Mozilla 1.0.1 and 1.1 Release Candidates
Thursday August 15th, 2002
Asa Dotzler writes: "Test builds for everyone!
"If you're using 1.0 and you'd like to test our release candidates for 1.0.1 you can get them at ftp.mozilla.org. If you're riding the trunk builds and you'd like a sneak peak at 1.1 you can get candidate builds at ftp.mozilla.org. More on our release plans available in this news posting."
#1 first post
Thursday August 15th, 2002 3:50 PM
#45 Re: first post
Monday August 19th, 2002 3:09 AM
This is not Slashdot.
#2 Slashdot ?
Thursday August 15th, 2002 4:31 PM
I just visited slashdot.org with 1.1 en weird stuff happen ending with "document contains no data". IS this my new Mozilla or is there something wrong at /. ?
#3 Re: Slashdot ?
Thursday August 15th, 2002 4:35 PM
I've been having problems get there from both my home and work computerand in IE and mozilla. So I think its /.
#4 Re: Re: Slashdot ?
Thursday August 15th, 2002 4:40 PM
Not working for me either.
#5 Re: Slashdot ?
Thursday August 15th, 2002 5:15 PM
I think slashdot was down for quite some time earlier today.
#6 Crash with 1.1 :(
Thursday August 15th, 2002 5:20 PM
My 1.1 crashes when I go here: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1542&offset=30&rows=41 My Moz dir or profile might be f***ed up though.
#7 Crash with 1.1 :(
Thursday August 15th, 2002 5:23 PM
Weird, after I posted this, I was able to click the link and go to the page. But, after closing all Mozilla windows and visiting the site again, Mozilla crashed again.
#8 Re: Crash with 1.1 (OK for me)
Thursday August 15th, 2002 6:45 PM
#10 Re: Re: Crash with 1.1 (OK for me)
Thursday August 15th, 2002 7:16 PM
I was using Windows 2000 with a build from the article. I sended about four talkbacks.
#17 Re: Re: Crash with 1.1
Friday August 16th, 2002 3:57 AM
with the latest 1.1 build for win98 (2002081419) the page can be visited but mozilla crashes after closing the tab... so i filled in the talkback report
Thursday August 15th, 2002 7:07 PM
If someone could help me understand this, I would appreciate it...
Why does the 1.0.1 release even exist if the 1.1 release is coming out at the same time? 1.1 is going to be faster, more stable, and have more features than 1.0.1, right? So why put out a release which is immediately obsolete?
#11 Moving targets, young Jedi
Thursday August 15th, 2002 7:44 PM
Rule of thumb:
"_._.X" versions are for minor fixes, security issues, and non-invasive cleanup so that existing products get better. This is important.
"_.X" versions are for major changes, new features, and partial rewrites with little or no regard for past behavior and compatability so that NEW products can be cooler than existing products.
The 1.0.x branch exists so that companies can build commercial apps (or even free apps) on a fixed target. The Mozilla wranglers have promised that 1.0.x is as frozen as possible in terms of major features and APIs. This was done so that only bugfixes and non-invasive tweaks are included in 1.0.1, meaning an app based on 1.0 can easily incorporate the 1.0.1 (and 1.0.2, etc.) fixes without breaking badly.
The trunk was reopened for major fixes, features, improvements, API changes, etc. and from these MAJOR changes we now have a Mozilla 1.1 branch. This new branch will now freeze its features and APIs so that products can be based on it. These products will easily incorporate fixes in the inevitable 1.1.1 release of Mozilla without too much effort.
Now the trunk is open for Mozilla 1.2 development, and APIs and major features can be changed without regard for Mozilla 1.0.x compatability. Note that some major fixes (especially security) have been included in 1.0.1 which were developed on the trunk for 1.1.0 and deemed important enough to fix on the 1.0 branch, too.
Thursday August 15th, 2002 9:37 PM
I knew all of that. I asked my question because I hadn't seen API changes from 1.0 to 1.1 which would really cause much breakage for an average developer using Moz. This was stupid - I was thinking of projects which just need a couple interfaces stable (plugins, embedding projects) to the exclusion of projects using the full code base. Of course these people would need some of the things which have changed in 1.1 to remain stable. Scratch the stupid question.
In regards to the other reply, from the feedback I've seen on the 1.1 series, 1.1 is slightly more stable than 1.0.x in most areas.
#12 Re: 1.0.1?
Thursday August 15th, 2002 8:12 PM
1.0.1 is almost certainly more stable that 1.1.
#14 What I'd really like for 1.0.1...
Thursday August 15th, 2002 11:09 PM
...is for developers to remove the stupid turbo reloading. I know it was implemented as a fix for some memory loss, but it is costing more for people with slow computers.
The whole process of shutting down and starting up takes 20-30 seconds on my home computer, and uses a lot of processor power. And then I have to select a profile again (my shortcuts have -p so I'll never have to see profilemanager again, or so I thought) and some people have complained that it resets the master password (I don't use master passwords so I don't know).
I have to keep a window open to prevent this, which really defeats the whole purpose of turbo mode. :(
I don't mind experimenting with this fix to the memory problem, but it should be done only in the trunk. The 1.0 release worked really well, I hope you don't change the way it works.
#22 Re: What I'd really like for 1.0.1...
Friday August 16th, 2002 9:14 AM
Turbo mode only works if you have one profile. Since you mention the use of the -P turbo mode isn't really working for you.
Friday August 16th, 2002 7:02 PM
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the turbo /reloading/ whenever you close the last window. Wasn't present in 1.0 but present in 1.0.1, and is supposed to be a bug fix for the loss of memory.
#27 Re: Bamm
Friday August 16th, 2002 10:24 PM
Oh, I've never seen it reload. I've just seen it quit out right because I use multiple profiles.
#31 Turbo Reloading
Saturday August 17th, 2002 6:31 AM
You are probably using 1.0, cause in 1.0.1 it reloads with or without multiple profiles. And even if you Ctrl+Alt+Delete to kill Moz it starts up again.
#28 Re: What I'd really like for 1.0.1...
Friday August 16th, 2002 11:01 PM
It's pretty easy to disable. Go to Preferences, Advanced, and uncheck it. Since my processor is pretty recent, I can't tell the difference with or w/o it.
Saturday August 17th, 2002 6:28 AM
Why would I want to disable it? On the contrary I want it enabled all the time, not shutting itself down and restarting.
People who don't notice the difference are those who really don't need Quick Launch in the first place.
I use Quick Launch because I don't want to wait 15 seconds to start up the first window. But now Moz makes me wait 30 seconds - 15 to shut it down and another 15 to start it up again. Without my permission.
And developers consider this annoying behavior a bug fix.
#15 Boring icons in 1.1 branch?
Friday August 16th, 2002 12:18 AM
I've just downloaded a recent 1.1 build (2002081418) and now my window icons are boring! They're just little rectangles, instead of the red star I'd gotten used to. This is on Linux.
Is this normal? Any ideas?
#18 Re: Boring icons in 1.1 branch?
Friday August 16th, 2002 4:24 AM
This is most likely the result of "fixing" bug 157830, which is supposed to give more and different icons for Mozilla windows. But my Linux/Gnome/Sawfish combo now also uses the generic "some window" icon - nothing Mozilla specific anymore. So either sth. is wrong woth the fix in 157830, or I don't get what that bug was really about. For me, this is right now a regression.
#19 Re: Re: Boring icons in 1.1 branch
Friday August 16th, 2002 4:55 AM
same for me, kde 2.2.1, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020815, made a note in bug 157830... I hope we get an answer
#20 Re: Re: Boring icons in 1.1 branch
Friday August 16th, 2002 4:56 AM
same for me, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020815, kde 2.2.1. Made a note in bug 157830, I hope, we get an answer ...
#29 Re: Re: Re: Boring icons in 1.1 branch
Saturday August 17th, 2002 4:25 AM
I've been building my own trunk Mozilla, and it has the gr[a|e]yrest icons which have graced Windows for a while [KDE3]
#16 Can 1.0.x and 1.1 share profiles?
Friday August 16th, 2002 1:56 AM
Can Mozilla 1.0.x and Mozilla 1.1 (-based) browsers share profiles, or do you have to make a seperate profile for each Mozilla-generation ?
#23 Re: Can 1.0.x and 1.1 share profiles?
Friday August 16th, 2002 10:12 AM
They can share profiles now, but there is no guaruntee that 1.0.2 and 1.2 will be able to share profiles. So your best deciding upon one or the other or using seperate profiles. (BTW some components of the two profiles can be shared saftly if you are using a filesystem that allows linking)
#59 Re: Can 1.0.x and 1.1 share profiles?
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 5:51 PM
You bet. When 1.0 came out, I was able to use my 0.9.9 and 1.0 RCx profile with it.
#21 Mozilla in system tray become ugly
Friday August 16th, 2002 5:21 AM
I just install the latest build 1.1 (2002081419). The Mozilla icon in the system tray, on the bottom right, become so ugly. It looks like it uses more colors. :-(
#24 The bug that bothers me the most
Friday August 16th, 2002 10:55 AM
The bug that bothers me the most is bug 82534 (it's a top dupe). From time to time mozilla stops responding to keyboard and I have to restart it. Hope it'll be fixed soon...
#26 How about 133212 ?
Friday August 16th, 2002 9:09 PM
This "P1" "Blocker" seems to have a patch ready on 08/10... but it sounds like the patch is of large scale. The comments don't even address the 1.1 branch (only the trunk and the 1.0.1 branch). I've dropped a comment into that bug, but also want to highlight it here: Is it targeted for 1.1, or should it be marked for later?
#32 Bug 75214 corrupts page display
Saturday August 17th, 2002 12:13 PM
For quite some time bug 75214 has not been addressed. It leads to a corrupted page display on all web pages for which IFRAMES are larger than the visible browser window. The effect is that page text disappears, page background becomes "smeared" etc. For an example see www.sueddeutsche.de (scroll to bottom of page). When will this bug be fixed??
#33 Re: Bug 75214 corrupts page display
Saturday August 17th, 2002 5:06 PM
Why not write to the assignee and ask? We're drowning in bugs reports, many of dubious quality. It's possible the person to whom it's assigned hasn't noticed it, doesn't understand why it's important, or is perhaps the wrong assignee and can help you re-assign it to someone more appropriate.
#34 Customizable toolbar
Saturday August 17th, 2002 9:21 PM
I've looked at the customizable toolbar ( http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/toolbarcustom.png ) being worked on by Dave Hyatt & company. I think they are missing the big picture. They are aiming to be able to shuffle the existing icons on a given toolbar. What is needed, imo, is this:
1. Ability to add new buttons to the toolbar, for instance, a "New Tab" or "New Window" or "Zoom" button.
2. Ability to move & dock the entire toolbar to another toolbar. For instance, I'd like to dock the Personal toolbar to right side of the Menu bar, thus adding more real estate to my browsing.
3. Ability to create your own toolbars with buttons for various functionality.
#35 Re: Customizable toolbar
Saturday August 17th, 2002 9:51 PM
I'm sure all of those "wants" can be added in time. Hang onto your panties. The current work is a BIG step in the right direction.. you could always write the code for the options you want as well :)
#36 This thing is FAST.
Sunday August 18th, 2002 6:48 AM
Am I imagining, or is Mozilla 1.0.1 RC1 the fastest browser I've ever seen? Pages seem to load instantly. Unfortunately the turbo reload annoyance is still there.
#37 actual metrics?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 9:56 AM
Does anyone have actual metrics on the performance of the Mozilla browser component? Download speeds, renderings speeds, cache performance, network performance etc.?
Personally, I can't see / feel any difference between NS 4.7, IE 6.0 and Mozilla 1.0 as far as downloading of pages or cache is concerned. I'm on a DSL connection at home and an unknown (but very fast) connection at work. As far as layout is concerned, NS 4.7 is clearly slower, especially on more complex pages. But I can't really see any difference between IE 6.0 and Mozilla.
So are there any performance metrics anywhere on this?
#40 Re: actual metrics?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 12:36 PM
"So are there any performance metrics anywhere on this?"
#41 Neutral metrics?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 6:37 PM
Is there a site that has browser neutral metrics on it. I couldn't convince a supporter of another browser to switch based on any performance stats at Mozilla.org. There's a seemingly great site at http://www.etestinglabs.com/benchmarks/i-bench/i-bench.asp which could test your system as a whole (you could just run it under different browsers). Unfortunately doing so requires you set up a server, installing MySQL, and going through several pages of set ups where something seems to error out on me every time. I think I saw some Chimera performance, but that doesn't really help me any. CNet Labs tests seem to always come up inconclusive or varying based on flavor of WinOS (the only thing ever tested).
#42 Re: Neutral metrics?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 7:23 PM
"Is there a site that has browser neutral metrics on it. I couldn't convince a supporter of another browser to switch based on any performance stats at Mozilla.org."
The stats at http://www.mozilla.org/performance/ are recorded to aid in improving Mozilla's performance. It would be counterproductive if the published results were biased. Remember, these stats are from engineering teams, not marketing.
#48 okay... but...
Monday August 19th, 2002 2:39 PM
Okay, so assuming that statistics are neutral, I can't get either of the pageloading tools (at http://www.mozilla.org/performance/startup-perf-brownbag.html) to work because they exist at mcom.com, which doesn't seem to exist anymore. I couldn't find any statistics that were already compiled (although if I were a C++ engineer I could go through the brownbag area to create my own stats). At best this would give me good stats on Mozilla, but not a comparison of Mozilla vs. other browsers (or even different browsers on different systems), which is what I was really looking for. Something more like http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227884-8-20005816-6.html but more in depth detail (even CNET said their testing produced results that are "a bit odd" and since "browser's actual speeds often varied by less than a second" it's too tough to call). I'm not trying to be difficult, but I find it odd that many people claim one browser is faster than another, but there is very little proof out there to argue with.
#49 Re: okay... but...
Monday August 19th, 2002 2:51 PM
"I can't get either of the pageloading tools (at http://www.mozilla.org/performance/startup-perf-brownbag.html ) to work because they exist at mcom.com, which doesn't seem to exist anymore."
mcom.com is the domain name Netscape used when they were still called Mosaic Communications. They still own it. A URL pointing to something.mcom.com is generally an internal Nestcape-only resource (though there are some exceptions such as home.mcom.com).
"I couldn't find any statistics that were already compiled"
You can find some actual results here: http://www.mozilla.org/quality/perf/
#50 Re: Re: okay... but...
Monday August 19th, 2002 2:52 PM
Performance data is also posted to the netscape.public.mozilla.performance newsgroup.
#51 Well that explains it...
Tuesday August 20th, 2002 11:52 AM
I see why I can't get to mcom.com now, but I never would have stumpled upon that otherwise. I figured that it was a dot-com benchmarking service that went out of business. The results you sent are terrific and mostly what I was looking for. In my dream world, I was hoping I'd find a site that would compare Opera, Mozilla, and IE (perhaps even iCab for the Mac as well) on similar machines. The data at the link you provided is great for tracking progress of Mozilla against itself, but doesn't seem to show how Mozilla does in relation to the other options out there. I know this is beyond the role of Mozilla.org, but I had hoped someone knew of a site like an eWeek Labs or something that would have taken up the cause.
#53 How about CNET?
Tuesday August 20th, 2002 8:52 PM
I think CNET has a comparison available.
#54 I like CNET and all
Tuesday August 20th, 2002 10:02 PM
CNET is a solid organization, but they tested a couple of systems in a couple of situations (as I think I might have pointed out). They also came up with mixed results that even they said "seemed odd".
#55 Re: I like CNET and all
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 12:46 AM
#57 So far the most buggy Mozilla I've used...
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 8:57 AM
#58 darn old subjects!
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 9:21 AM
sorry about the subject of my last post, it seems like Moz's form saver is a little over zealous.
Sunday August 18th, 2002 10:32 AM
It's not that I don't like to waste my bandwidth downloading tens of MB that I allready have, but wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-3 MB updater for Mozilla 1.0 rather than having to re-download the full installer for each minor release?
#39 Re: Updater?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 11:16 AM
"...wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-3 MB updater for Mozilla 1.0 rather than having to re-download the full installer for each minor release?"
We're accepting patches.
#43 Re: Re: Updater?
Sunday August 18th, 2002 7:54 PM
it would seem to be relatively easy to do, at least for particular (e.g., security) bug fixes, since presumably those kind of changes involve only modifying a few files. it would basically be just running a self-extracting zip in overwrite mode on the mozilla directory. chrome changes should also be relatively easy to do in small bits, but it's hard to think which chrome changes to make available in small bits. if someone made an automated comparer that was programmed with checksums of all files in a new release and checked the checksums on a users computer, it could then download just the changed files, of there was someplace that had all the files split up for download... but then they wouldn't be zipped, of course, so they'd take longer, unless the server could take a list of files/direcotries and make a custom zip for you. all in all, a lot of work to get a comprehensive update system to go from any nightly to any other build, but should be fairly easy (and worth it) to do manually when you are going from one definite version (e.g., 1.01) to a small change from that (e.g., 1.02).
#44 Re: Updater
Sunday August 18th, 2002 10:44 PM
"it would seem to be relatively easy to do . . . a lot of work to get a comprehensive update system to go from any nightly to any other build, but should be fairly easy (and worth it) to do manually when you are going from one definite version (e.g., 1.01) to a small change from that (e.g., 1.02)."
Personally I would think that such a project would require a lot of time and effort, but I am happy to see that the webgremlin apparently knows more about it than I do. I look forward to seeing the build updater system that he will be developing for us.
#46 Re: Rock stability, but not here....
Monday August 19th, 2002 8:21 AM
When 1.01 goes gold I will be happy to see if I can figure out a way to make such a thing to go from 1.0 to 1.01. I was posting in hopes of getting others' feedback on *what exactly* might be challenging about it and/or inspiring others to look at it too. It's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'll find it quite difficult. If you have any thoughts about where you think I will run in to difficulty, I'd be happy to learn them. If you can confidently point out something that will require far too many hours to overcome, better for me to find out now than to waste time on it.
Also, as I said, I think doing a comprehensive system would be very hard, so I doubt you'll see a "build updater system" from me ever. You might see a Windows Mozilla 1.0 -> 1.01 upgrade package, though. I'll be giving it a shot.
#47 Re: Re: Rock stability, but not here....
Monday August 19th, 2002 10:49 AM
You should ask around. I think someone has already done something similar. I can't remember who but if I remember correctly, I think he got the upgrade down to about half of a full install. I'm also not sure whethere the resulting builds worked or not. Maybe do a google site search on mozillazine and see if that turns up anything.
#52 Whatever happened to SmartUpdate?
Tuesday August 20th, 2002 12:15 PM
I remember reading in the early days of Mozilla that modularity was one of the design goals. One would think that it would be easier to develop the classic Navigator/Communicator SmartUpdate capability with Mozilla (just updating the xpi's). Sure beats a full download.
#56 Entering an address and hitting return....
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 4:37 AM
...no longer works, at least not for me (just installed 1.0.1). Tried a search at Bugzilla but could find no references (though I'm a clueless newbie truth be told). What gives?
#60 Where are the 1.01rc1 release notes?
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 9:02 PM
I've kept http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/ as my home page and I check it out every so often. Well I am currently running Mozilla 1.0 and the start page says "Please help us out by upgrading to Mozilla 1.0.1 Release Candidate 1."
OK, I might be willing to do that, but first I want to know what is supposed to have been changed between 1.0 and 1.0.1. In other words I'd like to read the release notes.
So I've gone looking for the release notes all over the mozilla.org site. I couldn't even find any other mention of the 1.0.1 release.
Anyone know what's up with that?
#61 Re: Where are the 1.01rc1 release notes?
Wednesday August 21st, 2002 11:29 PM
use bonsai :) If I had taken the time to write up release notes for the release candidate they would have been little more than a regurgitation of the results of a bonsai and bugzilla query. A quick scan of these bugs http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?&keywords_type=anywords&keywords=fixed1.0.1+verified1.0.1&resolution=FIXED and these checkins http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=SeaMonkeyAll&branch=MOZILLA_1_0&branchtype=regexp&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=06%2F01%2F2002&maxdate=12%2F12%2F2002&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot should give you a good idea of what's changed between 1.0 and 1.0.1. --Asa
#62 URL toolbar lost focus
Thursday August 22nd, 2002 12:37 PM
In 1.0 when you opened a new tab via Ctrl+T, the focus started in the URL bar. Now, the URL focus is gone. Any bug# for this?
#63 1.1 crashes with no Talkback
Friday August 23rd, 2002 1:09 PM
1.1 (builds from the last 15 days) have been crashing on me without ever sending a Talkback report. That's the first time this is happening consistently since the 0.9x milestones.
anyone encountered the same behavior?
#64 Open in New Window from MailNews is broken
Saturday August 24th, 2002 8:04 AM
If you receive a URL in an email message, and then right-click and select Open in New Window A new window is created with the correct URL selected but the page does not load. Anyone seeing this too?