldbond

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 6:48 PM

Reply to this message

It has a mail/news client and icq client, but they're not particularly good. Browser is what you get opera for, not because you want mail/news.

#21 Re: Re: Opera doesn't satisfy all the needs

by tny

Thursday November 15th, 2001 11:19 AM

Reply to this message

One pleasant surprise (pleasant from a standards viewpoint): Opera now supports Unicode.

#17 actually

by pbreit

Thursday November 15th, 2001 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

actually Sony will only want a high performance, stable, lean, standards-compliant browser. Web based email is adequate. News and compose are certainly unnecessary. For chat, they have a number of options including moz, jabber and aol.

now if only mozilla would focus on gecko.

#20 Re: actually

by bzbarsky

Thursday November 15th, 2001 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

Now if only you would stop harping on a moot point...

The fact is, contributors to Mozilla can decide what they want to work on. This includes both individuals and organizations. The contributor called "Netscape" has decided to work on Mail in addition to the core layout engine. The contributor named "Ben" has chosen to work on mail exclusively. The contributor named "Fabian" has chosen to work on the DOM. What has the contributor named "phreit" decided to work on? If mozilla.org were to mandate that all contributors should work only on the layout engine, then the only effect will be fewer contributors. For example, I'm working on DOM Style issues and MIME integration issues on Linux. Neither has anything to do with Gecko. The latter doesn't even have anything to do with Mozilla-based browsers because those browsers have to reimplement the mime service interfaces in most cases anyway. So please don't tell me that I should be working on Gecko, because frankly I find the whole layout section of the code incredibly tiresome.

#22 pbreit

by pbreit

Thursday November 15th, 2001 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

pbreit's working on getting them to stop wastimg precious and severely limited development, management and testing resources on superfluous components and features so they can get a finished product out before IE finishes closing the door on viable browser competition.

It would be fine if developers could work in total independence on the non-core add-ons but unfortunately that's not the case as the moz site, bug-base, status reports, discussion groups, etc. are littered with non-browser cruft.

#23 Re: pbreit

by joschi

Thursday November 15th, 2001 11:37 AM

Reply to this message

You think that bitching endlessly on mozillazine is working?

#48 Re: Re: pbreit

by Martyr

Saturday November 17th, 2001 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, exactly. Please stop thinking that endless negative comments (a kind of dark crusade) will really help Mozilla. It doesn't.

This has been your intermittant morale message. Chin up! Moz rocks!

#49 Mozilla vs Opera-re:Embedability & Cross Platform

by JayeshSh <JayeshSh@netscape.net>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 8:43 AM

Reply to this message

Hello All,

The beginning of this discussion focused on Mozilla vs Opera. Here are my thoughts related to the embedability and cross-platform nature of both browsers:

Opera has made great strides with their "Project Magic" effort, started only in 1998, if I remember correctly. Opera is available for the following platforms: Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOS (PPC and Carbon), Symbian, QNX, BeOS, OS/2. Of these operating systems, Symbian, QNX, Linux and BeOS have been used to power "Internet Devices" and Personal Digital Assitents. For a company of about 100 employees, the quality and cross-platform availability of Opera's products is astonishing. Most recently, Opera has been installed on Sharp's new Linux powered PDA. Of additional interest to Linux fans: as far as I know, Opera uses the Qt toolkit for their Linux version. Opera has developed a browser that is small, fast, available for many platforms, and standard's compliant. I think Opera's creators must be honored to know that their product is being compared with a project such as Mozilla, which is backed by thousands of employees, developers, and one of the largest companies in the world (AOL Time-Warner.) Regarding the latest 6.0 Beta release from Opera: I think there are some good new features, however, the browser is slower and less stable than before. I think it was released with the "beta" tag for good reason. For now, Opera 5.12 has all the features I need, and I have to yet to be convinced to use Opera 6 instead. Of course, Netscape 6.1 (Mozilla 0.9.2+) is my "default" / main browser.

Using Netscape 6.1 is incredibly satisfying: it's the browser I have always wanted. It is a beautiful creature, yet it has the strength and tenacity of a work-horse. It holds it's children gently within it's Kanga-pounch - the finally useful Sidebar. AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) is one of those children: it is amazing to see a "real" AIM version for Netscape, not a standard Windows AIM version, masquerading as "Netscape Instant Messenger", as in the past. If I am correct, this has been accomplished using XUL and its related technologies. This shows the stunning "extendability" of Mozilla, and proves that Mozilla is more than a program - It has earned the right to be called a "platform". Mozilla, like Opera, is available simultaneously for many platforms,and has been incorporated into some products like as Activestate's Komodo. But Opera has gained greater use and credibility in the "embedability" market, and Mozilla has yet to persuade a major PDA maker to use its browser. This does not in any way mean that Mozilla could not be used in other products/devices in the future. I think Mozilla has made tremendous progress recently, and will soar to even greater heights, and bluer skies in the future, with all of your support, of course. Case in point: I was looking at some screenshots of early (1998) versions of "NGLayout" / i.e. Gecko) on Mozilla.org. Looking at those bare,unaddorned grey NGLayout screens, with single "back" and "forward" buttons, I relized how far Mozilla has come - from a small project at Netscape, to a full fledged, "sixth generation" browser. Mozilla - you have come a long way, baby! All you Mozilla developers, testers and supporters: you rock! Mozilla skeptics, die-hard IE fans and general browser agnostics: prepare to have your socks knocked off with the Mozilla of the future!

The verdict on embedability, cross-platform compatibility and extendability: Opera wins for having won more people to embed their browser; Mozilla wins for cross-platform development and incredible extendability.

#89 The problem with embedability is SIZE...

by Svartalf <fearl@airmail.net>

Wednesday December 5th, 2001 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is a huge hulking monster, requiring some 12+ Mb (in the case of the Tuxia PDA proof of concept they released recently...) or more (The average, un-stripped-down install requires 26Mb!) of storage space. If you want Java and any other plugins, it requires more. Compare this to the footprint of Opera. Something like 2-4Mb without Java or plugin support for the dynamic linked version.

Mozilla\'s only been embedded in one place that I know of to date- the Gateway touchpad. Most of the PDAs out there have only 16-32Mb of flash on them, and Mozilla would eat most of that even with a compressed filesystem, leaving nothing for space for other apps.

This is not a slam on Mozilla- I\'m impressed with what they\'ve done, but I have to keep wondering if all the componentization that they\'ve done is really needed (as it\'s a source of part of that enormous size...).

#25 Re: pbreit

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday November 15th, 2001 2:09 PM

Reply to this message

"... so they can get a finished product out before IE finishes closing the door on viable browser competition."

I believ that Netscape has put 3 finished products out the door, the last two of which are serious comptetitors with IE (at least according to C|net and other software review sites and critics).

--Asa

#69 Re: Mozilla sound like the obvious choice

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Sunday November 18th, 2001 7:45 PM

Reply to this message

Opera is useless because it has no DOM support. If you don't believe me, try out the following site: <http://www.vbrad.com>

On the left side there is collapsible list written exclusively using standard-compliant DOM code. It works in IE, Moz, Konqueror (somewhat), but not in Opera (including Opera 6 beta).

#71 Bad DOM support not *no DOM support*

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday November 19th, 2001 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#72 You are right, it is worse n/t

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday November 19th, 2001 7:56 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#79 Lack of standard DOM != Useless

by paulm

Monday November 19th, 2001 8:50 PM

Reply to this message

Certainly inappropriate for the tiny percentage of "sites" that require DOM for legitimate reasons and those that use it gratuitously without providing a fallback. Far from "useless" though. It has loads of features that make it very useful to me.

#82 Here is why lack of DOM makes it useless.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 10:44 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, maybe a tiny percentage uses DOM, but on a "smart device", you can't just download IE or Moz and see if the site looks better. You are stuck with the installed browser.

DOM is even more important on smart devices because it allows you to download a page and do various things with it without having to go back to the server.

Collapsible menu is a great example. I've seen sites where the page goes to the server just to show a sub menu. This is totally not necessary with DOM.

As far as fallback, I simply refuse to do that. I will not write multiple pages. The only exception I make is for NS 4.x. And only on well travelled pages. If the user insists on using 5 year old technology -- well then. It is much easier for the user to download a modern browser than for me to write several sets of pages. IE 5, 6, Moz, Netscape 6.x provide DOM support that is good enough and Konqueror is getting there very rapidly. There is no excuse today for having a HTML4/CSS1/CSS2/DOM compliant browser.

#9 Start again

by SmileyBen

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 4:11 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe they'll build a new one from scratch!

:-)

JOKE! JOKE!

#10 Does this mean Sony Progmers contributing to Moz?

by tny

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 6:51 AM

Reply to this message

Sounds to me as though it might . . . . then again, it could perhaps mean just Sony contributing to a vendor build for Sony devices . . .

(Sorry for the abbreviation in title)

#14 Re: Does this mean Sony Progmers contributing to M

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday November 14th, 2001 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

Dude, have you ever played with sony software? Trust me, it looks pretty, but you don't want it.

#18 Re: Re: Does this mean Sony Progmers contributing

by tny

Thursday November 15th, 2001 9:21 AM

Reply to this message

Can't say that I have. Will defer to your experience ;-)

#19 Hold the phone, folks

by skeeter

Thursday November 15th, 2001 9:28 AM

Reply to this message

Could it just be they are thinking of Opera? See artical <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01> and here is a little paste from the page about Opera 6.

\" Although Netscape\'s small browser efforts have stumbled with repeated delays, and Microsoft\'s have met with resistance from operating system competitors, Opera has been moving aggressively to establish itself as the browser vender of choice for small devices.

This summer, the U.K.-based mobile software unit of Psion selected Opera as the browser for its handsets. That agreement came shortly after Opera took the wraps off its deal to supply IBM with small browsers. Before that, Opera released a browser for Symbian\'s EPOC operating system for next-generation cell phones and other mobile Internet access devices. \"

#24 Re: Hold the phone, folks

by tny

Thursday November 15th, 2001 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

Why would AOL and Sony get together to work on Opera? Seems a stretch to me.

No, I'm guessing that they're talking about a Ázilla.

#26 Re: Hold the phone, folks

by garfieldbond

Thursday November 15th, 2001 4:14 PM

Reply to this message

Think about this logically for a second. AOLTW has Netscape 6.x and the mozilla project, and is in #2 as far as browser placement, and are in a position to get Netscape into more computers through AOL and Compuserve. Sony needs a browser. Netscape has a browser that can supposedly be redesigned easily to fit on small devices (Gecko), and is standards compliant to boot. Now, where might your thinking lead you to predict what AOL and Sony are going to do? Would they work together just to involve another browser neither of them develop?

#27 Re: Re: Hold the phone, folks

by strauss

Thursday November 15th, 2001 4:38 PM

Reply to this message

However, initial promises of Gecko being suitable for small devices have not held up over the years. The code, memory and processor bandwidth footprints are all quite large for the current generation of embedded systems. Of course that will be much less true in the fuiure, since the costs of all three items are continuing to drop fairly fast.

#29 What about a playstation

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Thursday November 15th, 2001 7:59 PM

Reply to this message

Likely the divice gecko will be used with will not be some underpowered cellphone or handheld. If we are taking about a Playstation, this divice should have enough cpu power and memory for Gecko--it has too to play all the games. Gecko is a go if the device is a playstation.

#40 Re: What about a playstation

by macpeep

Friday November 16th, 2001 9:13 AM

Reply to this message

Of course, Opera and Pocket IE run just fine on handhelds and cellphones. Pocket IE works great and has 128 bit SSL, frames support, JavaScript and now even Java thanks to the Insignia Java VM... There's a Flash plugin too but I haven't tried that one..

#33 Re: Re: Hold the phone, folks

by skeeter

Friday November 16th, 2001 6:02 AM

Reply to this message

Hi All

Don't get me wrong here, I too would like to see the owner of NS get more involved with things, however for their 'yuck' # 7 platform they are still using an embeded third party browser (IE) plus Sony is yes play station and it is populare however cell phones in Europe (some countries up to 80% population coverage) and the not to mention the '3rd' World where cell phones are exploding in sales represent a market that well Play Station is just that playing around.

All in IMHO; Mozilla user since number 5.

#42 There is one reason

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Friday November 16th, 2001 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

Yes AOL is still using IE for AOL 7. Ido not take this to mean AOL has lost interest in Mozilla/Netscape. Not at all. If you follow the tech news you will have heard that AOL is currently beginning work to include Mozilla/Netscape browser into their online service Compuserve 7. If there are any major transition bugs that arise during the transitioning from IE to Netscape it would be best to find them out on Cpompuserve which has a much smaller user base than AOL. Once AOL works out the Compuserve transition they can determine how to proceed with AOL.

Now with Sony. Could it be that Sony realizes that AOL will be transitioning AOL to Mozilla/Netscape and thus the choice of browser for the Playstation? I also wonder if AOL and Sony have made a deal were AOL is the prefered Online service for users of the playstation, providing special online areas within AOL where gameplaers can chat while they play games; where AOL makes it easier to connect and play online multiplayer games? If Sony is looking for such an alliance/partnership it would make sense to plan to use the browser which issoon to become the default browser for AOL. This seems to me to be why Sony is working with Mozilla for the Playstation.

#45 Re: Re: Hold the phone, folks

by skeeter

Saturday November 17th, 2001 1:07 AM

Reply to this message

Hi

I, for myself have no use for AOL or interest, hope that your right in the Sony connection and the chat thing. As to Compuserve, well it make sense as you say. Anyway here is the latest from cnet about AOL 7 Beta

"Netscape Navigator, the browser AOL paid big bucks for back in 98, is the biggest hole. Although AOL made noise earlier this year about its Komodo <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5729530.html> project, which would let AOLers substitute Netscape for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, version 7.0 still relies on IE to show Web pages." Let's hope that someday, they too see Mozilla as the better browser and act on it.

#56 It is interesting....

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 3:32 PM

Reply to this message

You know it is interesting how some news sites want to trash projects, maybe this is done to increase traffic to their site. If the C/Net reporter has researched the story he/she would have found out the Mozilla/Netscape is under testing by AOL in the beta release of Compuserve 7. it makes sense for AOL to trial Netscape on Compuserve, which has a much smaller user base, before it transitions AOL to Netscape. The C/Net story has a much different conclusion when this additional information is included. (BTW C/Net is a sister site to ZDNet. (Both of these sites are so pro Microsoft and anti-(anthing which dares compete against Microsoft) it is sad. Many people do not follow the tech news closely enough to notice this and take what these two sites proclaim as truth.)

#60 Re: It is interesting....

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 5:50 PM

Reply to this message

"(Both of these sites are so pro Microsoft and anti-(anthing which dares compete against Microsoft) it is sad."

If you ever go to a pro-Microsoft site like Paul Thurrott's WinInfo or ActiveWin, you'll find that everyone there says that CNET/ZDNet are anti-Microsoft...

Alex

#62 Re: Re: It is interesting....

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 7:01 PM

Reply to this message

Sort of like how conservatives accuse the mainstream media of having a liberal agenda, while liberals accuse them of being conservative shills for big business.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

#28 Where are the builds?

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Thursday November 15th, 2001 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

I haven't seen any lately

#31 Re: Where are the builds?

by lama <lasse@lama.no>

Friday November 16th, 2001 12:08 AM

Reply to this message

Where they always are, <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…lla/nightly/latest-trunk/> The build comments haven\\\'t been updated for a while though. That\\\'s probably just asa being busy getting 0.96 out the door.

#32 User build comments?

by johann_p

Friday November 16th, 2001 1:14 AM

Reply to this message

Has anybody tried recent builds (since 11.8.)? Any noteworthy enhancements, stable? what do you think of generally providing the opportunity to users to post their comments on builds? could be interesting ....

#37 Re: User build comments?

by schapel

Friday November 16th, 2001 7:16 AM

Reply to this message

I've used the trunk nightly builds each day this week and they've all worked about as well as the 0.9.6 branch builds. If you want to rate nightly builds, you can do that at MozillaNews.org <http://mozillanews.org/>

#30 Cache

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday November 15th, 2001 9:29 PM

Reply to this message

Has Mozilla stopped using a cache for files or is the cache very slow?

#34 OT: too dumb to use bugzilla?

by johann_p

Friday November 16th, 2001 6:54 AM

Reply to this message

sorry for the OT post, but can anybody point out how to correctly use bugzilla to find out - which bugs have been fixed in the last <n> days - which bugs have been opened during the last <n> days When I use this my way I get such a rediculously small number of bugs that I cant believe I am doing it right. Here is what I try to find bugs fixed in the last two weeks: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…mp;order=%27Importance%27>

#35 OT: Bugs Fixed in Past x Days - Sample Query

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Friday November 16th, 2001 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

Hi,

here is the query I use: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

It doesn't seem to work perfectly because I see many of the same bugs for severy days, even though I had selected "Changed in the last *1* day".

If anyone knows how to make a better query for bugs fixed since "yesterday", please send me an e-mail with the link to <Peter@Lairo.com>

Thank You, Peter Lairo

#36 Re: OT: too dumb to use bugzilla?

by lama <lasse@lama.no>

Friday November 16th, 2001 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

This <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time> is a query for bugs fixed since November 8. I set status to resolved and verified, resolution to fixed, and on the drop down stuff on the bottom of the query page I specify "resolution" "changed after" "20011108". 314 bugs found.

#38 Changed in last ... days doesnt work?

by johann_p

Friday November 16th, 2001 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

Thanx lama, using the "from date", everything works just fine! Obviously "changed in the last <n> days" doesnt give the same result as entering the equivalent from date. Is this a bug in bugzilla or do these fields have different meanings?

#39 Re: User build comments?

by schapel

Friday November 16th, 2001 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

"Changed in the last n days" gives you bugs that have *changed* in any way in the last n days. That's, of course, different from bugs that have been *created* in the last n days.

If you want the bugs that have been created recently, select "Where the field(s) [Bug creation] changed dates <a recent date> to <Now>.

#41 we love netscape!!!

by fat_cow

Friday November 16th, 2001 3:20 PM

Reply to this message

... especially since <http://www.netscape.de> showcases a regular "Netscape Stripgirl" -- whatdayasay any chance of downloading that "build"? I, for one, would love to browse the source.

#78 HOLY GUACAMOLE!!!!

by quake2guy

Monday November 19th, 2001 7:27 PM

Reply to this message

Wow! I never knew Netscape was that supportive of a workplace!!! Those pictures are great and especially since they are official Netscape stuff! I'll bet that most folks have no idea about this sort of thing. Perfect if you are trapped inside of a content filtering system. Boss:"What are you doing Johnson?" You :"Just 'looking up' information on this Enterprise server for our German office sir." Boss:"Good work Johnson. Send me those specs when you're done looking at them."

#43 Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an ipaq-Linux

by thomanski

Friday November 16th, 2001 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

The new version of Linux for the handheld device will feature a range of programs, including e-mail applications, an MP3 player, and the popular video game "Doom." It will also come with an implementation of the open-source Mozilla Web browser, called Nanozilla, which has the features of the desktop version of the software. It's the first time the browser, developed by Mozilla.org, will be available for the iPaq, Hintermayr says.

--> <http://www.cnn.com/2001/T…linux.ipaq.idg/index.html> <http://www.cnn.com/2001/T…linux.ipaq.idg/index.html>

#46 Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an ipaq-Linux

by macpeep

Saturday November 17th, 2001 3:35 AM

Reply to this message

Very interesting indeed. There's very little RAM on these things and it's divided between storage and runtime RAM, which usually means that roughly half is storage and half is runtime. That means Nanozilla would have no more than, at MOST, 16 or 32 megs of RAM to work with, depending on the iPAQ model. From what I've understood about Mozilla memory usage, this means that the browser would have to be pretty radically re-engineered. Keep in mind that you would also have other stuff running at the same time - such as the OS and whatever desktop / windowing system you would be using. Footprint wise it's quite feasible to plant Mozilla in an iPAQ though. I'm very curious though about how much of Mozilla actually is in Nanozilla..

#51 Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an ipaq

by thomanski

Saturday November 17th, 2001 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

Well, according to this <http://www.tuxia.com/Nanozilla.htm> (<http://www.tuxia.com/Nanozilla.htm>) they are using Gecko and do support HTML 4, XML, CSS, JS and, tahdah, XUL. Flash memory footprint of 9 MB and runtime memory consumption of 32 MB (both plus plugins). They say they are using the Kaffe Java VM, xpdf and support Shockwave Flash, RealPlayer and mp3/WAVE/AU playback.

They are also talking about mail crypto. I'm wondering whether that means they've ported Messenger, too. In any case sounds quite impressive!

... Also wondering whether any of these performance/footprint optimizations are usable for and fed back into Mozilla?!

#54 Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an ipaq

by macpeep

Saturday November 17th, 2001 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

9MB footprint plus 32MB runtime!? Umm, I thought they were targeting iPAQ's. Only the latest models have 64MB of RAM and even those will only have 23MB to spare if you run Mozilla on it. That's not really acceptable, unfortunately.. Using 41MB out of 64MB is totally ridiculous!

#55 Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an ipaq

by thomanski

Saturday November 17th, 2001 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

> Using 41MB out of 64MB is totally ridiculous! Uhm... that's true indeed.

#58 Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an

by SmileyBen

Saturday November 17th, 2001 4:41 PM

Reply to this message

Macpeep said: >9MB footprint plus 32MB runtime!? Umm, I thought they were targeting iPAQ's. Only the latest models have 64MB of RAM and even those will only have 23MB to spare if you run Mozilla on it. That's not really acceptable, unfortunately.. Using 41MB out of 64MB is totally ridiculous!<

Erm. What?!?!? When is the last time you multitasked on a handheld? The general idea is that with a palmtop applications are welcome to basically use all the memory (with small amounts left for various things, but bear in mind the OS tends to run in separate, protected memory) - so why on earth shouldn't nanozilla make use of the RAM it has on offer?!?!?

#59 Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozilla on an

by macpeep

Saturday November 17th, 2001 5:05 PM

Reply to this message

"Erm. What?!?!? When is the last time you multitasked on a handheld? The general idea is that with a palmtop applications are welcome to basically use all the memory (with small amounts left for various things, but bear in mind the OS tends to run in separate, protected memory) - so why on earth shouldn't nanozilla make use of the RAM it has on offer?!?!?"

All the time actually. I listen to mp3's on my iPAQ while surfing the net on the way to work.. But the point was that there's 64MB of memory COMBINED. Storage *AND* runtime. Since you have other stuff on the device than just Mozilla, it means that you would have to delete all your calendar entries just to be able to run it. It uses 9MB storage and 32MB runtime = 41MB total. Out of 64MB available. Out of those 64MB, I'm sure the OS itself uses a bunch as storage as well as in memory, plus all your other apps. Even if you shut down all other apps while running Mozilla, they still use up memory for storage.

#63 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozil

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Sunday November 18th, 2001 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

Indeed. I have a 32 meg iPaq and my normal usage is MP3 listening while reading web pages. From a hard reset my iPaq has 31.25 MB total main memory with 11.55 MB in use for storage and 7.09 MB free for storage, with 2.77 MB in use by prgrams and 9.84MB free. The only way I could run mozilla would be to install it on a compact flash card or on my Microdrive, which is where I have the Jeode JVM and a few other bits of software.

It is feasible but not for an out of the box iPaq I guess. More Moore's law I guess, given they reckon it will be another 12 months before anything is released.

#64 more off topic now.. iPAQ & microdrive & CF cards

by macpeep

Sunday November 18th, 2001 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

How is the Microdrive working for you? I have a CF pocket and a 64MB CF card. I've heard a lot of different versions on how the IBM Microdrives are. Some say they totally rule, others say they suck up battery so fast the iPAQ is completely useless.. I'd like to get one for mp3 use for exactly the use pattern you said - listening to mp3's while reading web pages on the subway on the way to work. Right now, I have to put the mp3's on the flash card. BTW, do you know what the maximum CF card size is that works with the 36xx series iPAQ's? Some CF manufacturers list 64MB as the largest size but I've seen people claim they have 512MB cards working just fine.

In any case, to make this a little more on-topic, I have my iPAQ crammed with stuff.. Books from Project Gutenberg, mp3's, software.. I also work in a company that makes software for handhelds & smartphones (a 3D game engine) and I have a lot of our own stuff on it as well.. There's no way in hell I'd give 41MB of 64MB to *one* application. Let alone now that I only have 32MB on the device! :)

#66 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozil

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Sunday November 18th, 2001 1:17 PM

Reply to this message

I like the Microdrive. In terms of battery use, I bought the PCMCIA expansion jacket instead of the CF jacket, simply because I wanted as much flexibility as possible (the Microdrive comes with a type I and type II CF adapter), as well as the additional battery. I have had no trouble with battery life so far. I rarely charge the jacket more than once a fortnight and my iPaq lasts as long as it did prior to getting the extra kit.

I have a 128 MB CF card and 2 x 64MB cards and both are fine. I have seen 256 examples, but have never seen a report on their availibility for iPaqs.

I have quite a few small Java applications running on the iPaq as well as loads of Acrobat documents and like you, no way am I giving 41 MB to anything. I must say I have been disappointed for a while that noone has done some sort of PocketPC port of Mozilla. I would like to see it on my PocketPC instead of P IE. I look at K-Meleon and I see Gecko running like a little steam train and I see a < 12MB footprint. Surely Gecko could be stripped down to fit PocketPC. PPC 2002 already means 36xx owners who upgrade will be running software from cards so now might be a good time to get a Pocket Gecko on the market :)

#68 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozil

by macpeep

Sunday November 18th, 2001 2:03 PM

Reply to this message

"PPC 2002 already means 36xx owners who upgrade will be running software from cards so now might be a good time to get a Pocket Gecko on the market :)"

If only they would send me the CD already! Damn! What do you mean tho? It goes into flash ROM more or less entirely and some parts go into normal memory, right? It's not THAT fat is it? Oh well, I have no problem with running stuff out of CF anyway.. I need runtime RAM tho, at least 10 megs or so..

#76 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozil

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Monday November 19th, 2001 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

Like you I am waiting for my CD, although I am reliably informed from the wirelss guys in my work that the 2002 on its own takes up all of the 36xx's 32 meg - I am guessing thats RAM and Storage. Apparently to run win media player you on the 36xx you need a flash install. However, I also read somewhere that part fo the delay with Compaq is with them trying to address the bloat. Oh and and my fav - they are bundling the Jeode JVM - a month after I bought it... grrrr

A pity you cant get winAmp on the PPC...

#77 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only slightly off-topic: Mozil

by macpeep

Monday November 19th, 2001 3:04 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmmm.. I just heard slightly similar but not quite.. that it takes up all the flash ROM and the media player is installed in ram and eats up from the 32 megs. Not that it fills the 32 megs and the media player has to go on a separate flash. If that's true, screw it! That sucks! And.. I just bought the Jeode JVM too.. :D About three weeks ago so.. We're in the same boat it seems. Made all the same mistakes too. :)

#61 I think this is generalizable...

by choess <choess@stwing.upenn.edu>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 6:41 PM

Reply to this message

...to any mainstream browser with powerful CSS+DOM support. Looking at the W3C's standards targeted towards handhelds (XHTML Basic, CSS Mobile Profile, etc.), it seems that they don't expect handhelds to support the <style> element (although they can use external stylesheets), scripting, BiDi, complex tables or forms, frames, various DHTMLish CSS properties, and so forth. The problem with stripping out unnecessary support for things like this in a browser like Mozilla is that it's not just a matter of clean modularization (so that layout, style system, etc. are separable), but considerable changes actually have to be made to the data structures in, for instance, the style system. Since these data structures are considerably optimized for a role of supporting all of CSS or what have you, I would think that it's a non-trivial task to cut out the unnecessary features and still perform efficiently.

#47 screenshot

by macpeep

Saturday November 17th, 2001 3:42 AM

Reply to this message

#52 Interesting

by jedbro

Saturday November 17th, 2001 12:03 PM

Reply to this message

Wow.. I'm impressed with what they say they have done with Nanozilla... Looks like a third party is really taking advantage of Mozilla.. AWESOME..

I found this here <http://www.tuxia.com/TASTE.htm> They seem to state they have form a large part of MOzilla's development with Nanozilla;

""" * Embedded Mozilla and other Browsers * Widest possible variety of Plug-Ins * TUXIA has one of the largest Mozilla development teams outside Netscape """"

Anyone know about this? And what they have been "donating" to mozilla?

Cheers... Go Tuxia!!

#53 MORE

by jedbro

Saturday November 17th, 2001 12:06 PM

Reply to this message

Wow.... this rocks.. Why hasn't Mozillazine or other Moz news sites Told us about this?

Anyhow.. more from there press release.. be sure and read it here <http://www.tuxia.com/13_nov_press_release.htm> "Mozilla.org community has produced a high quality, flexible and standard compliantbrowser and TUXIA will continue our cooperation and contribution to mozilla.org especially in embedded areas" said Quy Tonthat, Chief Development Officer, TUXIA.

"TUXIA's ground-breaking work in offering Mozilla-based browsers for the embedded space enhances the scope of the Mozilla project." said Mitchell Baker, mozilla.org's Chief Lizard Wrangler. "TUXIA is bringing Mozilla's standards-based browser technology to broad new categories of appliances." wrote Anthony O`Sullivan , VP Marketing, TUXIA

#57 Maybe....

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

I wonder if mozilla's popularity for projects such as this one is why Microsoft finally dropped "Netscape style" plug-in support. Microsoft may now be realizing that it cannot compete by producing a better browser and many develpers (both software and Web) are realizing the value of developing to standards, so they cannot defeat competitors by incorporating proprietary standards. What is left to "cut off the air supply": plu-ins. If developers drop Netscape plu-ins in favour of Windows specific active X Microsoft believes they can once again "cut off Netscape's air supply."

I view this as a recogniction by Microsoft of the threat they feel comming from Mozilla/Netscape (and other browsers). IE is nolonger the only viable competitor and many people and companies are now looking for alternatives to Microsoft and all its security issues abd viruses.

#65 Re: Maybe....

by macpeep

Sunday November 18th, 2001 11:44 AM

Reply to this message

Speculation and paranoia I think.. But 95% of all noteworthy plugins already existed as ActiveX for IE. There was next to zero added value of supporting the old Netscape style plugins too. The only well known and widely used Netscape style plugin still used with IE (that didn't already have an ActiveX version) was Quick Time. Obviously, Apple was already working on it because it didn't take much longer than a week until the ActiveX version of the QT plugin arrived.

My guess is that they simply didn't want to keep that code in the codebase anymore since all it contributed to was more complexity and size without giving any benefit what so ever. Like I said, all plugins that mattered were already available as ActiveX plugins so nobody reallyused Netscape plugins with IE anyway.

#67 Re: Re: Maybe....

by strauss

Sunday November 18th, 2001 1:34 PM

Reply to this message

It is true that Microsoft wants developers to use their proprietary Windows-only Explorer-only software format instead of Netscape plugins for all their usual dastardly reasons. One reason everyone had alreadfy moved over the ActiveX for Explorer was that the plug-in support in Explorer was always quite weak. It didn't support LiveConnect in any useful ways and had a number of gaps in important API calls. This kind of deliberate crippling is typical of Microsoft approaches to third-party standards.

#70 Re: Re: Re: Maybe....

by macpeep

Monday November 19th, 2001 4:30 AM

Reply to this message

"It is true that Microsoft wants developers to use their proprietary Windows-only Explorer-only software format instead of Netscape plugins for all their usual dastardly reasons."

Well, for a lot of reasons, I'm sure. It is also true that architectually, it's much nicer to use ActiveX for plugins since the rest of the browser is based on it. Kinda like Mozilla plugins being based on XPCOM. Microsoft simply has no interest or reason to support Netscape plugins. Users don't really know the difference anyway and Netscape plugins aren't a "standard" or anything so why support them instead of using ActiveX? Why help the competition? There's absolutely zero reason for Microsoft to have two plugin mechanisms in the browser when one suits their purpose completely and is controlled by themselves and the other is an age old, not widely used (anymore, since all plugins for IE have been ActiveX for ages) standard that adds nothing but bloat to the codebase.

#44 O/T: why not a voting system to rate nightlies?

by stylo

Friday November 16th, 2001 8:51 PM

Reply to this message

an idea:

user feedback.

a listing for each nightly, everyone can vote by clicking a button, rankings of 1 to 10, then we can see which nightlies to download or not. Even have comments for each if you want.

#50 Re: O/T: why not a voting system to rate nightlies

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday November 17th, 2001 9:42 AM

Reply to this message

This has been discussed before but never implemented. You can rate nightlies at MozillaNews <http://www.mozillanews.org/> though.

Alex

#73 OT: Themes

by johann_p

Monday November 19th, 2001 9:15 AM

Reply to this message

i wonder whats up with themes: it seems a lot of work has been gone into this and the current situation is that practically no themes are available. themes.org features two that really arent worth downloading, netscape theme park still has 6.0 themes that cant be used with current releases, aqua theme has been put down because apple sucks, .... so? was it worth the effort? Personally, I could have lived without themes at all and would have preferred people/netscape to invest the effort in productivity issues, but no that themes work, why dont we get any?

#74 Re: OT: Themes

by WillyWonka

Monday November 19th, 2001 9:47 AM

Reply to this message

1) They are a lot of work

2) The code underneath is still changing (Wait until Mozilla 1.0)

The reason the 6.0 themes don't work on newer versions is because of #2. I know I've wanted to make themes but it's not practical at the moment to make one. Plus last time I used cameleon <http://chameleon.mozdev.org/> it had it's fair share of problems.

#75 Re: Re: OT: Themes

by tny

Monday November 19th, 2001 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

Wasn't Cameleon one of the Alphanumerica projects (along with Aphrodite)? I know that Aphrodite has been orphaned; but it looks like someone is still working on Cameleon (apparently he's waiting for Mozilla 1.0 before he rewrites it one last time).

If someone can make some of the Aphrodite themes (e.g., new version of the Sullivan themes) available for Mozilla without Aphrodite, that would be terrific.

#80 Re: OT: Themes

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

When you type, "aqua theme has been put down because apple sucks," it seems that you are blaming Apple for Netscape's inability to make its "themes" useful.

#81 Re: Re: OT: Themes

by tny

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 9:26 AM

Reply to this message

I think he is more likely implying that Apple got on the phone to the Aqua-theme developer and pointed out to him that he was encroaching on their IP. Whether that's the reason, or it's because the developer of the Aqua-theme didn't have the time to keep up with the changes to XUL in the past few milestones, I don't know.

#83 yep

by niner

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 12:39 PM

Reply to this message

It's truly Apple's fault. At least that's what stood on the Aqua-theme page. I don't think it's because of the syntax changes because the Aqua KDE theme and some others were taken down too.

#88 Re: yep

by strauss

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 6:13 PM

Reply to this message

It's Apple's "fault" that they protect intellectual property which is key to their platform differentiation and which cost them millions of dollars to develop? If not for design patents, Apple would not have had an economic incentive to develop Aqua in the first place.

#84 OT: tab navigation

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 2:19 PM

Reply to this message

Several questions:

1. How does one navigate between tabs using the keyboard? 2. Is there a command string whereby I can load several web sites into Moz and each would get its own tab?

Thanks

#86 Re: OT: tab navigation

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

"1. How does one navigate between tabs using the keyboard?"

Don't know.

"2. Is there a command string whereby I can load several web sites into Moz and each would get its own tab?"

I know there's a JavaScript thing that opens several new windows with different pages in each, but I'm not sure about tabs. In one of Netscape's MachV documents I saw something about allowing bookmarks to open several pages in seperate tabs but I can't seem to find it now.

Alex

#87 Re: OT: tab navigation

by WillyWonka

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 4:33 PM

Reply to this message

ctrl-pgup

ctrl-pgdown

As for multiple tabs... I believe you have to install multizilla for that. <http://multizilla.mozdev.org/>

#85 New Netscape 6.2 Themes Available!

by caspy7

Tuesday November 20th, 2001 3:57 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like Netscape finally got their themes for 6.2 finished.

You can get to the Themes page from within Netscape 6.2 by clicking the View menu, then Apply Theme, then Get New Themes. (for any newbies that might not know)

Mark