MozillaZine

MOZILLA_1_0_RELEASE Tag Cut

Friday May 31st, 2002

In a newsgroup posting, Dawn Endico says, "The MOZILLA_1_0_RELEASE branch has been cut and while there is some tiny chance that we will need to take further changes, it is highly probable that this is the source we will release as Mozilla 1.0."

Read Dawn's full message for more details. Note that Mozilla 1.0 has not yet been released.


#1 Download of the Day - Friday May 31, 2002

by treebeard <treebeard@treebeard.net>

Friday May 31st, 2002 8:42 AM

Reply to this message

Emazing.com supports numerous daily emails, tips for this & that. This was in my mailbox this am:

Download of the Day Friday May 31, 2002

Free Software!

Mozilla RC1 After all this time, there is finally a Mozilla 1.0 release candidate. Mozilla 1.0 isn't here yet, but it looks like the time for release is near.

We like Mozilla -- it's like Netscape on steroids. If you'd like to try Mozilla, or just learn more about Mozilla and the Mozilla Organization, take a trip to their web page and read all about it. And perhaps you'd like to download RC1 and see how you like it.

You'll find Mozilla at its own site. Click here to visit.

the link is to <http://www.mozilla.org/>

#2 Mozilla simply isn't ready...

by PPedriana

Friday May 31st, 2002 9:50 AM

Reply to this message

Try using the menu at the top of <http://www.bmwusa.com/> and tell me that Mozilla is ready to be released. The massive memory leaking that happens with Mozilla is another reason it is not ready.

#5 Re: Mozilla simply isn't ready...

by leeal

Friday May 31st, 2002 10:11 AM

Reply to this message

Your link gives: "Welcome to bmwusa.com. We detect that you are using the Netscape 6x browser. We are working to make our site compatible with Netscape versions 6.0 and higher. For smooth browser performance at bmwusa.com, we recommend using Netscape 4.7 or Internet Explorer 4.0+."

Seems the problem is with the site not having standard compliance code, not with mozilla.

#8 Re: Re: Mozilla simply isn't ready...

by fletchsod

Friday May 31st, 2002 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

It work fine when I use Netscape 7.0 PR 1.

#17 Re: Re: Re: Mozilla simply isn't ready...

by leeal

Friday May 31st, 2002 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

umm. I just take a look again. I got that message 'cuz I added "Netscape6" to the useragent string (one site that I visit requires this to work :( )

Still, the reason the site's menu not working is because it uses code that is not standard compliant. and it's not mozilla's fault.

#6 It's not that simple

by jsebrech

Friday May 31st, 2002 10:18 AM

Reply to this message

Did you know that over one percent of sites don't display in internet explorer? That's quite a remarkable fact, huh? The reason is that they're badly written. Most of the time when a site doesn't behave right in mozilla the same thing has occurred: it's badly written.

See this evangelism bug for bmwusa.com: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85009>

When they see any browser reporting as netscape/mozilla they use layers, which were never a part of any standard, but an extension in earlier netscape versions. They were contacted with an example rewrite of the site to make it display correctly in all browsers, but said they weren't interested in fixing their site. The mozilla team can't really do more than that. Or would you have them implement non-standard functionality just to display broken sites?

As for massive memory leaking, I really couldn't tell. I run mozilla all day long on a 128 meg machine, and never have any problems with it. In fact, I once booted up without swap memory by accident, and it took me several hours of heavy browsing before I noticed (when I tried to open up a whole number of pages at the same time as tabs and mozilla refused to open up more than a certain number of them).

#7 Re: It's not that simple

by jdakula

Friday May 31st, 2002 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

"Or would you have them implement non-standard functionality just to display broken sites?"

Personally, I would have them implement all non-standard functionality that was present in Netscape 4.x. I know this goes against the ideology of Mozilla, but as Mozilla *really is* Netscape, despite what anyone says, it should support legacy code. That's just good form.

#10 Re: Re: It's not that simple

by choess <choess@stwing.upenn.edu>

Friday May 31st, 2002 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

> ...it should support legacy code. That's just good form.

This sort of attitude, even spread by well-meaning people, must bear a large part of the blame for the current tag-soup mess on the web. Read the recent discussion on error reporting in www-tag...

#15 Re: Re: It's not that simple

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Friday May 31st, 2002 12:25 PM

Reply to this message

In general it's a good idea to support legacy features where this doesn't cause problems either with the support of current features or with changes required for improving the product. Mozilla does in fact support a number of legacy tags, it just doesn't support all of them. I doubt that it's possible to support both all of the current tags and all of the legacy tags in the same product, especially when you're likely to get authors who try to mix them in all possible combinations.

Having said that, I'm sure that it's possible to get somewhat better compatibility with some of the legacy markup ... but be aware that it's likely to be an asymptotic process.

--Bruce

#12 Re: It's not that simple

by DJGM2002

Friday May 31st, 2002 12:02 PM

Reply to this message

As far as I'm concerned these days, if any webmaster is not interested in creating standards compliant pages, or cannot even be bothered to fix their already non-compliant pages, they should not bother creating a website in the 1st place.

#22 It's this simple

by Dobbins

Saturday June 1st, 2002 9:11 AM

Reply to this message

BMW isn't intrested in selling cars to Mozilla users.

#23 I was wrong about bmwusa, but...

by PPedriana

Saturday June 1st, 2002 11:10 PM

Reply to this message

I was wrong about bmwusa. Sorry about that. But I don't think I'm wrong about the memory leaking, though. Not unless they've fixed the problem between 0.9.9 and 1.0 RC3. Just run Mozilla (using browser and email, because that's what I do) for about a month straight under Windows and watch it gradually eat up hundreds of megabytes of memory. And no, this is not Windows' fault.

#26 Re: I was wrong about bmwusa, but...

by jsebrech

Sunday June 2nd, 2002 8:46 AM

Reply to this message

So, let me get this straight. Mozilla runs over a month without crashing, so it's extremely stable, and it takes a month for leaks to get so bad you need to *gasp* restart the browser (if leaks remain after shutting down the browser the OS is at fault). And according to you it isn't ready for a 1.0 release? Where do you work? Nasa?

And yes, between 0.9.9 and 1.0rc3 some memory leaks have been fixed. Here's a list of resolved browser bugs targeted for 1.0 (and so not in 0.9.9) with the mlk (memory leak) keyword: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time> This probably isn't an exhaustive list, but it does give you an idea of what's been happening.

Btw, you may want to update your browser version, 0.9.9 contained a security bug that let remote servers read local files. It's fixed in the latest releases, so ...

#27 Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by wtmcgee

Monday June 3rd, 2002 3:41 PM

Reply to this message

there are a few issues keeping moz ready for an official 1.0 IMO (for windows at least..) -

1) the icons for mozilla, and the icons for webpages when moz is your default browser. these must be updated, and made different for each component (mail/news shold have a different icon than the browser, in the start menu, and more importantly, in the taskbar. i know there are add ons you can download, but this should be implemeted by default.

2) even when mail/news is your default mail app, the 'mailto' handler is not mozilla.

these are just two very basic things that i think should be fixed before mozilla is offically relased.

#28 Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by jsebrech

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 3:43 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, the icons suck. I believe they're supposed to look like bookmarks, but I always thought they looked like flags. Really unclear design. Not going to get changed before moz 1.0 though, probably.

Regarding the mail/news, that's not moz' fault. See the faq: <http://www.mozilla.org.uk….0/faq/mail-news.html#3.2> You have to change your windows settings to make mailto go to mozilla mail.

#29 Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by Dobbins

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 4:07 AM

Reply to this message

The Icons, along with a different splash screen, Web page buttons promoting Mozilla, T-shirts, and any thing else with Mozilla logos on it are held prisoner by bug 28028. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28028>

After over two years I'm wondering does Mozilla.org own the rights to the images or were these rights retained by Netscape?

#30 Re: Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by jsebrech

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 8:35 AM

Reply to this message

Hmmm ....

Seeing as how nobody with an @netscape.com or @mozilla.org address has weighed in in that bug since mozilla stopped having version numbers that started with M, my guess is that indeed netscape owns the copyright on all imagery used in mozilla, and they all know about it.

That doesn't have to be something mean, since they probably set up a protocol for publishing source code, but forgot about one for publishing images, and now that protocol for images has to be worked out. However, the fact that it's taking so long to be worked out is making me suspicious, especially because it's netscape.

I love mozilla, but I absolutely don't trust netscape or AOL, despite the fact that they are the people funding mozilla. Netscape was never a trustworthy company, and AOL ... well ... You know what I mean.

This is making me curious what the deal is with the documentation btw, since supposedly the triple-license doesn't cover that (because the three licenses are all meant for source code, not for docs). Which is why the FSF made a special license just for publishing open documentation. When you look in the mozilla help there is no mention at all about it being protected by any special license. Which should mean that it falls under copyright of the copyright owner. And who owns the copyright of the mozilla help files? Whoever made them or hired the person that made them (in a work-for-hire context). So if netscape made them, netscape owns them. Which I don't find to be a very comforting thought. Not that I know much about law, and not that I couldn't be talking out of my behind here, but there are a number of unanswered legal questions one has to admit.

#31 Mozilla Trademark

by Dobbins

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

A Check of the USPTO shows

Mozilla <http://tarr.uspto.gov/ser…serial&entry=74698316>

Mozilla.org <http://tarr.uspto.gov/ser…serial&entry=75558938>

So the terms Mozilla and Mozilla.org are trademarks of Netscape, though the Mozilla trademark is under some kind of legal challange. I Suspect the artwork is tied to the trademark making both the red and green lizards trademarks of the Netscape divison of AOL Time Warner.

#34 Re: Re: Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

This has nothing to do with Netscape. This has everything to do with the facts that mozilla.org staff is a very small group of people with a very large set of responsibilities and that branding is one of the lowest priorities for 1.0 since our product is a technology and not an end-user application. We have not budget and we have very little time for marketing and distribution activities. Yes, image licensing and trademark issues are a part of the problem. This is still independent from Netscape or Netscape issues. This is a problem of resources and right now (and for months or years now) we don't have the time to spend sorting through legal issues that don't impact our primary consumers (developers and organizations using our source code).

--Asa

#35 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by jsebrech

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 1:44 PM

Reply to this message

I agree the branding isn't very important. The icons don't really bother me anyway, since I use tabs, and don't use mozilla for mail/news. That you promise me that everything is ok regarding the images is comforting. I respect you. I'm still worried about the documentation though.

However, this whole "we don't deal with end users thing", I kindly disagree with it. On one side, I understand. If mozilla devoted resources to end users, not only would it take away development efforts from architecture, but it would also make mozilla seem competition to netscape in the eyes of AOL, and they probably wouldn't like that, since netscape needs to make money.

However, back in reality, improving the architecture is all fine and dandy, but end-users are more helped by small UI improvements than by big architecture improvements, and like it or not the mozilla project is making the UI for both mozilla AND netscape, the supposed end-user product. Look at MacOS <= 9. It sucked architecturally, but people loved it because it's UI rocked.

And also, AOL/Netscape may not want to have mozilla as competition of the netscape browser, but because if their own bad decisions they have _already_ made it so. Netscape 6.x/7 sucks. There's no other way to put it. They took a decent product, and made it crappy. Why would anyone want to use the ad-laden feature-stripped netscape when they could just as well use mozilla and get more features with less problems topped by a better UI?

I'm an end-user, but netscape would have to at least offer me _something_ over mozilla before I started considering it as the end-user product based on mozilla technology. For me mozilla IS the end-user browser. So, this "we only deal with developers" attitude, you can tell it, but I don't have to believe it.

#36 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best eyecandy yet found

by Dobbins

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

The People who are using the code are free to replace the splash screen and add icons so that part dosen't really affect them. As far as I'm concerned any group that fails to replace the splash screen with one promoting themselves is missing an opertunity. Changing it to a "doo dad inc" splash screen and icons is a smart move. However the value of that screen is decreased by NOT being able to add the dino and powered by Mozilla as a promotional tool. 28028 does affect your primary consumers.

#3 Stop teasing us damnit

by jsebrech

Friday May 31st, 2002 9:56 AM

Reply to this message

Release 1.0 already. The suspense is killing me. Even though I know that the debian-modified rc2-3 version I'm running now is basically identical to 1.0 for all intents and purposes.

It's a good version 1.0. Up until a few weeks ago I thought it sucked that there were so many flaws left, but I've come to realize that few products are so stable and complete when they're only at 1.0.

#4 Re: Stop teasing us damnit

by xkalibur

Friday May 31st, 2002 10:10 AM

Reply to this message

I concur. I think RC3 is tired of me hitting Reload on Mozillazine, waiting for "Mozilla 1.0 Released!" to show up and excite my otherwise boring day at the office.

#9 Re: Stop teasing us damnit

by fletchsod

Friday May 31st, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

Sweet! I think I'll do the same! What a good way to overload the Mozilla.org network!!!!

FletchSOD

#11 Re: Re: Stop teasing us damnit

by xkalibur

Friday May 31st, 2002 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

It's amazing how some of the most sarcastic people are the ones with the weakest sense of humor.

#13 Re: Stop teasing us damnit

by exotrip

Friday May 31st, 2002 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

You have waited 4 years, what's 2 more days?

#18 Re: Re: Stop teasing us damnit

by jsebrech

Friday May 31st, 2002 3:01 PM

Reply to this message

There are three things that drag out time in a way that it doesn't comply with the known laws of physics:

- The Star Wars holiday special - Watching Britney dance (Some people would argue that hearing her sing makes time seem infinite too, for entirely different reasons. But I know better. Britney doesn't sing, she lipsyncs.) - Knowing the 1.0 branch is there but 1.0 hasn't actually been released.

4 years suddenly seem so short.

Oh, the memories. Seeing the start of the mozilla project and thinking "yeah, decent linux browser in 6 months!" (if I had a time machine I would travel back to that moment and do a Misses Krabappel-like "ha!" in my own face); seeing AOL buy up Netscape and thinking "There goes the last bit of the Netscape coolness factor", and turning out to be right; bravely switching to M18 as my primary browser, forcing me to actually go to my bank to do my transactions instead of being able to just do my homebanking from the lazy comfort/comfines of IE...

*sigh* I'm such a geek.

#14 Wow, let's party

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Friday May 31st, 2002 12:12 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah you're right, it still has flaws and bugs, but this is the best mozilla version ever so far, period. So let's go party!

HighFive to all mozilla.org/Netscape people, and other volunteers. You've done a hell of a job so far!

#16 Re: Re: Re: It's not that simple

by zontar

Friday May 31st, 2002 1:16 PM

Reply to this message

> I would have them implement all non-standard functionality that was present in Netscape 4.x. I know this goes against the ideology of Mozilla...

It is past time for NS 4.X code to die, and NS 4 along with it. If we continue to support bad NS 4.X code, we will perpetuate a horrid misgenated object model that's over 5 years old and has never adopted by any standards body. We will continue to have to fork HTML, JavaScript, and CSS code in order to accomodate it. We will continue to make it impossible to develop truly cross-browser Web applications.

This is NOT a matter of "ideology". It is a matter of utter and complete pragmatism.

#19 Bug 113351

by jobe451

Friday May 31st, 2002 7:04 PM

Reply to this message

What happend to bug 113351? <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113351> Seems to be a security bug because access to this bug is denied. Will this bug still exist in Mozilla 1.0?

#20 Re: Bug 113351

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday May 31st, 2002 9:30 PM

Reply to this message

fixed on the branch.

#21 Re: Bug 113351

by thelem

Saturday June 1st, 2002 6:02 AM

Reply to this message

Access is also denied to bugs that contain confidential information, so maybe that is the problem.

#24 Bug 113351

by jobe451

Sunday June 2nd, 2002 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

*Temporary* confidential information??? I allways thought that mozilla is opensource, what can be confidential in a opensource project?

#32 W00t! Home page changed!

by arsa

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 11:46 AM

Reply to this message

Press Alt+Home

#33 Re: W00t! Home page changed!

by tono

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

Still about:mozilla for me. :P

#37 Rock stability, but not here....

by alemine

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

<http://www.vizzavi.it> You get a wonderful total crash. Ok, that's sure it is a site coding problem, but aniway I think a crash is not a good way to exit program :-)

#38 Re: Rock stability, but not here....

by jsgremlin <joshua@bluestarstudio.com>

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 2:42 PM

Reply to this message

WFM, 2002052306 Win 2K

#39 Re: Rock stability, but not here....

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 7:35 PM

Reply to this message

Workforme with 1.0 :)

--Asa

#48 Re: Re: Rock stability, but not here....

by ksheka

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:29 AM

Reply to this message

So, when can the rest of us say that? :-)

#40 Re: Rock stability, but not here....

by tono

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 9:40 PM

Reply to this message

WFM in RC3

#42 Bad Link

by techn9ne

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 10:49 PM

Reply to this message

Doesn't crash my mozilla but it hangs it up using 1.0 on winxp and i have to use task manager to forcefully shut it off.

#44 Rock stability, but not here....

by alemine

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

Exactly what happens to me!!! In fact I forgot to say my configuration: M$ Windows XP Home (fully patched), Macromedia Flash/Scockwave installed by donwloading the exe :-), and Mozilla 1.0 Gecko/20020530 (but RC3 crashed too :-)

#41 flash?

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 10:37 PM

Reply to this message

maybe you have a bad flash plugin?

#43 Re: flash? ????? Where

by skeeter

Tuesday June 4th, 2002 11:25 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Poked around the script but couldn't find any flash objects.

However I did find this after the inline javascript:

<meta content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0" name=GENERATOR>

By the way the link and page worked okay for me in

Mozilla 1.0.0+ Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020603

The page does work funny in that the page is not out at the end of the last table.

#45 Differences between Nighly and RC3

by Synopsis

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:06 AM

Reply to this message

Works for me with W2K and Gecko/20020602

#46 Re: Re: Re: Interesting...

by pepejeria

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:06 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder really what made this guy so full of hatred: <http://www.mozillaquest.c…preview-bugs_Story01.html>

#47 plain unprofessional

by NEMESiS_TF

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

as always(!) the articles by miko angelo on mozillaquest just don't hit the point. beside the ugly look of the page, the articles just bore me. they are so unprofessional. so... untrue to some extend. we all know that mozilla is not perfect. but we all know it'll never be. but so is IE and opera or any browser you name.

but if the author of the article can't even read... that's a shame. take alone the box "Figure 3. Mozilla 1.0 File menu showing the Save Page and Save Page As options." on the first page of the arcicle (i couldn't motivate myself to read further just to read his bullshit over and over again). look at the screenshot - and look at the text. as quoted above... he claims it is twice "save as"... but the text in the screenshot is once "save" and once "send" .. if it's not me having quirks in my eyes...

some month back i got angry about the stuff he wrote. i even mailed him about some incorrectnesses in his articles (without ever getting an answer). but now i just lean back and relax with a smirk on my face: this guy seems to hate mozilla.. but still he just can't say "ok, your browser sucks, i stick to IE". i don't understand those poeple.. they DO have the choice. what a poor soul.

#49 Bug Counts

by amutch

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:05 AM

Reply to this message

Not to get into the specifics of MQ but I have filed dozen of bugs in Bugzilla. With a few exceptions, most of these relate specfically to the Mozilla code we use for our embedding app and do not affect the main distribution. Yet, according to MQ, these bugs affect the quality of the Mozilla release.

WRONG!

I don't like the bugs but they are getting fixed. But they in no way affect the performance of the development of the Mozilla browser suite. Yet, MQ can't seem their head around the idea that Bugzilla has more than just bugs, which in my experience is very loosely defined!

I've e-mailed him on this issue but he just plain chooses to ignore it.

#50 Click Bait

by Dobbins

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

Hate or click bait?

Angelo is selling ad space. The more Mozilla users he can sucker into visiting his site, the more $$$$ he gets, and posting BS flaming Mozilla is effective in luring people to his site.

ZD Net's Anchor desk is a master at posting flames to enhance revenue, and Angelo is aping them.

Don't put $$$$ in Angelo's pocket by posting links to his latest drivel.

Boycott Mozillaquest!

#51 Entomophobia

by johann_p

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

Please dont bash this guy. Everything seems to indicate that he suffers a new strain of the well known psychological disorder entomophobia (the morbid fear of insects and bugs) that manifests itself as the morbid fear of bugs in computer programs. People with this illness cannot avoid the strong feeling that bugs are not only ugly, disgusting and bad, but they feel personally threatened and endangered by them. Imagine the pain this guy must feel when he sees the sheer number of bugs go up and up, already having surpassed the 100.000 mark!

#52 LOL

by macpeep

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:45 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks! I had a really good laugh reading that! :D