MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 3 Status Update

Sunday May 19th, 2002

On Friday, Chris Hofmann, acting on behalf of drivers@mozilla.org, posted an RC3 status update to netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey. The update contains details about the progress so far and information on how you can help make RC3 not suck.


#1 Here's hoping...

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Sunday May 19th, 2002 9:31 PM

Reply to this message

that RC3 is the last release candidate...

#2 RC3, RC4, RC5

by techn9ne

Sunday May 19th, 2002 10:29 PM

Reply to this message

I'd rather see RC3, RC4, RC5 or whatever it takes rather than rush it and be filled with bugs.

I'm crossing my fingers that this very visible bug gets fixed soon: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26882>

#4 Re: RC3, RC4, RC5

by flacco

Monday May 20th, 2002 12:37 AM

Reply to this message

>> I'd rather see RC3, RC4, RC5 or whatever it takes rather than rush it and be filled with bugs.

What he said.

#31 Re: RC3, RC4, RC5

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday May 22nd, 2002 12:04 AM

Reply to this message

Has anybody considered fixing the known bugs before calling it a release candidate?

#33 Re: Some exotic things in article

by joschi

Wednesday May 22nd, 2002 1:13 AM

Reply to this message

tell me of a single application that has no known bugs? i'm not talking about nasa control programs, but real world end user applications. here, i'll save you the trouble: it doesn't exist.

#34 Re: Re: Some exotic things in article

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Wednesday May 22nd, 2002 1:34 AM

Reply to this message

I bet NASA:s programs are filled with small bugs.

Ok. When they hit "space" the radar monitor probably don't scroll down =) but every program has their own hidden "features" (bugs)!

#3 make RC3 not suck?

by Lancer

Sunday May 19th, 2002 11:50 PM

Reply to this message

Is it possible to make Mozilla not suck, in few weeks? Or this is going to take more time than a weeks?

#5 Re: make RC3 not suck?

by selmerv

Monday May 20th, 2002 2:13 AM

Reply to this message

They're nearly there, check <a title="make rc3 not suck" href="<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143200>">this page</a> for bugs yet to be fixed to make rc3 not suck.

#6 correct link

by thelem

Monday May 20th, 2002 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

#19 Re: make RC3 not suck?

by rp1

Monday May 20th, 2002 4:15 PM

Reply to this message

As opposed to...? IE6 has currently 12 known security holes <http://jscript.dk/unpatched/> after all 12 or 20 or something patches have been applied. I guess it does, if wear a black hat.

#20 Re: make RC3 not suck?

by rp1

Monday May 20th, 2002 4:15 PM

Reply to this message

As opposed to...? IE6 has currently 12 known security holes <http://jscript.dk/unpatched/> after all 12 or 20 or something patches have been applied. I guess it does, if wear a black hat.

#7 STILL problems with Tab borders in Classic theme

by chrisc

Monday May 20th, 2002 3:55 AM

Reply to this message

I can't believe that mozilla is going to 1.0 with the disappearing tab border bug (<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116394>) - I'd gotten used to it in the nightlies, so why isn't it fixed in 1.0? This makes mozilla look broken, if this isn't fixed I will not be using 1.0 and I won't be able to recommend it to other people.

#8 are you serious!?

by thegoldenear

Monday May 20th, 2002 6:55 AM

Reply to this message

"if this isn't fixed I will not be using 1.0 and I won't be able to recommend it to other people"

are you serious!? you wouldn't use or recommend a production release of a web browser because of this slight cosmetic user interface problem? I wonder how many people you'll deter from moving to the browser atall because of your inadvertant teaching by example; I bet ther'll be a few. if those doing the coding on Mozilla took heed of such extreme opinions as this then the application would never ever reach its 1.0

#9 Classic theme problem

by seymour <chris@blackplasma.net>

Monday May 20th, 2002 9:17 AM

Reply to this message

It was enough for me to stop using Classic, instead putting up with Modern (I use GrayModern now, which is nice - not so much blue).

A slight cosmetic interface problem can get really annoying when you see it all day long.

#10 Not only Classic has high visible problems

by pirat

Monday May 20th, 2002 10:28 AM

Reply to this message

Modern has similar problem - when you have tabs always open, even when there is only one (not default settings), opening the second one "jumps" tabs one or two pixels. There's a bug for it already...

#11 Re: Not only Classic has high visible problems

by jcf76 <jfleshman@hotmail.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, it's #137057 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137057> and as of this morning it has a patch. Hopefully it'll get r'ed and sr'ed soon. I don't know about the Classic skin problem; I don't think I've ever seen Classic.

#26 Yes. I Am.

by chrisc

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 5:01 AM

Reply to this message

Obviously, I'll just get them to use a decent nightly build instead.

#28 ahah...

by thegoldenear

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 1:08 PM

Reply to this message

I see. with that information it now makes sense. but without it you sounded like a fatalistic fanatical fundamentalist. Half of my point was that we teach by example, and yours sounded over-the-top to 'the readers'. :)

#32 Re: are you serious!?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday May 22nd, 2002 12:07 AM

Reply to this message

I think the appearance of the browser will affect people's opinions before the functionality will.

#12 3 years and not sucking?

by sphealey

Monday May 20th, 2002 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

I would hope that after three years the goal of RC3 would be a little higher than "not sucks".

sPh

#15 Re: 3 years and not sucking?

by whiprush <jorge@whiprush.org>

Monday May 20th, 2002 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

well, the one for 1.0 is "1.0 must rule" or something like that, is that good enough? :)

#18 Re: 3 years and not sucking?

by jsebrech

Monday May 20th, 2002 3:11 PM

Reply to this message

Hey, in only 3 years catching up to IE, and not sucking, that's pretty damn good, if you ask me.

#13 Odd problem

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 12:42 PM

Reply to this message

I use RC2 on WinNT with QuickLaunch on, so Mozilla is always running. I use IE as well. I do View Source on IE - it brings up the source in Notepad. I save the file with an .htm extention on the desktop. A while later (like 10-15 minutes) I try to delete it and it says that there has been a sharing violation (i.e. some other program is using file).

I used Handle by Sysinternals to find out which program has the file and it reports that Mozilla does. Somewhat stunned (since this file was not downloaded by Moz), I close Mozilla and voila - I can delete the file.

Can anyone explain this?

#14 Re: Odd problem

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 12:50 PM

Reply to this message

I just figured it out - and it is a pretty major bug. I forgot that I subsequently used web-based email in Moz and attached this file. It appears that Moz takes control of every file that is browsed and placed into <input type=File...

Here is the output of Handle program that lists files locked by Mozilla. (I attached rbcheck.htm and tt.log)

Handle v2.0 Copyright (C) 1997-2001 Mark Russinovich Sysinternals - <http://www.sysinternals.com>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mozilla.exe pid: 235 DBG\RGELB 4: Section C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\mozilla.exe 70: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\component.reg b4: Section \BaseNamedObjects\spiral_persistent_counter_shared_memoryNetscapeGecko1.0Win322002051008 11c: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\history.dat 150: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\modern.jar 154: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\en-US.jar 158: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\cert7.db 15c: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\comm.jar 164: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\toolkit.jar 170: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\en-win.jar 194: Section \BaseNamedObjects\RotHintTable 1b0: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\US.jar 1b4: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\help.jar 1b8: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\messenger.jar 1bc: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\Cache\_CACHE_003_ 1c0: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\inspector.jar 1c4: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\Cache\_CACHE_002_ 1cc: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\Cache\25FFD300d01 1d0: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\venkman.jar 1d8: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\chatzilla.jar 1f8: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\key3.db 210: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\Cache\_CACHE_MAP_ 214: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\hppn8pz9.slt\Cache\_CACHE_001_ 29c: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Desktop\rbcheck.htm 2e0: File C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\pippki.jar 314: File C:\WINNT\Profiles\rgelb.000\Desktop\tt.log 328: File C:\Business\Netscape\Program\Plugins

#16 Re: Odd problem

by jcf76 <jfleshman@hotmail.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 1:22 PM

Reply to this message

On Windows, a lot programs do that -- one of the text editors I used where I used to work had a tendency to keep handles to files open until I opened a new one. Try the process again, but instead of closing Mozilla open another local file (like bookmarks.html) and see if Moz releases the original file.

I'm not sure if this is a bug in Moz or a bug in Windows itself. Anyone who knows about the Win32 system care to comment?

#17 Re: Re: Odd problem

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

I submitted a bug, and it was marked a duplicate of 126829, which is verified fixed as of Friday. So I guess, we can call it resolved.

As far as the Win32, it works with files in the same manner as unix or mac or whatever. When you open a file, you are given a handle by the system. After the program is done with it, it is supposed to close the handle. As mentioned in the notes for the bug, the file wasn't being closed.

#21 protected bug

by james

Monday May 20th, 2002 8:11 PM

Reply to this message

I was looking at the "make RC3 not suck" bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143200> and one of the bugs is protected: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143200>. I wonder what it is?

#22 Re: protected bug

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday May 20th, 2002 8:14 PM

Reply to this message

You mean bug 127702 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127702> ? It's probably 'security sensitive'.

Alex

#24 Re: protected bug

by jcf76 <jfleshman@hotmail.com>

Monday May 20th, 2002 9:25 PM

Reply to this message

It's resolved fixed now; I'm guessing it'll be "declassified" when it's verified? I'm kinda curious as to what it was.

#23 Re: protected bug

by james

Monday May 20th, 2002 8:15 PM

Reply to this message

That second link should have been <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127702>

Mozilla didn't seem to be doing the "copy link location" thing correctly :(

#27 Security Problem With imap

by chrisc

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 10:47 AM

Reply to this message

the checkin says: for security purposes, only allow imap urls originating from external sources - perform a limited set of actions. Currently the allowed set includes: 1) folder selection 2) message fetch 3) message part fetch The checked in code just makes sure that the action is one of the allowed actions before it launches the external url

#25 Copy Link Location should be fixed IMO

by explo

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 2:45 AM

Reply to this message

I find the "Copy Link Location does no X copy" bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93308> rather annoying on Linux. It's not that uncommon to want to paste an URL from browser to somewhere else, so I'd think that this will annoy lots of people on Linux if left unfixed. (Yes, I've voted for this already)

#29 Re: Copy Link Location should be fixed IMO

by bzbarsky

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

1) That's not the bug you are seeing 2) The bug you are seeing (<<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143607>>) is fixed

#30 Yes, noticed that (was: Copy Link Location...)

by explo

Tuesday May 21st, 2002 9:42 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I noticed later discussion about the other bug in Bugs forum and while I initially thought that 143607 would be duplicate of the bug I mentioned, this apparently isn't the case. Silly me.

#35 The Big Bug - Performance

by Musti

Wednesday May 22nd, 2002 1:53 PM

Reply to this message

Is there any hope that in the future Mozilla could be faster? Or is just too big bug to fix? It starts slowly and even a bit exotic or bigger sites seems to be hard for Moz.

Can't be true that IE is most optimized browser.