MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Mozilla 1.0 Released!

Tuesday June 4th, 2002

Mozilla 1.0 is here! The final 1.0 builds, representing four years of development work by the open source community, are now available for download. The release of Mozilla 1.0 makes an important statement: mozilla.org now believes that the goals specified when the project began (and since enshrined in the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto) have been met.

Mozilla 1.0 also represents maturity and dependability. Many of the Mozilla APIs, such as XUL, have now been frozen, providing guaranteed compatibility for developers building on the Mozilla toolkit. In addition, mozilla.org will continue to maintain the 1.0 branch as a stable and long-lived baseline on which vendors and other distributors may work. Further additive changes (mainly critical fixes) will be released from the 1.0 branch as 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 etc.

Mozilla 1.0 is available for download from mozilla.org's web site and FTP server. The Mozilla 1.0 Release Notes have also been updated.

MozillaZine would like to thank all the developers, testers, bug reporters, documentation writers, vendors and community members who have helped to make Mozilla such a success. We are proud of our years of service to the Mozilla community and intend to continue providing our growing audience with the latest in Mozilla news and advocacy for years to come.

[Mozilla 1.0 MZ Homepage]


#1 Congratulations!!!

by ahuebenett

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

I want to thank everybody beeing involved into the development of Mozilla. Everone of you did a great job. Party hard!!

regards, Alex

#2 Re: Congratulations!!!

by choess <choess@stwing.upenn.edu>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

#3 Excellent News

by codom

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

This is truly a milestone in software devolopment.

#4 Excellent News

by codom

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:04 AM

Reply to this message

This is truly a milestone in software devolopment.

#5 Excellent News

by codom

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:04 AM

Reply to this message

This is truly a milestone in software devolopment.

#6 No more forum?

by schauvea

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:06 AM

Reply to this message

1.0 is there but the "forums" link has disapeared in <http://www.mozillazine.org/>.

Luckilly,it is still available via the comments page.

#7 Re: No more forum?

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

We don't want you chewing up our bandwidth with the forums today :).

jason

#8 omedetou!

by ryuzi

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

how big '1.0'!

#97 Re: omedetou!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:45 PM

Reply to this message

"how big '1.0'!"

480 pixels x 363 pixels to be precise. I think it was Jason's idea. Looks cool though. :-)

Alex

#9 Is this final?

by LukeyBoy

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:16 AM

Reply to this message

My titlebar still has the build ID, which isn't something I'd leave in a 1.0 release :-)

#11 Re: Is this final?

by aroolaart <anton@tempuswebs.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

This is not uncommon so I wouldn't worrry about it and I'm glad it's there so I know what build I'm using.

#45 Re: Is this final?

by tny

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:04 PM

Reply to this message

Remember, even 1.0 is not intended for end users, but for developers. That it happens to be the best damned browser for end-users, too, is a just a happy accident . . .

#64 Re: Is this final?

by rickst29 <rickstockton@acer-access.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:20 PM

Reply to this message

You can always run fullscreen to remove the titlebar completely. I think that with the large number of platforms and builds, and the future bugfix release cycle (1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc.) that showing the build ID is not a bad use of desktop space. That's just my personal opinion, I'm not big in the community.

#103 Re: Is this final?

by Radiowriter

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:54 PM

Reply to this message

I was hoping that the final release would exclude the Build ID, too. Not a huge problem, though.

Congratulations to what appears to be a huge cast of contributors to what is now my browser of choice. Thank you for a remarkable piece of software.

#117 It is ugly...

by Fireball1244 <fireball1244@mac.com>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:14 AM

Reply to this message

Having the build ID in the titlebar is pretty tacky. I'd consider it a "bug" actually. Or at the very least, brain dead UI design. It clutters up the titlebar, and detracts from the "complete" feel of the browser.

#119 Ugly it may be but . . .

by DJGM2002

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:29 AM

Reply to this message

. . . it does help with bug reports and crash reports.

#182 It is ugly...

by Fireball1244 <fireball1244@mac.com>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 5:48 PM

Reply to this message

Then put it in the "About" window.

The look of a product is very important. Putting the build info in the titlebar makes Mozilla look incomplete, like its still a work in progress.

All software is a work in progress, but the point of major version releases is that they set you up for quite some time. People downloading version 1.0 shouldn't worry that they need to go get a new build next week. If you're going to put any number up there, put the version number.

Mozilla is a very polished project. I'm just sorry to see they left one last glaring smudge right at the top of the window.

#121 Re: Is this final?

by sconest

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:46 AM

Reply to this message

If you really want it gone, you can edit the navigator-title.dtd file which is found in the en-US.jar and change "{&buildId.label;}" by whatever you want.

#161 Re: Re: Is this final?

by LukeyBoy

Thursday June 6th, 2002 9:46 AM

Reply to this message

Hey nice one! That worked great!

#181 Re: Is this final?

by Radiowriter

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:31 PM

Reply to this message

What if you're NOT a programmer? I looked at the file in WordPad and even found the dtd file. After that, it's like giving me a wrench and asking me to fix the space shuttle.

I don't suppose there's an easy explanation...

#189 I think you're doing it all wrong, try this

by thegoldenear

Friday June 7th, 2002 5:15 AM

Reply to this message

come on... in NO WAY do you need to be a "programmer" to achieve this. you sound as though you're making the mistake of opening the JAR file straight into WordPad

silly!

can't you see that all you get is a load of garbage? yes, but you didn't figure that you'd taken the wrong path, so you assumed it was someone else's fault

the JAR file is a compressed file format, like a ZIP file

here's what you should do:

- using a compression utility (i.e. PowerArchiver, but presumably the inferior WinZip does the same) open the mozilla\chrome\en-US.jar file so that you can see what files it contains;

- find the NAVIGATOR.DTD file in the list (not NAVIGATOR-TITLE.DTD as the previous poster instructed);

- double click on it or do whatever is required with your operating system to open it into a plain text editor (i.e. NotePad, you're better off not using WordPad as its more than just a plain text editor, and you're better usi8ng a fully fledged plain text editor such as NoteTab Light or something)

- find the line with the {&buildId.label;} text (Edit -> Find);

- change that {&buildId.label;} to whatever text, if any, that you want to appear in your title

- save the file

- close the plain text editor

- the compression utility should recognise the file within the JAR package has changed and prompt you asking if you want it to re-compile the package

- run Mozilla. if you did anything wrong it will tell you where the mistake is

#205 Re: I think you're doing it all wrong, try this

by sconest

Sunday June 9th, 2002 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

It is navigator-title.dtd in 1.0 and navigator.dtd in the trunk

#211 Re: I think you're doing it all wrong, try this

by thegoldenear

Monday June 10th, 2002 6:19 AM

Reply to this message

yeah sorry, as I pressed 'SUBMIT' that thought did come into my mind

#160 Re: Is this final?

by MXN

Thursday June 6th, 2002 8:49 AM

Reply to this message

I remember that in Netscape 6 PR1, the Build ID was in the status bar, right next to the security indicator. I liked that design better, but I guess it took up too much room from the status text for those who use the lower resolutions.

- mxn

#10 Congrats to all!

by TheMatt

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:16 AM

Reply to this message

Thank you for making a browser so good that IE is barely used anymore (at least on my box).

#12 Can't believe it

by flalvare

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

Well, good job to everybody, a lot of effort, a lot of people, a lot of difficulties, a lot of camaraderie, and finnaly, a browser that's a LOT better and clear in development than we used to have.

#13 congratulations!

by macpeep

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

Congratulations to everyone involved in the project!! I'm already looking forward to 1.1 - and beyond! This is the start of a great success story!

#14 WOOOHOOOO!!!

by Waldo

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

It's been a very very long time coming. I've got it installed now.

Good times, wish I could make it to the party...

Congrats all 'round. We did it! W

#15 Congratulations!

by tny

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:38 AM

Reply to this message

You did it!

Thanks for all your hard work making an OS browser you can all be proud of.

#16 congrats

by ywwg

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:41 AM

Reply to this message

congratulations. It's been a long ride. hopefully this is only the beginning. wishlists for 2.0 anyone?

#17 Great!!!! but the image broke my portaloo :(

by lacostej <coffeebreaks@hotmail.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks everyone!!

Please let us see the download counts!

PS: the mozilla 1.0 image broke my portaloo display (<http://www.linux.org.uk/cgi-bin/portaloo>) PS2: the information in <http://www.mozilla.org/st…/1.0/faq/profile.html#7.1> may have to be changed when bug for auto saving of last known good profile are landed. Perhaps a note should be added.

#19 Re: Great!!!! but the image broke my portaloo :(

by lacostej <coffeebreaks@hotmail.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

#93 Re: Great!!!! but the image broke my portaloo :(

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:17 PM

Reply to this message

"PS2: the information in (LINK) may have to be changed when bug for auto saving of last known good profile are landed. Perhaps a note should be added."

The faq will get an update in a week or so. An important addition for profiles: to use -profilemanager , remember to SHUT DOWN MOZILLA FIRST or you'll get a blank browser window instead.

#18 Mozillazine rules!

by mitchell <mitchell@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

Specifically, Chris Nelson and Jason Kersey, who have contributed years of hard work to the Mozilla community. Mozillazine was a a wildly creative idea when founded, and is a phenomenal resource. Thanks to *everyone+ who's been involved in making mozillazine rock. And a special thanks to Chris and Jason.

Mitchell mozilla.org

#20 YES!!!!

by darnell

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:44 AM

Reply to this message

It's great. Congratulations to the Mozilla developers for staying the course. It took a long time, but IT WAS DONE RIGHT!!!!

#21 Congratulations

by timsc

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

One small step for a lizard - one giant leap for browser-kind!

#22 Congrats!!!

by backtick

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:01 PM

Reply to this message

Yay! 4 Years ago, I ran one of the first dozen mirrors of the netscape code, and I'm glad to see it finally all came together! Wonderful job, and long live the lizard!

#23 Good work!

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

Good work!

Thanks to you all!

/Ripat

#24 Congratulations :D

by shin

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

Congratulations ! Félicitations ! Omedetou gozaimasu !

Now let me mass-message my buddylist and announce the baby ! :D

#25 credits: "everyone" isn't really everyone

by bulbul <leston@csi.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

Although i'm obviously elated over the 1.0 release, i'm a little disappointed with the credits. The Mozilla.org front page has a link to "everyone that made this possible". This points to a "Contributors" page, full of names of people who contributed code, wrote documentation, and did testing. However, this list cannot be complete. I myself have opened almost 150 bugs, some of which i spent considerable time on writing test cases and doing detective work, but i am not on the list. (I think that those 150 bugs entailed about 150-200 hours of work.) I also tested and commented on many bugs filed by other people. This should count as "testing". I'm sure there are many other people like me who were not recognized but should have been. I fully realize that i'm not a top-tier contributor, but there should be a note somewhere (such as on the Contributors page) like this:

We also extend our gratitude to the countless other individuals who contributed to Mozilla in lesser, but nonetheless significant, degrees, but who could not all be listed here.

Again, it is obvious that people who contributed patches and those who wrote code and documentation are entitled to the lion's share of the credit. But Mozilla would not be what it is without the many, many other people who contributed in smaller ways. We should also get a bit of credit for our countless collective hours of contribution, even if we're not mentioned by name. A small amount of recognition can generate an enormous amount of goodwill.

I will post this idea in a forum as soon as the forums are up again. Better yet, i guess i should file a bug.

#27 Re: credits: "everyone" isn't really everyone

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:23 PM

Reply to this message

Or even better yet, you could get yourself added! from the bottom of the credits list: "To be added to the list, send mail to <credits@mozilla.org> (CCed to mozilla-patches) with your name and a sentence summarizing what you have contributed to Mozilla."

--Asa

#41 thanks, hadn't noticed

by bulbul <leston@csi.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:22 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks, Asa. I hadn't noticed that. I have now submitted my name and claim to fame.

#70 Re: Re: credits: "everyone" isn't really everyone

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:58 PM

Reply to this message

Well let's see what I've done so far:

- I've pushed for an updated screenshots page.

- I've commented on stuff.

- I've voted in the polls.

- I've told my friends about the Lizard.

So, do you think that's enough to get listed? :^) Just joking.

#91 Re: credits

by Down8 <down8@yahoo.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 7:07 PM

Reply to this message

Well, I doubt it's me, but my name is already on the credits list. Maybe I could write in and be added as 'Brian Z Jones'.

-bZj

#214 four months later...

by bulbul <leston@csi.com>

Friday September 27th, 2002 5:07 PM

Reply to this message

I fired that e-mail off to <credits@mozilla.org> on June 5. It's now September 27 and my name still isn't in. I just wonder how many other deserving people are still being denied any recognition.

#98 What's new in 1.0 vs RC3?

by ecarlson

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:59 PM

Reply to this message

Okay, where's the "What's New" list since RC3?

I had no problem downloading 1.0 just now, and I am about uninstall RC3 and install 1.0 (Win2k). I'd like to know what has changed, and it's not in the release notes.

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#101 Sorry, wrong thread, I'll repost.

by ecarlson

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:05 PM

Reply to this message

OOPS.

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#105 Re: What's new in 1.0 vs RC3?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 10:14 PM

Reply to this message

only a few fixes, a couple of build/config changes, a security fix, a crash fix and maybe one other. Very minimal changes.

#106 RE: Changes?

by ecarlson

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 10:53 PM

Reply to this message

How do I locate those changes in Bugzilla?

#112 Re: RE: Changes?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:29 AM

Reply to this message

query bonsai.

--Asa

#26 Great!!!

by Benman

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

Good job!

On a side note, the fetchbuilds is STILL not updated. Heh, it says the current milestone in M17. :-)

#71 Re: Great!!!

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:00 PM

Reply to this message

Same w/ the Screenshots page. Still says stuff for 0.9.4. Oh well, the skin is still pretty much the same.

#28 Rockin' Speed

by zmcgrew

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

This is awsome! I used to only use Mozilla on UNIX, but it's faster than IE... Looks like I found my new 'doze browser!

Great job guys, keep up the good work. BTW, how did you manage the drastic speed improvement, 1.0RC3 was slow on my 'doze box, but 1.0 is a speed demon.

#29 Congratulations...

by davidbalch

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:41 PM

Reply to this message

...to all who helped make moz the excellent browser it is :-D

#30 1.0

by pimlott

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

Well, the browser is great, but the huge text is kinda ironic. Sad that on the most modern, standards-compliant browser, graphics are still required for something as simple as a large headline. Not to mention, the kerning on "1.0" is awful. Or is that "1 .0"? :-)

#33 Re: 1.0

by jilles

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

It's an image. You should see what it did to the mozillazine slashbox on slashdot :-). Takes up about half the width of the sceen.

Anyway, congrats to everyone involved. I've managed to pull down an installer and put it in my Kazaa Shared directory. Not that it will help many people because I have very limited upload speed. But if more people do this, we can reduce the load on the servers.

#67 Kazaa

by hosking

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:39 PM

Reply to this message

Change its name to Internet Exlorer 7 Or Netscape 8 ;-) (oh make sure you get Kazaalite normal kazaa is spyware)

#94 Re: 1.0

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:19 PM

Reply to this message

"graphics are still required for something as simple as a large headline."

And it's a GIF. GIFs are 333vil and the work of SATAN!!!!1!1!111!! \m/

#171 Gifs

by hosking

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

Whats wrong woth Gifs

#191 GIFs aren't an open standard

by GAThrawn

Friday June 7th, 2002 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

See Burn All GIFs <http://burnallgifs.org/> and scroll down the front page to "About burnallgifs.org" for a full explanation.

The short version is that the LZW compression algorithm used to compress GIF images is patented by Unisys. Unisys are currently enforcing their patent so that any software that allows you to _create_ a GIF image has to buy a patent from Unisys, whilst they are not currently enforcing their patent on software that displays GIFs (eg Mozilla) or on people who use GIFs (ie you and me) there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing so in the future.

The alternative is the technically superior (and more important open standard) PNG format, which we should all be using in web pages alongside of the pre-existing JPG format.

#192 GIFs aren't an open standard (correction)

by GAThrawn

Friday June 7th, 2002 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

s/buy a patent from Unisys/buy a licence from Unisys/

#109 Re: 1.0

by wolfseyn

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:09 AM

Reply to this message

I agree. That's the first thing I noticed. . . What's up with that? Didn't notice it's a gif... we ought to see a png there if not some elite Cascadable Stylin' Shirts formatted text.

Thanks Mozilla.

#31 Party time!!!

by RangeLife

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

A big big THANKS to all u Mozilla guys, i'm so excited!

Now it's time to fix bug 100309: mozilla1.0 party!

#150 Tonight I'm gonna party

by Salsaman

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:18 AM

Reply to this message

...like it's bug 100309 !!!!!!!!! <p>:-P

#32 Party time!!!

by RangeLife

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

A big big THANKS to all u Mozilla guys, i'm so excited!

Now it's time to fix bug 100309: mozilla1.0 party!

#34 Awesome!

by gashu

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

MOZ RULES! ONE DOT OH ROCKS!!!

#35 What else can I say...

by sconest

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:59 PM

Reply to this message

... than "thanks to everyone !!!"

#36 Wow

by hosking

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 12:59 PM

Reply to this message

Its here Brilliant

#38 I cant downoad it

by hosking

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:04 PM

Reply to this message

Not Found The requested URL /pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.0/mozilla-win32-1.0-installer.exe was not found on this server.

#40 Try this

by RangeLife

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:14 PM

Reply to this message

#37 Thank you

by zipo13

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:01 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you for the alternative. :-)

#39 Can someone post a working mirror!!! (please)

by bootleg

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

I'm no geek, only a "homeuser" from Austria (Europe *g*) so I don't understand how much you had to do, that Mozilla works, but

>>> RESPECT <<<

#42 Here you go...

by jonik

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

<ftp://komodo.mozilla.org/…illa/releases/mozilla1.0/>

And a big THANKS to the Mozilla development community!

#43 Respect The Lizard

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

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:52 PM

Reply to this message

Big respect to Mozilla.Org and all who have slogged it out with this, the shining beacon in the night. The best things in life are ALWAYS worth waiting for and this is proof positive.

Mitchell expressed her thanks for Chris and Jason for keeping us alive during the darker moments via M'Zine. Don't forget Asa and the millions of lines of info we come to expect on the build bar.

Ireland are still in the World Cup - Mozilla is released. Man I'm gonna cry :)

Say it again - long live the lizard!

#44 Before I file with Bugzilla

by GreyPoopon

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 1:58 PM

Reply to this message

Is anybody else noticing a serious slowdown when sending request? I'm seeing "Sending request to ... " for long periods of time, and it's particularly horrible on sites that have images from different paths. I'm thinking the problem may only be happening through proxy, but I'll have to wait until I get home to see how direct connections work. I've tried removing my prefs.js file, and there's no change in the condition. Anybody else notice this problem? I did not have any trouble with RC3.

#56 Re: Before I file with Bugzilla

by GreyPoopon

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

Never mind. I forgot to use the M$-recommended solution for software problems. After rebooting, it appears to be working just fine.

#46 Can anyone tell me the correct Build ID for 1.o

by andier

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

Hi,

I have downloaded what seems to be Version 1.0 of Mozilla. It is showing a Build ID of 2002053012. Is this correct?

The about page says 1.0.

Thanks. Andrew Rindel.

P.S. Thanks for a great browser!

#48 Re:Can anyone tell me the correct Build ID for 1.0

by saege

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:21 PM

Reply to this message

Yep, that's right.

#140 Re: Can anyone tell me the correct Build ID for 1.

by Kallisti

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:02 AM

Reply to this message

Hi,

I downloaded the Linuz binary in the 1.0 directory but my Build ID says 2002052918. Is this also correct. That is more than a week ago..

/Daggi

#47 Nightlies?

by reid <reid@trail.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

I'm happy that there's an official 1.0 out, but I like to live on the cutting edge! I see that the mozilla ftp site no longer has nightlies; is that a temporary thing? Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere.

#52 Nightlies?

by reid <reid@trail.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

Apparently it WAS a temporary thing, because the nightly directory is back on the ftp server. Thanks anyway!

#54 Gone again.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:06 PM

Reply to this message

If it was, it's been taken back off again. The only directory on the server (now) is "Mozilla1.0". Which is slightly annoying, although perhaps understandable. I only hope it gets put back again by tomorrow. I prefer the trunk builds...

#69 And it's back!

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:52 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#125 ftp.mozilla.org server (Re: And it's back!)

by hurtta

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:19 AM

Reply to this message

Apparently <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> does no longer point to mozilla.org's primary server. Instead you got random server from pool.

[hurtta@pontus hurtta]$ nslookup <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> Server: ns.tele.fi Address: 193.210.18.18 Non-authoritative answer: Name: ftp-mozilla.netscape.com Addresses: 207.200.85.39, 207.200.85.37, 207.200.85.38 Aliases: <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> [hurtta@pontus hurtta]$

( created account for post that message :-) )

#49 Great Mozilla in the sky...

by saege

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:25 PM

Reply to this message

we thank thee for finally fulfilling thy promise of old.

-- And better yet: the latest versions from the 1.0.0 branch rock even more.

#50 1.0

by Dobbins

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:30 PM

Reply to this message

************** ** ** ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ** ** ************** ** ** ********* *** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** **** *** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* *********

To ALL the people that mafe this possible

#51 1.0

by Dobbins

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 2:51 PM

Reply to this message

************** ** ** ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ** ** ************** ** ** ********* *** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** **** *** ** ** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** ** ** ** ********* ********* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ********* *********

To ALL the people that mafe this possible

#53 Where'd SVG go?

by kaoruAngel

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:04 PM

Reply to this message

No SVG build? No more nightly builds hosted on <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org>? What's an SVG fiend to do?

C'mon, Mozilla. What's up?

#55 just thank you

by niner

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:14 PM

Reply to this message

Thank's to everyone that had anything to do with building this great peace of software :)

And thanks for keeping the course in spite of all the critics and flames, I think it went right.

#57 ¡Gracias! Danke! Merci! Grazie! Thanks!...

by turi

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

...Bedankt! Härzleche Dank!...

It's great to see a community build such a good piece of software.

Let's party!

#65 Re: ¡Gracias! Danke! Merci! Grazie! Thanks!...

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:27 PM

Reply to this message

>Härzleche Dank!...

eehhh, if this is intended to be german, it is totally wrong written ;-)

#75 And more ways to thank you

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

Ca'm o+n - Vietnamese (VISCII)

Grazias - Arogonese

Shukran - Arabic

Tänan - Estonian

Arigato - Japanese

Paldies - Latvian

Auw'e - Polynesian

Thenk ye - Scots

Tack - Swedish

Takumat - Thai

What? Well, I wanted to thank the entire Mozilla community as much as I could.

#108 Re: Re: ¡Gracias! Danke! Merci! Grazie! Thanks!...

by turi

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:53 PM

Reply to this message

That's Swiss German. German is already in the title.

#66 what about the download manager?

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:32 PM

Reply to this message

at this stage it makes not much sense. does anyone know when it will be ready with all the features mentioned in the newsgroups?

#58 I have no words....

by rtvkuijk

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

Thanx everyone

#59 yay!

by arielb

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 3:56 PM

Reply to this message

we finally did it! I remember when mozilla source first came out. I remember signing the petition for mozilla to use gecko. I remember baby mozilla (too bad they don't sell it anymore). Now mozilla 1.0 is finally out. Now is when the fun really starts

#76 Re: yay!

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:27 PM

Reply to this message

What was Baby Mozilla?

#86 baby moz

by arielb

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:04 PM

Reply to this message

baby mozilla was a cute stuffed animal that Netscape used to sell. i think i had a picture but not sure where it is

#60 So. Damned. Slow.

by xtc

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:03 PM

Reply to this message

It would be my browser of choice if it weren't so damned slow...

:-(

#84 Re: So. Damned. Slow.

by phitaly <linuxman@inficad.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe it wouldnt be very slow at all if you upgraded your POS hardware. Mine screams faster than IE.

#118 Re: Re: So. Damned. Slow.

by jonik

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah! My work computer is pretty old, 500MHz and 256 megs of ram, running Windwows 2000. Still Mozilla is _very_ fast, I have no complaints at all. It seems to work a bit faster on Windows than on Linux

#126 Re: Re: Re: So. Damned. Slow.

by jsebrech

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:24 AM

Reply to this message

It probably opens windows faster on Windows, thanks to our good friend quicklaunch, which has no equivalent (other than leaving a window in hidden state, which I often do) on linux.

I wonder if they added the reduce footprint with quicklaunch fix in time for 1.0. That makes sure mozilla shrinks down to teenie-weenie sizes when you close all windows instead of taking up tens of megabytes even when only the quicklaunch tray icon is visible.

Otherwise, it'll be in 1.0.1 anyway.

#195 RC3

by thegoldenear

Friday June 7th, 2002 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

fascist. imperialist. earth abuser.

have you contemplated how polluted some parts of the world are because of the attitude of people like you?

#61 Totally cool!

by SomeGuy

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:05 PM

Reply to this message

Great job! Mozilla is a super browser!

I want a Mozilla bumper sticker!

#63 Re: Totally cool!

by KDPJE <kleinduijmpje@onetelnet.nl>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:18 PM

Reply to this message

Or a t-shirt, or a mug or all of the above :-)

Need to hang out the flag :-)

#77 Re: Re: Totally cool!

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

I think there's still those issues w/ the dinosaur logo blocking such merchandise. There was a post about it in the forums recently; you can look for the bug number.

- mxn

#62 Hartelijk dank en gefeliciteerd !

by KDPJE <kleinduijmpje@onetelnet.nl>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:17 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks a lot to all the folks out there who have contributed in their own way to making Mozilla what it is today. A great day indeed and worth the wait.

Thanks especially to the folks at Mozilla.org and here at Mozillazine !

A happy chappy here in Amersfoort, Holland. Just got on-line at midnight and not sure I can sleep now :-)

Hartelijk dank & gefeliciteerd !!

#68 Debug and QA menus

by beastie

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 4:43 PM

Reply to this message

Are these still in the 1.0 release?

#72 Re: Debug and QA menus

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:06 PM

Reply to this message

"Are these still in the 1.0 release?"

No, because mozilla.org don't want a million curious Slashdot users trampling all over Bugzilla.

Alex

#78 Re: Debug and QA menus

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

Nope. I don't think they were in RC3 either.

- mxn

#80 No. (n/t)

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:34 PM

Reply to this message

Nope

#95 Re:

by PsychoCS

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:29 PM

Reply to this message

They are of course still in the trunk builds.

#96 Re:

by beastie

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 8:31 PM

Reply to this message

Yep, that's why I asked. All I use are nightlies.

#73 w00t!

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks to everyone who coded, debugged, tested, managed, supported and evanged Mozilla over the years. It's a fast, stable, feature-packed, standards-supporting bundle of kick-arse browser!

Thanks guys, and here's to many more fine releases!

Mike.

#74 Buggy 1.0

by leet

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:21 PM

Reply to this message

Mail & News only opens once per Windows session. Once it's closed, it won't open again. It'll only open after a reboot. For such an important function, this is unacceptable.

#88 Re: Buggy 1.0

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:30 PM

Reply to this message

You mean it only opens once per session FOR YOU... Noone else seems to have that problem! So it must be something in your config. Have you tried a completely clean install and a fresh profile? If it still won't work after that, then go file a bug...

#92 I thought this was crap, but...

by elzahir

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 7:46 PM

Reply to this message

I tried it and in fact came up with the same behaviour. Not good :(

*goes off to visit bugzilla*

#89 Re: Buggy 1.0

by lgladen

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:42 PM

Reply to this message

Are you using a non- standard theme? Try switching to modern or classic, and see if the problem still occurs. If it does, see if the author has updated their theme.

#79 Media Coverage

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:33 PM

Reply to this message

Well, ZDNet has an article about it already: <http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-932847.html>

- mxn

#82 Re: Media Coverage

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:41 PM

Reply to this message

I think C|Net's article is the same thing, but you can read it too at <http://news.com.com/2100-…3-932814.html?tag=fd_lede>

InternetNews.com has another article about Moz1.0: <http://www.internetnews.c…-news/article.php/1299381>

Yet another article from InfoWorld.com is at <http://www.infoworld.com/…06/05/020605hnmozilla.xml>

More Mozilla news links as they become available. :^)

- mxn

#83 Re: Media Coverage

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:48 PM

Reply to this message

I think C|Net's article is the same thing, but you can read it too at <http://news.com.com/2100-…3-932814.html?tag=fd_lede>

InternetNews.com has another article about Moz1.0: <http://www.internetnews.c…-news/article.php/1299381>

Yet another article from InfoWorld.com is at <http://www.infoworld.com/…06/05/020605hnmozilla.xml>

More Mozilla news links as they become available. :^)

- mxn

#87 Re: Media Coverage

by MXN

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

For more Mozilla praise, see MozillaNews' article on Mozilla 1.0's release: <http://www.mozillanews.or…7a237b59871e621945daf46f5>

- MXN

#132 Re: Media Coverage

by rajbhaskar

Thursday June 6th, 2002 4:07 AM

Reply to this message

#81 Speed

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 5:36 PM

Reply to this message

Is it me or the speed has improved a little bit in 1.0 versus RC releases? The menus are no longer sluggish. Prefs window comes up a bit faster.

Maybe it was compiled without the debug stuff?

#85 Congrats

by myklgrant

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

First of all: thank-you for a great piece of software. Second: trying out the builds and bug-hunting has been fun and rewarding. Last: I think it will be some time before we all realize how important the Mozilla project is. I have a feeling that some time in the future when computing looks alot different than it does today (read: open) we will look back on Mozilla's four-year birth and realize alot started there. Congratulations all and thank-you again

#90 GREAT GREAT GREAT XD Congrats :-D

by tssr

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 7:00 PM

Reply to this message

FINALLY!!!!! YEAHH!!! Been testing Mozilla for *quite a while* and yes!! It's a great piece of software! Thank you to all who tested, added features, and most of all, programmed this browser! IE: Watch out! :D

#99 Finally...

by keleh

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:00 PM

Reply to this message

I had my doubts, but Mozilla 1.0 is definitely better than any version of IE.

#100 What's changed since RC3?

by ecarlson

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:04 PM

Reply to this message

Okay, where's the "What's New" list since RC3?

I had no problem downloading 1.0 just now, and I am about uninstall RC3 and install 1.0 (Win2k). I'd like to know what has changed, and it's not in the release notes.

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

[PS: sorry for posting this message in the wrong thread earlier.]

#102 Re: What's changed since RC3?

by WillyWonka

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 9:52 PM

Reply to this message

I believe nothing is different between RC3 and the final. That is the point. They waited, nothing major popped up, so they released it.

#129 Re: What's changed since RC3?

by jsebrech

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:36 AM

Reply to this message

They fixed a security bug, and some other minor things. But since these are only fixes to functionality already in there it's not really worth it explicitly listing them.

It's still worth upgrading because of the security bug.

#104 streaming video a pita with Mozilla

by ndebord

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 10:02 PM

Reply to this message

Unlike IE, streaming video is a painful, manual and often unsuccessful exercise with Mozilla v1.0. RealPlayer and Media Player sometimes work and sometimes don't in different Microsoft Operating Systems. Only QuickTime 5.01 works flawlessly and just try and find a major news site where that is the player of choice (outside of Bloomberg news).

FWIW.

Nick

#130 Re: streaming video a pita with Mozilla

by jsebrech

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:41 AM

Reply to this message

Really? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day long.

I use mozilla on windows, and it opens quicktime, realplayer and windows media player in mozilla every time without a problem, thanks to the magic of codeweavers' crossover plugin.

To think that realplayer and windows media player actually work better in linux than in windows ... Man oh man ...

Seriously though, it's not the only way in which the windows platform is stubborn. For example, making mozilla mail the default sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Not because mozilla does something wrong, but because windows does something wrong. Sometimse you have to go change some setting somewhere in the control panel to assign your mailto links to mozilla mail. Classic microsoft tactics, I suppose.

#107 Congrats in a MAJOR way!

by dscribner

Wednesday June 5th, 2002 11:19 PM

Reply to this message

Congratulations and MANY pats on the back to ALL who contributed to this great success! To all the developers, doc writers, debuggers and testers, web designers, supporters, news sites and users... THANK YOU!!! You've got my standing ovation!

#110 As usual, no Solaris binaries :(

by johann_p

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:13 AM

Reply to this message

No Solaris 2.6 binaries - this means no way to install Mozilla in our company.

#111 but ...

by schauvea

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:23 AM

Reply to this message

you can compile it yourself. You can the sources for free and that's even LEGAL!!!

Incredible isn't it? There should be more projets like that. We could call them 'free source' or 'open source'. I am going to fill a patent for my brillant idea....

#122 No way ...

by johann_p

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:47 AM

Reply to this message

Its hard enough to get our admins to even *consider* upgrading from NS4.x - having to compile it themselves reduces to chance of this happening to close to 0%. BTW - why is mozilla org distributing binaries at all then? There are Linux, Win32, and even BSD and OS2 binaries - but no Solaris. Note that Solaris is one of the OS that simply *needs* a browser like Mozilla most. If opera comes out with a non beta version for Solaris I am sure we will get Opera if Mozilla binearies wont be available sooner. Leaving Solaris out from the list of ready made binaries is just plain stupid. Netscape should be able to invest the little money it takes to either do this themselves or pay someboedy to do it ...

#149 Yawn.

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla generally releases extra platforms a few days after a milestone. Just keep your eyes open for it. Anyways you should be able to compile it on one computer then copy it to the others. Which is something you should be able to do yourself. Or you can wait. Sun itself releases a Solaris branded version of mozilla. See if you can find it.

#153 wake up

by johann_p

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:54 AM

Reply to this message

No. There was never a solaris 2.6 build for any milestone although there is one for the nightlies (so it should be possible, technically). Anyway, as long mozilla/netscape have the "yawn" attitude towards potential solaris users they should not wonder if they get a bad reputation and people turn to other browsers. My argument is simply that it would be little effort to make a lot of people happy while currently it is a big effort for many people most of which will be unhappy about it. Ah well ...

#168 Solaris binaries

by bzbarsky

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

Solaris binaries are contributed by developers or users who have Solaris machines (at Sun or elsewhere). That means that to have a 2.6 binary someone with a 2.6 machine needs to build it. Since you seem to have such a machine, your doing it would be incredibly helpful....

#173 I know

by johann_p

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:02 PM

Reply to this message

And it would be the first thing I would do if it was *my* machine. Unfortunately it is my emplyoer's machine and both disk space and CPU are scarce ressources (te machine I have my account on has less than 1G free space)

#183 Re: I know

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

So find someone that does have the resources and stop pointing a finger at mozilla.org like they have somehow maligned you. We're all short on resources. mozilla.org has to rely on what individuals contributors and corporate contributors donate to the project. If you don't have anything to contribute and you need something then find someone that does have those resources and make some deal with them (you might get lucky and find someone to do it for free) but this consistent finger-pointing and claiming of bad attitude or discrimination gets you no where. I'll say it very plainly now. mozilla.org does not have a machine to build the binary that you so desperately want. Unless you or someone else provides the machine or the resulting build to mozilla.org there won't be any binaries for you at <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org.> It's that simple. There are FreeBSD, DEC Alpha, HPUX, OpenVMS, OS/2, AIX, Spark BSDi, Linux PPC, etc. binaries available at <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> because _mozilla_ _contributors_ cared enought to contribute equipment or binaries for those platforms. Be like them or convince someone else to be like them.

--Asa

#213 still waiting

by cthulhu11 <aad@beak.org>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:31 AM

Reply to this message

SunOS5/SPARC is an "extra" platform?? Does this mean that mozilla is (with all due respect) yet another linux-centric solipsism? From what I can tell, compilation for those not involved in the project (read: me and the others in this thread) is hardly a straightforward matter. Is the source tarball complete? It appears to me to require eg. GTK, which itself isn't available prebuilt. Attempting to build it is a gargantuan task, given all of the other Linux-centric libraries that it turns out to require.

I don't see a release date for 1.0 anywhere, but it's been a week since this thread started.

#166 but ...

by schauvea

Thursday June 6th, 2002 10:54 AM

Reply to this message

you can compile it yourself. You can the sources for free and that's even LEGAL!!!

Incredible isn't it? There should be more projets like that. We could call them 'free source' or 'open source'. I am going to fill a patent for my brillant idea....

#113 Re: Mozilla 1.0

by zontar

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

'S wonderful...!

#114 Thanks!

by adsmith

Thursday June 6th, 2002 1:23 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks to all concerned from a long-time Mozilla fan.

Andrew

#115 Software installation working?

by pepejeria

Thursday June 6th, 2002 1:32 AM

Reply to this message

Does the "Advanced/Software installation" work in Mozilla 1.0? If yes, will it be a la IE, that you only download some files to install?

#116 Netscape 7 Q

by pepejeria

Thursday June 6th, 2002 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

Will the final version of Netscape 7 be based on Mozilla 1.0 or Mozilla 1.0.1?

#120 Re: Netscape 7.0

by DJGM2002

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:35 AM

Reply to this message

I reckon it's most likely NS7 final will be built upon Mozilla 1.0, although I wouldn't be surprised if NS put out one more preview release first though.

#139 Re: What's the cursor for?

by bandido

Thursday June 6th, 2002 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

Historically, Netscape has always had more than 2 PRs.

#123 Nes.com

by hosking

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:07 AM

Reply to this message

Your on the front Page Maybe a few less tech savy peope will take notice now?

#124 Great!

by wvw

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:17 AM

Reply to this message

Congrats from the lowlands!

#128 Congratulation and thanks!

by pointwood

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:30 AM

Reply to this message

I would just like to thank everyone involved in creating Mozilla - thanks for creating such a great browser and platform!

#131 What's the cursor for?

by thomanski

Thursday June 6th, 2002 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for an awesome browser!

But what is the cursor for that appears when I click on non-linking text in a page. Makes me feel like I'm in Composer (while I'm not!). Is this a bug or a feature?

#138 Re: What's the cursor for?

by bandido

Thursday June 6th, 2002 5:30 AM

Reply to this message

Did you have a previous Mozilla/Netscape6 installation? I used to have the same problem. You must unistall all previous versions, and delete all profiles ... in other words, you need to have a clean installation.

#159 Re: What's the cursor for?

by Rayban

Thursday June 6th, 2002 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

Hit F7- this is Caret browsing mode.

#163 Caret browsing is so cool. Thanks.

by ecarlson

Thursday June 6th, 2002 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

What other special features am I missing out on? Is there an FAQ on cool and/or hidden features?

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#197 Re: Caret browsing is so cool. Thanks.

by WillyWonka

Friday June 7th, 2002 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

#206 Been there. (NT)

by ecarlson

Sunday June 9th, 2002 3:58 PM

Reply to this message

Been there.

#209 Re: Caret browsing is so cool. Thanks.

by MXN

Sunday June 9th, 2002 5:16 PM

Reply to this message

#133 Moz 1.0 slower than NN6.2? (link inside)

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 4:21 AM

Reply to this message

#134 AIX version?

by raphi72

Thursday June 6th, 2002 4:37 AM

Reply to this message

Has anyone compiled an AIX version yet?

#135 what about the download manager?

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 4:42 AM

Reply to this message

at this stage it makes not much sense. does anyone know when it will be ready with all the features mentioned in the newsgroups?

#136 Finally here!!! Congratulations!!! And now....

by alemine

Thursday June 6th, 2002 5:00 AM

Reply to this message

... I hope Mozilla will be remembered as the fastest spreading sw in the history!!! I'll tell to all my friends to swith to Mozilla, and also if I find a site not standard (like <http://www.cellman.it/>) I'll make a mail bombing like in order to make it Mozilla (= standard) compatible!!! Ok sorry for my poor, english, but I'm really excited :-))))))

#198 Re: Finally here!!! Congratulations!!! And now....

by jsebrech

Friday June 7th, 2002 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

I doubt mailbombing a site maintainer is likely to move them to change their site to display correctly for a tiny fraction of the internet population.

#199 Re: Finally here!!! Congratulations!!! And now....

by jsebrech

Friday June 7th, 2002 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

I'm pretty sure one of the windows worms will be remembered as the fastest spreading software in history ;)

#137 Congratulations

by bjornte

Thursday June 6th, 2002 5:29 AM

Reply to this message

Concratulations, people. This is great! I've been reading this Zine for several years now, it's so good to see 1.0 finally here! May the Lizard have a Long, Prosperous Life! Bjørn, Oslo, Norway

#141 NTLM Authentication?

by fatal_2

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:28 AM

Reply to this message

What happened to NTLM Authentication? With earlier builds of mozilla, I used to be presented with a dialog box where i put my DOMAIN\\Username and password to get through our proxy (MS proxy server).

Now when I try, I am presented with a 407 Proxy Authentication Required screen.

#142 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:37 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#143 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:38 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#144 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:38 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#145 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#146 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:49 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#147 Damn fast on my machine!! But, the plugins...

by kickumus

Thursday June 6th, 2002 6:49 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.0 really works great on my machine. Earlier releases seemed slower, but this one really seems a lot faster than IE. But, can anyone tell me... I installed it on my laptop (Win2000) using the ZIP file and I didn't need any plugins at all, I was even able to browse Disney.com nicely. But, when I installed it on my desktop (WinXP Pro) using the exe file, the plugins seemed to be non-existant. I am missing something here?

Regardless, this piece of software ROCKS!!! Great Great job guys!!!

#151 My modest contribution

by Salsaman

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

I just checked on bugzilla, I have personally submitted 98 bugs, and commented on 426.

Pretty modest compared to some others, I know, but still - I am proud to have helped this project in any way I could.

#152 HORROR!!!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!

by alemine

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

Why After installaing 1.0 i got an horrible grey big bar under the screen in witch there is written in red <menuitem position="5" label="evenkmancmd.label;"--^ <key id="key_irc" key="&irc.cmd.commandkey;" command="Tasks:IRC" modifiers="accel"/>, under the status bar I mean?!?!?!?!? And in mail application, if i double clik the messagge it won't open in a new window and the same happens if I select "Open in a new window" e.g. in File menu or with a right click?!?!? HEEEEEEELLLLLLPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#156 Re: HORROR!!!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!

by MXN

Thursday June 6th, 2002 8:00 AM

Reply to this message

Strange things like this happen when you install Mozilla over an existing version of Netscape 6/7 or Mozilla. Try going to Edit | Preferences... and choosing the Advanced | Cache category. Click on the two buttons that say "Clear Memory Cache" and "Clear Disk Cache." That worked for me when I had problems after installing Netscape 7PR1 w/ Mozilla 1.0RC2 installed.

- MXN

#158 Everything OK NOW!!!!!

by alemine

Thursday June 6th, 2002 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

I checked by God Google, and It said to me that deleting the file chrome.rdf on my profile directory would solve the problem, and.... That is!!!! The cache was didn't got me to any result, sorry :-). Now, Let's RUUUUUULLLLLEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZ Mozilla!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks a lot to everyone!!!!

#167 Exact same problem here

by arsa

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:12 AM

Reply to this message

I went the other way though, analysed code and found temporary fix. Extract locale folder from chatzilla.jar , rename it to locales , get inside, move all files one step up, i.e. from en-US/chatzilla folder to just en-US No idea what happend though, it only appeared in 0.9.9 with my profile imho.

#154 That big headline

by MXN

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:56 AM

Reply to this message

Does anyone have the image for that huge headline on here that seems to have been taken down overnight? I plan to put it in my blog.

- MXN <http://mxn.netfirms.com/>

#155 Re: That big headline

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:59 AM

Reply to this message

#157 Re: Re: That big headline

by MXN

Thursday June 6th, 2002 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks. That'll go into my Hilarious folder on my hard drive.

- MXN

#162 Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by fletchsod

Thursday June 6th, 2002 10:25 AM

Reply to this message

I got an interesting question about those two seperate branches. One for 1.0 branches and the other for 1.1 branches. The thought that came to my mind is about add-on, performance & bug-fix. Suppose someone fixed a bug for the 1.0 branches, would this patch also go to the 1.1 branches to fix it also? I mean, it would make more sense to do that so that over the time, the Mozilla get better and better more quickly over the time. Does it work this way? Please let me know! I'm dying to know the answer to this question...

#165 Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

"Suppose someone fixed a bug for the 1.0 branches, would this patch also go to the 1.1 branches to fix it also?"

Generally, yes. It would probably go in the trunk as well.

Alex

#169 Branches?

by amutch

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:32 AM

Reply to this message

So is Mozilla going to maintain all of these branches?

#200 Re: Branches?

by jsebrech

Friday June 7th, 2002 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

As I understand it, 1.0.x will be maintained for at least a year past release of 1.0. Obviously, 1.1 will be released before maintenance releases on the 1.0.x series are stopped.

You have to understand that no real development happens in stable branches. So normally no features worth talking about should be added in 1.0.x. Only bugfixes should occur.

#170 Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:52 AM

Reply to this message

It's simpler than you think. There is the 1.0 branch and the trunk. Fixes generally land on the trunk and if they work well and cause no regressions then they may be also landed on the stable 1.0 branch. There isn't a 1.1 branch (and if we do have one for 1.1alpha, 1.1beta or 1.1final it will be very short-lived. See the roadmap <http://www.mozilla.org/ro…dmap.html#tree-management> for what this looks like. Each verticle line in the map represents a week of development. You can see that there really aren't any other long-lived branches besides the 1.0 branch and the main development trunk.

#178 Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branche

by tny

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:39 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry, didn't see this thread. I assume that my question on the thread below is answered something like "if you read Brendan Eich's comments at the bottom of the roadmap page, you'll realize he's going to have some thoughts on that posted to the roadmap page eventually" until told otherwise ;-). Thanks.

#185 Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branche

by amutch

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:45 PM

Reply to this message

Asa,

Thanks for the clarification.

#179 Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by fletchsod

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

Um, um, I have seen this diagram of the branches before. Thought I saw it in the past that showed the branches diagram that look like a tree with each branches breaking off. Whatever is at the end of the branch would be a release or a maintainance release that 3rd party can add on to it. Like Netscape 7.0 PR1 as an example. So, it prompted me to wonder about the bug fix as oppose to whether would the patches work well would it go into the trunk as well. Now, I saw this diagram again and it is not what I thought. :-) I would love to find bugs and write a patches in my own free time but I would have to know how to keep up with it. Is there a better or a good instruction for that?

Thanks, FletchSOD

#164 Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by fletchsod

Thursday June 6th, 2002 10:42 AM

Reply to this message

I got an interesting question about those two seperate branches. One for 1.0 branches and the other for 1.1 branches. The thought that came to my mind is about add-on, performance & bug-fix. Suppose someone fixed a bug for the 1.0 branches, would this patch also go to the 1.1 branches to fix it also? I mean, it would make more sense to do that so that over the time, the Mozilla get better and better more quickly over the time. Does it work this way? Please let me know! I'm dying to know the answer to this question...

#172 Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by tny

Thursday June 6th, 2002 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

More or less. What basically happens is this:

Changes are checked into trunk.

If a trunk change is safe, doesn't break the compatibility requirements for a branch, and is useful in a branch, it is checked into that branch.

The 1.0 branch and the 1.1 branch have different criteria for checkins. 1.0 must have frozen APIs, etc. Anything that would cause any problems with third-party addons, from Komodo to Netscape to SkyPilot, can't go on the 1.0 branch. 1.1, on the other hand, is a milestone on the road to 2.0 (if I understand the way it works correctly).

But IANAMD. (I am not a Mozilla developer.)

#174 Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branche

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

APIs are also intended to be frozen on the development trunk (the place from which we will see 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) Not until 2.0 will unsupporting those APIs even be considered.

--Asa

#176 Re: Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha bra

by tny

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't realize that. So at what point (not date, but number) do you branch to allow API changes? A link explaining this is as good as an answer (and I don't mean to take up your time).

#184 Re: Re: Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday June 6th, 2002 7:38 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure I understand your question. Here's the plan. The public frozen interfaces we shipped with for 1.0 will be supported for a very long time. We will create new interfaces as we need them. For example, if 1.0 shipped with nsFooBar interface and it doesn't do everything that Mozilla code consumers need it to do then we'll have to create a nsFooBar2 interface which extends the functionality of nsFooBar and the Mozilla codebase will carry the weight of the 2 similar interfaces so that people using the old one are supported and people using the new one get the added functionality. Hope this helps some.

--Asa

#187 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 a

by Dobbins

Friday June 7th, 2002 3:27 AM

Reply to this message

He's talking about opening a branch that will become Mozilla 2.0. You would have two Mozilla being worked on, the 1.0 series that maintained the APIs and the development branch where anything goes. It allows you to continue enhancing 1.x, while starting on new ideas for 2.0.

#196 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 7th, 2002 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

That's not happening. What is happening is continued development on the Mozilla trunk (the branch that will eventually become 2.0) and continued development on the 1.0 branch (from where we'll see 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, etc. releases). On the trunk we'll be taking high risk changes, new features, refactoring/rewriting of components, etc. We're going to try to limit these high impact changes to the 1.1alpha, 1.2alpha, 1.3alpha, etc. cycles so that we can recover in the 1.1beta, etc. cycle with a good 1.xfinal release coming about once a quarter. On the 1.0 branch we will be taking safer, lower risk fixes with the goal of never destabilizing the branch such that an organization intending to do a release from the branch should be able to pull code regularly and not have it be broken (that won't be the case with the trunk, especially during the alpha and beta cycles.) There is no need for a 2.0 branch.

--Asa

#175 Congratulaciones

by Trucoto

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

Felicitaciones a todo el equipo de Mozilla!

#177 Moz 1.0 branches vs. Moz 1.1 alpha branches

by fletchsod

Thursday June 6th, 2002 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

I got an interesting question about those two seperate branches. One for 1.0 branches and the other for 1.1 branches. The thought that came to my mind is about add-on, performance & bug-fix. Suppose someone fixed a bug for the 1.0 branches, would this patch also go to the 1.1 branches to fix it also? I mean, it would make more sense to do that so that over the time, the Mozilla get better and better more quickly over the time. Does it work this way? Please let me know! I'm dying to know the answer to this question...

#180 Jippie! Äntligen klar!

by imladris

Thursday June 6th, 2002 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

Have been waiting for Mozilla to go 1.0 since about M4, and now we've finally got there! Real good looking and fast it's become too, since then. Congratulations everyone, great job!

#186 Download browser only PLEASE!

by pbreit

Friday June 7th, 2002 12:51 AM

Reply to this message

I highly encourage EVERYONE to ONLY download the BROWSER. The ONLY way we will be able to get the Mozilla project to focus on the browser and not all the superfluous crup (mail, news, compose, chat) is to NOT buy into the suite! There are multiple good clients on every platform that work fine with the Moz browser. Granted it would be easier if the central powers that be would simply scope the project down, it apparently won't happen without everyone voting with their feet.

Download the browser only. Thank you.

#188 Re: Download browser only PLEASE!

by asmodeus

Friday June 7th, 2002 3:28 AM

Reply to this message

Firstly, I really like the email client that's available with Mozilla. I haven't found another free email client for Windows that's anywhere near as good, and I'm very happy one is there. I'm sure once I get MacOS X though, I'll be using the Mail app included with it, as long as there aren't any security problems with it. If there are any problems, having Mozilla Mail around as a backup client is good.

Secondly, the fact you have the option not to install anything other than the browser should mean the issue shouldn't bother you. I doubt having no other components would accelerate the browser development much, or even if many of the people working exclusively on other aspects of Mozilla would instead work on the browser if the other components were discontinued.

#193 Offtopic

by MXN

Friday June 7th, 2002 9:07 AM

Reply to this message

(shivers) You've got a scary Login name. (shivers)

#203 Integration is not really that good

by leet

Saturday June 8th, 2002 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

The fact that the browser and mail client are integrated brings in one problem that I'm surprised no one mentioned: when one crashes, both crash. That was the annoying thing when Navigator crashed and brought down messenger, and it looks like it's here to stay. Right now I'm using Messenger 4.79 AND Mozilla because 1) I don't know why the profile's stored under a seemingly randomly named folder (eg. 26q7kkdf.slt on Win98), and 2) When moz freezes, I don't need to restart the email program or delete a "temp" folder left in the Local Mail.

#204 Re: Integration is not really that good

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday June 8th, 2002 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

"I don't know why the profile's stored under a seemingly randomly named folder (eg. 26q7kkdf.slt on Win98)"

It's a security precaution. A lot of exploits in the past have allowed the reading or modifying of files by an attacker if s/he knows their location. The 'salted' directory name (randomly generated based on the date and time that the profile was created) helps to prevent this.

Alex

#208 Mail security

by ecarlson

Sunday June 9th, 2002 4:14 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, and in Netscape 4.79 (and all earlier versions), if you click on a link in an e-mail message, the mail directory location is passed to the web site. I hope they fixed that bug in Mozilla.

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#210 Re: Integration is not really that good

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Sunday June 9th, 2002 6:18 PM

Reply to this message

"The fact that the browser and mail client are integrated brings in one problem that I'm surprised no one mentioned: when one crashes, both crash."

A lot of people are thinking in terms of how to make each Mozilla app run in a separate process, so that they'll be as insulated from each other as the OS allows. Let the idea stew in the developers' heads for a while ...

#212 But it doesn't crash, so no problem.

by ecarlson

Monday June 10th, 2002 9:27 AM

Reply to this message

Neither the browser nor the mail client have crashed on me. I have been using Mozilla on Windows 2000 since RC3.

It is more reliable than the Netscape 4.79 browser, which would ocassionally lock up on me.

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#190 Re: Download browser only PLEASE!

by Dobbins

Friday June 7th, 2002 7:25 AM

Reply to this message

1. ChatZilla is an independant project that has ZERO effect on developing the rest of the project. It's just like the projects on Mozdev except it's hosted on Mozilla.org rather than on Mozdev.

2. Mail News has actually helped the browser rather than hinder it. Outliner was developed by the Mail News team.

The People who aren't being paid to work on Mozilla are doing it because they WANT to. Why do you assume that the people working on non-browser areas will meekly work on the section of the project that intrests you instead of the section they want to work on? Aren't they more likely to leave if you kill the part that intrests them? As for the people who are being paid to work on other sections, why do you assume thier employer will bow to your will and assign them to the browser section rather than assigning them to work on a non-Mozilla project, or even lay them off?

There are people intrested in all of the Mozilla project. How would you like to see a post that complained that Mail was being held back because everybody wasn't forced to download it, and calling for tighter bundling so you couldn't just download the browser?

#194 Very well said....

by FrodoB

Friday June 7th, 2002 9:20 AM

Reply to this message

With one minor correction. The Mail News team was the first user of outliner, and it was developed almost entirely based upon their needs, but the work wasn't done by them (other than bug fixing); it was done by XPToolkit engineers. Of course, the line between the two while the work was going on was next to nothing. :)

#201 Mail/News is good, chatzilla is OK

by johann_p

Friday June 7th, 2002 12:58 PM

Reply to this message

and there is a lot of potential for growth and enhancement. Having the browser and mail/news integrated is a good thing as far as I am concerned. And the potiential for a suite that has browser, mailnews, and calender integrated in the right way is just mind boggling: i really believe that if well done, this could become a killer app that will be loved by most company users and many private users. There are many good things in mozilla (ok, there are also some not so good ones, but lets be silent about them in this forum), and having the *option* of getting an integrated suited is one of them. Feel free to download only the browser, but let others enjoy the rest of it!

#207 Mail client is the reason I use Mozilla

by ecarlson

Sunday June 9th, 2002 4:05 PM

Reply to this message

If it didn't have a mail client similar to and compatibile with Netscape 4.79, I would not be using Mozilla. I have 50,000 messages in Netscape/Mozilla.

I don't care about the editor (and I suspect very few end-users do), or chat. In fact, I wish the editor would go away so they can concentrate on the mail client and the browser.

- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#202 Congrats

by blazerw

Friday June 7th, 2002 11:43 PM

Reply to this message

Moz is great in both Windows and Linux (sometimes I'm forced to use Windows). Thanks to all who worked on it.

#215 Hehe

by jweb_guru

Sunday August 28th, 2005 12:33 PM

Reply to this message

Tanyel? Lee Strauss? Bruce Jensen? Where'd you all disappear to?

Anyway, a very belated congratulations to Mozilla for its 1.0 release! Wish I'd been paying attention at the time.

#216 Mozilla is a Must

by raysaif <info@valueprime.com>

Sunday February 12th, 2006 11:27 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is a must for web developers!