Mozilla Branched for 0.9.7Tuesday December 18th, 2001Asa Dotzler writes: "Friday morning mozilla.org cut the branch for the next Mozilla milestone, 0.9.7. Work is now divided between the short-lived milestone branch and the development tip. Mozilla 0.9.7's ideal release date is this Friday." We'll let you know when the builds are available. Dynamic theme switching is in on the latest trunk nightlies (so unlikely to be in 0.9.7. However the speed of the dynamic speed switching is amazing, it's a major improvement over the speed it used to be back in the days of 0.8 Hopefully some hosting provider will be willing to help you out with your bandwidth worries. Would it not be possible to ask Netscape to let you host this site on the mozilla.org server or do you want to remain separate from Netscape/AOL? Cheez, the theme switcher really is nice! I think nothing will so swiftly speed adoption of Mozilla as a range of theme/skins for all user moods and personalities. I'm craving Toy Factory, Sky Pilot and hoping for a bootleg Aq, er ... Agua Mozilla. Is the XUL standard sufficiently established so that theme artists can reintroduce their designs? "Is the XUL standard sufficiently established so that theme artists can reintroduce their designs?" Doesn't look like it. There was a post in the newsgroups recently, which says that the xul just underwent some major rewriting. They removed a lot of xul tags that they weren't using and they are now using the new css properties -moz-border-colors and -moz-image-region (I think they are double borders and the ability to clip a smaller portion of a large image, to reduce ram footprint). And another message says that the outliner (The tree widget used throughout mozilla) also had a syntax change to it. So things are still in a state of flux. #27 link to XUL API tracker bugby tradervik <tradervik@mybc.com> Wednesday December 19th, 2001 5:44 PM For the curious, XUL stabilization has a tracker bug: 70753 (<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70753>). Looking at the list, there isn\\\'t a whole lot left to do. In fact, all the changes look like additions which will maintain backwards compatibility except the \\\"trivial\\\" renaming bug and the tree/outliner bugs. Nice link :) Wonder if they accidentaly removed the link parsing code when disabling the other links on the site to reduce traffic. Hmm jsut tried it with 121803 build and it works great, except the menu bar stayed in classic theme when I switched to modern, is this a known bug, is it being fixed? #2 How much bandwidth does mozillazine generate?by tseng_mike <tseng_mike@yahoo.com> Tuesday December 18th, 2001 5:47 PM Like the topic, how much bandwidth does mozillazine actually use monthly? #33 Re: How much bandwidth does mozillazine generate?by thelem Thursday December 20th, 2001 7:56 AM About 30gig, according to kerz. #34 Re: Re: How much bandwidth does mozillazine generaby SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net> Thursday December 20th, 2001 8:40 AM >About 30gig, according to kerz. In what kind of time frame? 30GB a month or 30GB a day? So at work today I got sort of tired of dealing with various bugs in .9.6, so I pulled a nightly. To my horror I found the "hand" icon that appears over a link looks like the one in IE. I haven't been keeping up on the details of Mozilla, but is this going to be the new default on the windows side? And I'd like to add that using the page title as a file name for saving an html document is a BAD idea. Course as long as the mail client improves, I'll be happy :) The (now disabled) forums had some discussion on this. As I stated there - it is great to see the old Netscape cursor gone. It made the system feel old and cludgy. In my opinion, it was a very unnecessary differentiation. But... if you liked it, simply download the old cursor and change your default setting in the Windows Control Panel. See also this bug: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112916> The filename behaviour is bug 115176 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115176> No fetch builds page? geeze your bandwidth must be really limited. I've gotten so used to going there and selecting the talkback builds. you can get at all the daily builds from the BuildBar page. The links at the end of the comments point to the build directory where you can pick the zip builds or the stub installer rather than the full installer linked to in the BuildBar. --Asa I just finally got around to bookmarking <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest> I liked the green on white text better than the ugly looking ftp listing :D Of course, since I'm using mozilla, I could probably just style ftp listings... maybe I'll do it when mozilla 1.0 comes out. maybe. One of the few bugs that affects me nearly EVERY day is Bug 95175 where opening an attachment from within email changes the name to the cache name, and not the file name. Is it just me, or does anyone else think this should be a little higher in the priority lists? Aside from this bug, the browser seems pretty darn fast and stable! I would like to know who this wretched Internet service provider is so I can warn people. What is the bandwidth limit? What was the original limit? A quick whois mozillazine.org gives us this : there policy : <http://localweb.com/adti/virtual_hosting.htm> This says: unlimited bandwidth, yeah right. Of course their legal paper says this : XII. Bandwith Limitations ADTI does not enforce any quota limits on bandwidth per client. However, ADTI reserves the right to revise this policy on a commercial basis. In the event the policy is revised, client shall have at least 30 days advance notice of such changes in ADTI’s policy. I Wonder if they got 30 days notice.... Hmm, I wonder if that is infact legal. There obviously are limits, though they are not set in stone, so in the UK a company could be done for false advertising (whatever their small print said). If, on the other hand, they had advertised *unmetered* bandwidth, than the hosting company would be providing what they say. Hmm,... I just went to PayPal because I wanted to make a donation, but if I understand the terms correctly, I would have to pay a 20$ fee to PayPal just to make my donation because I'm outside the US. Is this understanding of their terms correct? If so, couldn't you try to find another service that doesn't charge international users? Oliver Hi, Im an international user and I just paid 5$ this morning. I pay stuff all the time using pay pal mainly for EBay auctions. What u need to do is create an account and enter your creditcard details. Then there is a long confirmation process and then you can use it to donate money or buy stuff with a small commition (because u r an international user) this commtion is less than a buck in most cases. Itamar I'm in the UK, and when I created my account a couple of months back, they charged me $1 on my credit card which was used to confirm my account (it had a password on the credit card statement). There have been no other charges at all as far as I am aware, in fact they gave me $5 for confirming my account. If you use the following link to create your paypal account, then paypal will give me $5 when you confirm yourself. I'll send that money straight over to mozillazine. <https://www.paypal.com/refer/pal=LA3XKLPYHAARW> Hmm,... I just went to PayPal because I wanted to make a donation, but if I understand the terms correctly, I would have to pay a 20$ fee to PayPal just to make my donation because I'm outside the US. Is this understanding of their terms correct? If so, couldn't you try to find another service that doesn't charge international users? Oliver I don't know... I have been registered at Paypal for several months now. I had to go through a process of identification (they first billed me 1$ and a number appeared on my credit card listing the next month, then I had to type in this number so they knew there's really somebody behind this account). But now I just made a 10$ donation and it worked. By the way, I'm also an international customer for them, since I am living in Switzerland. Those 20$ are when you have a Non-euro bank account, yet live in a euro-country. Otherwise you'll just pay $1,50 to activate (which you'll get back with a $5 bonus). I know ad money only trickles now, but still, why's there no ad on this site? It doesn't make sense to keep it ad-free, if that's what the intention is. We've got to pay for it somehow and I'd rather see an ad than paypal. After all most of we can't paypal every month, right? I'd love to help in the testing of the 0.9.7 branch, but so far no Mac OS Classic builds have been made available. A Mac OS X build has been available for a couple of days now. What's the holdup for the classic build? #28 Re: Mac Classic Branch Nightlies?by asa <asa@mozilla.org> Wednesday December 19th, 2001 6:25 PM TommyBee, thanks so much for the offer of help in using/testing the branch Mac builds before we have a release. There are Mac classic builds available at <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…lla/nightly/latest-0.9.7/> but only in the "stub" installer form. I'm not sure what the delay on the full installer is but the stub should work equally well (and is even preferred by some). If you find something that really should be a 0.9.7 showstopper and it's not already listed at <119/3C21244B.8050300@mozilla.org>" rel="nofollow"><news://news.mozilla.org:1…<1244B.8050300@mozilla.org>> (or the latest post to that thread) then please email me and let me know. Thanks again for your help in testing. --Asa Unfortunately the installer seems to think that over three and a half gigabytes of hard disk space is actually a negative amount and thus won't let me install. I've filed bug 116141 to report this. That's bug 114550 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114550> To me, this is a showstopper for the 0.9.7 branch. I'll send Asa a note. |
|