MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.2 - Get It While It's Hot!

Tuesday November 26th, 2002

mozilla.org has just released Mozilla 1.2. New to this version (since 1.1) are Type Ahead Find, toolbars as text/icons/both, support for GTK themes on Linux and native style for HTML form controls on Windows XP, multiple tabs as startpage, Link Prefetching, filter after the fact and filter logging in Mail, the ability to sync your addressbook to a Palm device on MS Windows, and much, much more.

Builds are now starting to show up on the ftp servers, and the release notes have been posted. Be sure to check out the updating roadmap, as noted earlier this week.


#1 Xft enabled build for RH80?

by djm <djm@mindrot.org>

Tuesday November 26th, 2002 10:59 PM

Reply to this message

This is excellent news! I have been using an Xft build of 1.2beta since mid-October and it has been at least as stable as the 1.0 that it replaced. Well done to all those who have contributed in one way or another.

Is there an Xft-enabled build for RH80? Or do I have to recompile it from the source RPM?

#32 Re: Xft enabled build for RH80?

by unknown

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Nope, Xft is not enabled. Wait for Xft-enabled pagages to be contributed.. or build it by your self.

#65 They are on ftp.mozilla.org now

by djm <djm@mindrot.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:36 PM

Reply to this message

They are there now.

#2 Quick!

by larfnarf

Tuesday November 26th, 2002 11:24 PM

Reply to this message

heh, QUICK! Somebody update the link in the build bar! Ok, sorry I had to do that :) Congrats to everybody involved in this release & hope to see many more in the future :) *hugs*

#3 Confusion

by Mazon

Tuesday November 26th, 2002 11:58 PM

Reply to this message

"however, our theory is that if link prefetching needs to be disabled then there must be something wrong with the implementation."

and then later

"prefetching is a browser feature; users should be able to disable it easily."

:)

#4 Re: Confusion

by darinwf

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:16 AM

Reply to this message

taken in context, the point is that there are compelling arguments on both sides of the fence, and mozilla 1.2 final does not have UI to enable/disable prefetching. if a user wishes to disable it, he or she will have to manually edit their prefs.js file. that being said, there is already a patch in the works to add prefs UI for prefetching (that will most likely find its way into mozilla 1.3).

#30 Re: Confusion

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

My theory is that if image fetching needs to be disabled then there must be something wrong with the implementation.

#71 Link Prefetching Why?????

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:41 PM

Reply to this message

I am on a fast internet connection and do not need link prefetching. as well I do not look at all links on a page and do not want them all prefetched for me. Link prefetching seems as if it would be a bandwidth hog. (I do not pay for bandwidth used but I believe there are users in parts of the world who still do.) As importand as these concerns are they are not my main concern.

My main concern with link prefetching is tha internet service providers may begin to ban the use of Mozilla/Netscape et. al. due to the wasted bandwidth of link prefetching. PLEASE if this feature is to continue to be included in Mozilla, I hope prefetching is OFF by default and turned on by a preference.

I believe this feature is wrong and will cause many internet service providers to hate Mozilla and possibly ban its use. Please, Please, Please rethink if it is a wise idea to include link prefetching.

Wider discussion is needed before link prefetching becomes a stamdard feature in Mozilla. Do we want Mozilla to become known by ISPs as a bandwidth hog. This can only lead to ISPs continuing to not support Mozilla/Netscape or worse yet prohibit its use.

#74 Nonsense.... you didn't think it through

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:59 PM

Reply to this message

Page authors have to explicitly state *which* pages get prefetched. Currently the number of pages that actually use this feature will probably be somewhere around....0, because IE does not support link prefetching, so up until now, what was the point in doing this?.

Also, page authors surely will not tell their pages to prefix ALL or even a large number of links in their page. They will use this sparsely and wisely, because not doing so would hog their *own* servers, and they don't want that....

Which only leaves page authors with malicious intent, but in that case, the page author is much more likely to be banned from his ISP than the browser ;). Also it is unlikely such a malicious page would be visited by numbers large enough to bring down a server or cause any significant extra bandwidth.

#80 Re: Link Prefetching Why?????

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:24 PM

Reply to this message

>>as well I do not look at all links on a page and do not want them all prefetched for me.

And you didn't actually learn what link prefetching was, did you? It doesn't prefetch all the links on a page. It prefetches documents the page author specified using the LINK tag with rel=next or rel=prefetch. That's not the same as prefetching all of the pages hyperlinked to from that document.

>>I believe this feature is wrong and will cause many internet service providers to hate Mozilla and possibly ban its use.

You clearly don't understand how it works so your beliefs are based on a misunderstanding and need to be reevaluated.

--Asa

#123 Re: Re: Link Prefetching Why?????

by shieldwolf

Friday November 29th, 2002 7:54 AM

Reply to this message

What about the page that prelinks to pr0n? I am then fired from work because some yahoo put <http://www.goatse.cx> in a link tag? This should be only be possible for relative links, off by default or very easily turned off.

#125 Re: Re: Re: Link Prefetching Why?????

by dveditz

Friday November 29th, 2002 10:01 AM

Reply to this message

Another argument that needs to be re-thought. Why would a non-porn page prefetch goatse.cx? To get you in trouble? If they wanted to do that on purpose they could do exactly the same thing loading the page in a hidden IFRAME. Since that would work on IE and Opera as well it'd be much more likely than a prefetching attack.

#129 Re: Re: Link Prefetching Why?????

by shieldwolf

Friday November 29th, 2002 11:23 AM

Reply to this message

They are BOTH problems, but were they to do it in a IFRAME at least I would get the feedback from the browser that it was loading something. With Prefetching links it is TOTALLY out of my awareness.

#5 Memory leaks

by ed_welch

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

Amazingly they never fixed the memory leak bugs for this release: Bug 131456, Bug 171681 and Bug 174760

#36 Re: Memory leaks

by omidk <omidk@email.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 9:45 AM

Reply to this message

yeah no kidding. Its like the developers are MIA from those bugs too. You would think they would be all over that one.

#48 Re: Re: Memory leaks

by bzbarsky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

Well, two of those are assigned to a guy who no longer works on Mozilla... getting a real person on them would help.

#59 Yeah

by zero0w

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

Hopefully these memory leak bugs will be fixed by someone. Then mozilla.org will become TRULY rocking across many platforms.

#6 Installation Problem in Redhat 8

by gigsvoo

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:38 AM

Reply to this message

I am not sure about this but after I get all the RPMS, it has conflict with the command "# rpm -Uvh *" as follow:

error: Failed dependencies: mozilla = 1.1 is needed by (installed) galeon-1.2.6-1

and I tried "# rpm -ivh *" and have this error:

Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /usr/lib/libnspr4.so from install of mozilla-nspr-1.2-0_rh8 conflicts with file from package mozilla-nspr-1.1-0 file /usr/lib/libplc4.so from install of mozilla-nspr-1.2-0_rh8 conflicts with file from package mozilla-nspr-1.1-0 ....

what happened here? I thought I have Mozilla 1.1 installed and Galeon is using that??? I dun have these problem when I beta driving Mozilla 1.2 beta.

Please help!!!

Thanks

Neo Gigs

#8 Re: Installation Problem in Redhat 8

by bzbarsky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:42 AM

Reply to this message

You have 1.1 installed. You have a version of galeon installed that _requires_ 1.1. The rpm version was apparently not bumped for the 1.2a and 1.2b releases. Now it has been.

#9 Re: Re: Installation Problem in Redhat 8

by gigsvoo

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 2:11 AM

Reply to this message

I did a "# rpm -e galeon" and then the installation works!

#29 Re: Installation Problem in Redhat 8

by javaman67 <javaman67@acd.net>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:02 AM

Reply to this message

Just download the .tar.gz of mozilla and install it in /opt and run it from there. It didn't conflict with the rpm verison of mozilla that Galeon uses. I play alot with the nightly builds this way and it works out fine.

#7 Installation Problem in Redhat 8

by gigsvoo

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:41 AM

Reply to this message

I am not sure about this but after I get all the RPMS, it has conflict with the command "# rpm -Uvh *" as follow:

error: Failed dependencies: mozilla = 1.1 is needed by (installed) galeon-1.2.6-1

and I tried "# rpm -ivh *" and have this error:

Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /usr/lib/libnspr4.so from install of mozilla-nspr-1.2-0_rh8 conflicts with file from package mozilla-nspr-1.1-0 file /usr/lib/libplc4.so from install of mozilla-nspr-1.2-0_rh8 conflicts with file from package mozilla-nspr-1.1-0 ....

what happened here? I thought I have Mozilla 1.1 installed and Galeon is using that??? I dun have these problem when I beta driving Mozilla 1.2 beta.

Please help!!!

Thanks

Neo Gigs

#10 At last

by hosking

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 2:39 AM

Reply to this message

Whay Ill get it tonight

#11 showing ALT as tooltip

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:09 AM

Reply to this message

why is this implemented, although nobody wants it: <http://www.mozillazine.or…rums/viewtopic.php?t=1322>

#18 Re: showing ALT as tooltip

by jilles

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:03 AM

Reply to this message

Well it's not working in the version I installed. Alt attributes as tooltips are used on thousands of sites. In the absence of a title attribute and a doctype, they should be displayed for compatibility reasons.

As for the poll, 'nobody' is probably defined as mozilla developers, not users. There's a conflict between following w3c standards and being able to display most websites. The alt tooltip issue is one of these things where the w3c standard is widely ignored (to the point where it is very hard to find websites that provide title attributes instead of alt attributes). Most html authoring tools I know don't even offer a GUI for defining title attributes.

I'm one of those idiot users that actually uses mozilla to browse the web. I find it highly annoying that I have to tweak my browser to display sites as they were intended be displayed by their designers. Standards compliance is a nice ideal but most sites I visit are not standards compliant. Therefore some flexibility with respect to interpreting non standard HTML is required.

If a site has HTML 4.01 (or higher) as a doc type, don't display the alt attribute as a tooltip because the site is explicitly claiming to comply with a standard. If there is no doctype, displaying the alt attribute as a tooltip very likely is the intended behavior since the developer did not bother complying to any standard; most browsers (including all versions of internet explorer, opera, netscape 4x and earlier) do display alt tags as tooltips and the only reason a developer that does not care for standards would bother to add an alt attribute is to get the frickin tooltip to display.

Like it or not, most sites don't validate as any form of HTML defined by the w3c. Treating them as if they do is probably a very stupid tactic if your intention is to display what the site designer had in mind.

#35 Displaying what the site designer had in mind

by bzbarsky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 9:40 AM

Reply to this message

is not the goal

#40 Re: What about quirks mode?

by thomanski

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

I think you're wrong. Displaying what the site designer had in mind is all what quirks mode is about!

#49 Re: Re: What about quirks mode?

by bzbarsky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 12:24 PM

Reply to this message

No, quirks mode is about displaying a reasonable approximation to what the site designer had in mind. Though many people would really like it to be your version instead (most of them in AOL marketing).

#91 because mainstream browsers display tooltips

by jilles

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:43 AM

Reply to this message

>You just pulled it out of your hat? fact: internet explorer & netscape 4.x display alt attributes as tooltips. It's not optional, they do it like this and have been doing so for years. fact: most websites are not standards compliant. Sad but true. fact: the combined marketshare of netscape 4.x and IE is still upwards of 95%. fact: the intended behavior of a non standard page is very likely to be whatever IE or netscape 4.x (or whatever the developer tested with) does with it. fact: mozilla has a small marketshare and deviates from this behavior for non standard pages. This is why mozilla has a quirks mode. This is why mozilla provides implementation for the marquee tag. IMNSHO this is also why mozilla should always display alt attributes as tooltips for non standard pages.

> I was using alternate text because it seemed to make sense to offer that information to those of my friends on text browsers or on browsers with image loading turned off.

Don't project your own rather untypical browsing (no offense but I don't recall text based browsers ever having any significant market share) behavior on the web user community. Besides, displaying alt attributes as tooltips in these rare cases cannot possibly be worse than not displaying them in the majority of cases where this was in fact the intended behavior. I fail to see why it would be in any way harmful to do so.

#104 Re: because mainstream browsers display tooltips

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 10:35 AM

Reply to this message

A tag does two things in the clients that dominate the market. It provided alternate text for when people chose to not view images (which as you so conveniently ignored, can be both text only browsers and people using image capable browsers but with images turned off) and it provides a tooltip.

For you to assume that the "only reason" it is used is for only one of those two purposes is just plain silly. Talking about majority cases and minority cases is a far cry from your original post where you said the "only reason". I'm happy to debate this with you but you're changing the argument midstream. You didn't say anything abouut majority. You said "... the only reason a developer that does not care for standards would bother to add an alt attribute is to get the frickin tooltip to display."

I'm challenging that. I think you're wrong. I've got something to back that up with, personal experience. I put alternate text on images specifically for people browsing without images, not just for text only browsers but also for the much more common case of people browsing with images turned off. Your claim that tooltips are the "only reason" an author who didn't care about standards (me back when I didn't care about standards and still used alternate text) would use alternate text is just flat wrong, indefensible, so now you've changed your argument. That's a convenient strategy but doesn't do much convincing.

--Asa

#122 no you're wrong

by jilles

Friday November 29th, 2002 5:10 AM

Reply to this message

Somehow you twist my argument to deduce that because some (IMHO very few, I can't deny that there are some) people actually disable images, alt attributes should not be displayed as tooltips. I'm glad the disussion is no longer about standards (the main reason mozilla developers chose to do things differently) but about perceived intentions backed up with 'personal experience'. I don't see how your argument is more convincing in that respect. I have an additional argument though and that is that most browsers display the tooltip. If you add things up, it is more consistent behavior to display the tooltip than not to display it. I find that a quite logical conclusion but apparently some people disagree for reasons that do not go beyond perceived usage of alt attributes.

#82 Re: Re: showing ALT as tooltip

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:46 PM

Reply to this message

>>If there is no doctype, displaying the alt attribute as a tooltip very likely is the intended behavior since the developer did not bother complying to any standard;

How do you know that was the intent. Maybe the author put the alt information there for people don't display images and want an alternate text. You don't know that the author wanted a potentially really annoying tooltip popping up all over his page whenever someone moves the pointer around. It's very possible the author specifically didn't want the tooltip but wasn't willing to sacrifice readability for people not displaying images so he grudgingly accepted the tooltip that IE associated with his alt text. You don't know. This has nothing to do with standards mode or quirks mode. You have no way of divining the author's intent.

>>the only reason a developer that does not care for standards would bother to add an alt attribute is to get the frickin tooltip to display.

Well, you've got the facts and here I am with guesses and my own personal experience. Nice to see that we've got people around here with such good information. And I didn't even know that a study existed which had determined the precise reason that every developer uses the alt attribute. Glad you were willing to share such prized knowledge with us. Oh, wait, even though you stated it as if it was a fact you didn't have anything to back it up? You just pulled it out of your hat? Oh. OK. Nevermind, then, about that thing I said about good information.

Did it ever occurr to you that some web developers figured out that alternate text would display when users weren't displaying images and decided that they wanted to provide that to users; that you don't have to be a standards zealot to take advantages of the standards appropriately? Before I ever knew there was a w3c I was writing web pages for my friends that shared a musical interest with me. I was using alternate text because it seemed to make sense to offer that information to those of my friends on text browsers or on browsers with image loading turned off. I don't think I'd have been bothered by a tooltip showing up but for you to suggest that that is the "only reason" an author would use alternate text is plain rediculous.

--Asa

#102 Why do we need TITLE for IMG?

by ccapeng

Thursday November 28th, 2002 10:05 AM

Reply to this message

I am working on a ADA (sestion 508) compliance web site. For all images, I need to put ALT. For layout pupose, I need to do <IMG src="clear_dot.gif" ALT="">. However, I also be advised to put TITLE for those images with not empty ALT, like <IMG SRC="picture.gif" ALT="Picture" TITLE="Picture">. I am getting annoying that I need to put extra coding; however in most case TITLE and ALT are equal. I believe that showing ALT as tooltip is more realitic and informative. People are talking about W3C standard; however W3 is not open the door for free participation. My opinion is subjected to criticism.

#108 Re: Why do we need TITLE for IMG?

by jgraham

Thursday November 28th, 2002 1:40 PM

Reply to this message

You've missed the point of alt. Say you have an image in text like your example with alt="picture". Say it was an iconic picture of a cloud for a weather page. Then with alt text displayed inline (as is the intention - it should replace the *content* of the image, rather than just say 'there's an image missing here') You would get something like: Tuesday:picture If you put alt=" cloudy" you'd get: Tuesday: Cloudy If on the other hand you were going to put cloudy anyway like: Tuesday: {picture} Cloudy Then appropriate alt text would be "", since the image did not convey any addtional information. In this particular case title and alt might be similar, but title could equally be "weather symbol", which would then be displayed as a tooltip (in both Mozilla and IE I believe). This wasn't a great example I admit, but I hope you get the idea. Also clear_dot.gif for layout is depreciated: the correct method is to use CSS for layout, so that your page doesn't get munged by text only browsers (no tables) or people who don't display images. Did you say you were making a site *about* section 508 compliance...?

#115 Thanks to this thread

by ecarlson

Thursday November 28th, 2002 9:05 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks to this thread, I found out why my ALT tags weren't showing up as tooltips in Mozilla, when they worked fine in IE. Kind of sucks to have to add TITLE tags too, but I added TITLE tags to my main web page, and now it works. Now I have to update all my sub pages.

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

#12 Great

by fbl

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:17 AM

Reply to this message

It took me a little bit of effort to get it installed on top of the 1.1. First I tried just to install it on top of 1.1, but then it would not start the mail, the bookmarks did not work, the skins did not work ..

Then I did an uninstall, copied the mail box files to another location, deleted all the old files, and installed it cleanly. Imported the bookmarks, copied in the mail files, and finally it worked perfectly.

Aside from the install, it still is (one of ) the best applications around. And even the cathedral builders in the dark ages used to put in at least one deliberate mistake in the buildings, just not to tempt faith.

It inspires me to see that open source applications can get to this level of quality and usability. A huge job, perfectly done ..

#116 Installed fine for me.

by ecarlson

Thursday November 28th, 2002 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

In Win2k, I uninstalled 1.1, then renamed the 1.1 program files directory (so I could get to my old plugins), then rebooted, and installed 1.2. No problems, and I didn't have to touch my profile.

Actually, I had one problem, where Mozilla crashed while I was starting it, but it hasn't happened again since.

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

#13 Toolbar grippies are gone...

by ami_ganguli

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:36 AM

Reply to this message

I just realized that the old toolbar grippies, used to expand/collapse the various bars, are gone. Maybe they've been missing for a while and I just noticed.

I kind of miss them, although it's not a big deal really. Certainly the interface looks much cleaner than it once did - can't quite put my finger on why.

#23 Re: Toolbar grippies are gone...

by neva <neva@corvaith.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:31 AM

Reply to this message

I don't miss them. I was constantly clicking on them instead of the buttons and collapsing my toolbars... no more problems with that, now. Makes things much easier. :)

#58 Pref for grippies

by xerxes

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:39 PM

Reply to this message

Is there a pref to bring the grippies back? By the way, how could anyone click them by mistake or find them confusing? Please help me understand.

#66 Re: Pref for grippies

by djm <djm@mindrot.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:44 PM

Reply to this message

Read the bug: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112534>

The grippies were an abomination. I'm told that something similar (but saner) may come back if Moz gets movable toolbars.

#14 Slowdown in development

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:01 AM

Reply to this message

Have you noticed the slowdown in Moz development? Have you noticed that Netscape had moved his people away from Mozilla and now there are only about half of them when comparing to years beginning?

Does it means that AOL no more wants, needs this project but can't leave it completely in one moment? Or what?

Mayby someone from insiders can tell us something what's going on?

Tnx.

PS Sorry, if I'm wrong.

#15 I haven't researched it, but...

by bmacfarland

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know if you are right or wrong, as I don't have statistics, but I have noticed that even the company I work for has less than half the people working for it as it did in say 1999 (I'm using that to mean the beginning with lack of a specific date). I'm betting a lot of people here could say the same of their companies.

#31 Re: I haven't researched it, but...

by stu42j

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:10 AM

Reply to this message

I'd probably say the same thing if I had a company to work for! :-)

#34 Re: Slowdown in development

by lacostej <coffeebreaks@hotmail.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

#118 Interesting

by ecarlson

Thursday November 28th, 2002 9:20 PM

Reply to this message

That's an interesting article.

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

#16 Pop-up Ads - Mozilla 1.2 v. Netscape 7.0

by jorgenson

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:50 AM

Reply to this message

Have used Mozilla 1.1 but have mostly been using Netscape 7.0 with the added "xpi" added via the "Unofficial Netscape FAQ" site to block pop-up ads. Netscape 7.0 has blocked these adds once I added the new "XPI"

Yesterday for some reason, Netscape 7.0 now brings back these pop-up adds. Very annoying. The box is unchecked in the Preference Scripts section to "open unwanted windows". Even reinstalled the "xpi" but . . . the ads keep coming back.

Any helpe here? What has happened in Netscape 7.0? Show I permanently switch over to Mozilla 1.2?

Thanks - Harvey

#21 Re: Pop-up Ads - Mozilla 1.2 v. Netscape 7.0

by wolruf

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:09 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape 7.0.1 will bring this feature, see <http://www.mozillazine.or…rums/viewtopic.php?t=1371>

#28 Re: Re: Pop-up Ads - Mozilla 1.2 v. Netscape 7.0

by jorgenson

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 7:48 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks Olivier -

I appreciate your help in this regard. Several questions -

1. Why all of a sudden did Netscape 7.0 allow and display these pop-up adds? and

2. Where can I get Netscape 7.01? - looked at the Netscape site and it still appears to be 7.0?

These programs certainly do strange things sometimes and for no discernible reason.

Thanks again - hope to read your response soon

Harvey

#42 no idea - not working for Netscape

by wolruf

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:38 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, I have no idea, no more info than what is provided on the URL I mentioned.

#126 Re: Re: Re: Pop-up Ads - Mozilla 1.2 v. Netscape 7

by dveditz

Friday November 29th, 2002 10:34 AM

Reply to this message

It's an arms race, maybe the site(s) you see this on have figured out ways around the blocking we used. If you've enabled blocking in Netscape 7.0 the mechanism is exactly the same as Mozilla 1.0.1

#124 Re: Pop-up Ads - Mozilla 1.2 v. Netscape 7.0

by chithanh

Friday November 29th, 2002 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

You might try to install Diggler 0.3 <http://diggler.mozdev.org/> which adds a menu to the URL bar allowing you to block popup windows.

#17 With moz 1.2, my banking service stopped working.

by bjornte

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:57 AM

Reply to this message

I have been a happy moz 1.1 user since it came out. Particularly, I like tabbed browsing and anti-pop-up. Also moz 1.1 supported my Internet Bank, which uses certificates and https.

Unfortunately, with moz 1.2, my bank no longer accepts the certificate, even though I have a clean, new install. Why? Also, the keyboard shortcuts for tabbed browsing (like ctrl-shift-click), is gone. Why?

I use Moz because the older Phoenix didn't have a Quick Start. Does the new Phoenix support this?

#20 Re: With moz 1.2, my banking service stopped worki

by wolruf

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:08 AM

Reply to this message

Can you mention an URL ? Have you searched <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/> within "Tech Evangelism" component ?

#24 Re: Re: With moz 1.2, my banking service stopped worki

by bjornte

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:42 AM

Reply to this message

> Can you mention an URL ?

<http://www.skandiabanken.no>, but I guess you need an account to test it.

> Have you searched (LINK) within "Tech Evangelism" component ?

No, but thanks for the tip!

#25 Re: Re: With moz 1.2, my banking service stopped w

by nostromo96

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:45 AM

Reply to this message

I have a similar problem. My banking service website tells me after trying to login that cookies are deactivated in my browser - which is not true. My cookie settings in Moz1.2 are the same as in Moz1.1 where everything still works fine (even "accept all cookies" doesn't work with Moz1.2). I tried on 2 different PCs with a clean install of Moz1.2. Had to switch back to Moz1.1 this morning - disappointing. My banking service is "<http://www.db24.de>", then click on the top-right red button "Kunden-Login". The problem is that the cookie issue can be seen only if you have a valid account number and a valid password (PIN) and I am sorry that I can't tell you mine.

#26 Re: Re: Re: With moz 1.2, my banking service stopp

by nostromo96

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:53 AM

Reply to this message

OK, this seems to be bug #172097. Let's see when it will be fixed or if there is a workaround or whatever.

#33 Thanks for the tip!

by bjornte

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:58 AM

Reply to this message

(message body empty)

#78 Is this a preference issue?

by thegrommit

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 10:25 PM

Reply to this message

#19 Slowdown in development

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:07 AM

Reply to this message

Have you noticed the slowdown in Moz development? Have you noticed that Netscape had moved his people away from Mozilla and now there are only about half of them when comparing to years beginning?

Does it means that AOL no more wants, needs this project but can't leave it completely in one moment? Or what?

Mayby someone from insiders can tell us something what's going on?

Tnx.

PS Sorry, if I'm wrong.

#22 And Netscape?

by srayzen

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:30 AM

Reply to this message

I know you probably use just mozilla (or phoenix) but I use both, mozilla at work and netscape 7 at home (because of the support to netscape mail). And I wonder how much time does it take to the NS boys to update their browser with the latest mozilla? they are still in 1.01.

#73 Those phoenix icons looks great

by mesostinky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

Well the latest Netscape 7 test versions I saw people downloading indicate the next version will be based on 1.02 so it may be a long time if you waiting for a build based on 1.2.

#27 sweet

by rstalnecker

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

i've been a fan of mozilla for over a year now and have been grabbing the releases as they come out. mozilla 1.2 tops the list of my favorites and has been my default browser since i switched off of IE.

#37 stable release page

by morg

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 10:12 AM

Reply to this message

If Mozilla 1.2 is the latest stable release, then this page: <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/stable.html> should probably be updated.

#53 Re: stable release page

by WillyWonka

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

Stable releases are for developers. 1.0.1 is the correct version as 1.0.2 isn't out yet.

#38 Magnet Links

by FodderMK

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Share the bandwidth. My first post, so please forgive me if the links don't (LINK) correctly.
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.2.tar.gz Magnet
mozilla-win32-1.2-talkback.zip Magnet
mozilla-macosX-1.2.smi.bin Magnet

#39 Magnet Links

by FodderMK

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 10:47 AM

Reply to this message

Ouch, that was a failure!

#43 Re: Magnet Links

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:39 AM

Reply to this message

I fixed your links. What the heck are magnet links anyways?

These sort of links will never work here, please post them in the forums instead.

jason

#51 Magnet Links

by FodderMK

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:01 PM

Reply to this message

Magnet links are used in a couple Gnutella-based clients to more easily find files on that network. Lately Whenever I see a release that I think could benefit from a little bandwidth saving I download the file, slap it into my Shared directory and post the magnet links to relevant loctations. If many people were to use the P2P clients to download the file instead of the main servers it would decrease the bandwidth usage for main host and increases the exposure of the file. In theory the people who download it from me would share it as well as the people that download it from them and so forth. It's a good theory, even if I can't explain it well.

#83 Re: Magnet Links

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:59 PM

Reply to this message

You've explained it fine. I spent a few days earlier in the year trying to work out a mechanism that would make this a lot easier; a seed group that would get early access to the builds to get it propigating around the P2P network and make swarm downloads a reasonable alternative to the ftp site. I think that it would take a rather large group of people to really see this get enough momentum to be worth it. I think it's a very interesting idea and I may put some more time into thinking about it and even possibly trying to formalize an effort at mozilla.org. It could be a real strong alternative to the ftp mirroring system and would be good for both Mozilla and for file sharing. For Mozilla it would help in distributing the load needed for a big release and for P2P file sharing it would lend some credibility to that community. "See, we're sharing legitimate content!". I think that open source software distributed over P2P networks (preferably the ones based on open standards) is a great match.

--Asa

#117 Re: Magnet Links

by jsoderba

Thursday November 28th, 2002 9:17 PM

Reply to this message

BitTorrent <http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/> seems like a simpler solution than a fullfledged filesharing program.

#41 Spellchecker problems in 1.2?

by leonya

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

I installed the spellchecker from <http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/> (Windows). It worked well with 1.1, but with 1.2 I am seeing the following problem: If auto-spellchecking on send is enabled, when spellchecking window pops up on email sending, clicking the "Stop" button freezes the spellchecking window and I can no longer send the email or cancel the spellchecking window.

#44 Re: Spellchecker problems in 1.2?

by mbokil

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:40 AM

Reply to this message

#55 Spellchecker problems in 1.2?

by leonya

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you, I tried that as well - it looks to be exactly the same XPI file. Clicking the "Stop" button always freezes the spellchecking process. You not seeing this behavior? How do I uninstall it? Maybe uninstalling and then reinstalling would help... Thanks!

#57 Spellchecker problems in 1.2?

by mbokil

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:02 PM

Reply to this message

I don't see this problem. I did a clean install by doing an uninstall and then trashing everything but the plugins and my profile data.

#77 Re: hope it works better than the old spellchecker

by jbetak <jbetak@netscape.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 9:48 PM

Reply to this message

leonya,

I've recompiled the spell checker binary for 1.2 and helped to fix a few crashers/freezers. We've seen this exact problem before. Please make sure that you are a build from 10/17/2002 or later. Download the latest binary from MozCafe <http://mozcafe.com.> The XPI has been repackaged several times to address various issues.

Cheers, J.

#88 Re: Re: hope it works better than the old spellche

by Anagoge

Thursday November 28th, 2002 3:48 AM

Reply to this message

I get the same hang (no send progress dialog even) with 1.2 final when auto spell checking email on send under Windows XP SP1. This didn't happen until 1.2 nightlies from about 5 days ago, IIRC. Since this is a hang, I don't get any talkback action, and I don't have a debug environment to get a stack. Note that I tried again with the spellchecker DLLs from mozcafe.com downloaded a few minutes ago, and it still hangs the whole app on send. Turning off auto spell check allows me to send again.

#133 Re: Re: awesome....

by jbetak <jbetak@netscape.com>

Sunday December 1st, 2002 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

Anagoge,

sorry for the delay. I'd be very interested in tracking down the hanger you are experiencing. I've worked with several people from the spell checker mailing list <http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/list.html>. Please email me for details - mailto:<juraj@mozillacafe.org>.

Cheers, J.

#119 Re: Re: hope it works better than the old spellche

by shipdoc008

Thursday November 28th, 2002 10:09 PM

Reply to this message

I think the link should be <http://mozcafe.org/>

shipdoc

#136 Spellchecker problems in 1.2? - None - WORKS!

by leonya

Wednesday December 4th, 2002 2:15 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you! I installed Mozilla 1.2.1 into a new directory, then installed the spellchecker again from MozCafe. And now it all works as expected. A HUGE Thank you to anyone who has helped to make it happen!

#127 linux 1.2 and 1.3a spellchecker

by mbokil

Friday November 29th, 2002 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

I found a linux build that works nicely for 1.3a. Download it from <http://mozu.sourceforge.net/spell/>

#134 Re: Re: awesome....

by jbetak <jbetak@netscape.com>

Sunday December 1st, 2002 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

mbokil,

the XPI on <http://mozcafe.com> now covers both Win32 and Linux. Mac binaries will be included shortly.

We've worked with several people to resolve crashers and hangers and are working on improving the spellchecker functionality as well. This feature is a "must have" for any commercial Mozilla distributor and we would like to make sure that it'll land in the Mozilla tree as soon as possible.

Cheers, J.

#45 nice job mozilla developers

by mbokil

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

The 1.2 final release is working well for me on both Linux and Windows. Nice job Mozilla developers. I would like to see the major memory leaks in 1.3 fixed before new features are added. Especially leaks associated with images need to be fixed since these really effect the perceptual quality of Mozilla for end users.

#46 New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape's Future

by gbpa005

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

#47 Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape's Future

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

So my thought's were indeed the truth... :(

#54 Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape's Future

by mbokil

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 2:30 PM

Reply to this message

Yes it is true that AOL is releasing its own internally developed proprietary Communicator suite with a user interface emphasis on instant messanging and other proprietary UI functionality. The browser engine of course will be Gecko based and the UI is XUL based. I don't have any issue with the Netscape engineers being pulled of Mozilla. I think the projects Mozilla and Phoenix are far enough evolved that these projects could exist without dedicated AOL support. I think you have to keep in mind that Mozilla is not just a browser but an application platform. Hopefully the Mozilla Runtime egine will keep evolving to the point where it can be installed separately from the client apps like the Mozilla browser and Calendar. It would be nice to see the Mozilla runtime become more popular than the Java runtime for developing applications against.

#79 Re: Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape's Future

by bzbarsky

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 10:46 PM

Reply to this message

Unfortunately, some of the people being pulled off are the ones who are most knowledgeable about the core of Gecko and the XUL implementation.

#87 Re: Re: Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape'

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 1:01 AM

Reply to this message

Do you know where they were moved? To this communicator? Is there a chance they will return to mozilla project since in current speed of development mozilla will have to double the time between releases... :(

#105 Re: Re: Re: Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netsc

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

"in current speed of development mozilla will have to double the time between releases... :("

And you're getting this information from where? We fixed nearly 3000 bugs during the 1.2 development cycles. There were about 4000 bugs fixed in the 1.1 development cycles which was about 30% longer than the 1.2 cycles. By my rough queries and math I'd say that works out to about the same. So why, then, do we have to double the time between releases? And even if development slows some, why do we have to add the same ammount of features and code in every future release as we have in every past release?

--Asa

#107 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens N

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

1. Firstly I have to say that I also want to spend some money on Mozilla's development sponsoring one coder for working on mozilla. 2. I believe that the movings on Netsvep staff were about a month or two, so on 1.2a worked all Netscape's Mozilla team. If you check how many check-in's happens now and how many was month or two ago you would see what I mean. 3. What new features engeneers are working now?

And the big question is - would AOL totally drop Mozilla from it's plans and products? If no, would after some time Netscape's people return to coding mozilla?

#61 Re: New 'Communicator' Threatens Netscape's Future

by zero0w

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:52 PM

Reply to this message

Extremetech has a preview of this new AOL communicator suite:

<http://www.extremetech.co…cle2/0,3973,732212,00.asp>

Looks like it's based on Gecko if you asked me. btw, I believe it's absolutely fair and legitimate for AOL/Netscape to create their own version of browser/integrated communication suite. After they own AIM and ICQ instant messaging service, and then Netscape WAS donated by Netscape to the public so that we can have Mozilla.org which is based and improved from that code base.

#68 Re: XUL *could* become a killer app

by ndeakin

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

The pictures on that site seem to suggest that the new AOL communicator is based on Mozilla Mail. The UI is almost identical and some of the Modern theme icons even appear right on the toolbar.

#50 v1.2 only starts as root!

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm... This is very strange... I just installed 1.2 and it works perfectly when I run it as root (mandrake 9.0), but when I try to start it as a normal user the startscript just finished immediately and nothing happens.

I did a clean install - wiped both the installation directory and the profile settings directory.

Does anyone have the same problem or a solution to it?

By the way... Type-ahead-find rocks!

#95 Re: v1.2 only starts as root!

by kryptolus

Thursday November 28th, 2002 6:28 AM

Reply to this message

I've had a similiar problem before. Make sure the directories in the mozilla installation directory all have the executable bit set for 'other'.

#52 v1.2 only starts as root!

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 1:23 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm... This is very strange... I just installed 1.2 and it works perfectly when I run it as root (mandrake 9.0), but when I try to start it as a normal user the startscript just finished immediately and nothing happens.

I did a clean install - wiped both the installation directory and the profile settings directory.

Does anyone have the same problem or a solution to it?

By the way... Type-ahead-find rocks!

#90 Re: v1.2 only starts as root!

by klysus

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:37 AM

Reply to this message

Check directory permissions for the subdirectories under /usr/local/mozilla (or whereever you installed mozilla). I had a similar problem under 1.2b, took me a while to figure it out..

#94 Very strange...

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 6:14 AM

Reply to this message

This is really strange... I first tried to change the permissions for some individual subdirectories to try to find the problem, but that soon got very boring. I then did an "chmod -R o+rw /usr/local/mozilla" which didn't work either. Last I tried "chmod -R o+rwx /usr/local/mozilla" and that did it. So somewhere in the mozilla directory there is some file/directory that needs the x flag set. For some reason the installer failed to set the permissions correctly... hopefully someone has filed a bug for that...

Well... at least it works now. Thanks!

#56 Image selection

by Dracos

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

From the release notes:

" image selection visualization (image highlights with system selection color when selected)"

Is there a pref to turn this off?

#72 Re: Image selection

by mbokil

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 6:27 PM

Reply to this message

why, I love that feature. It is very helpful for web developers to see the edges of images on a page by dragging acrossed them. IE has it on by default also.

#76 I am a web developer

by Dracos

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:59 PM

Reply to this message

...and I hate this feature. If I want to see the edges of my images, I'll change the background color and reload the page. This is just the latest example of Mozilla's "we gotta do what IE does" mindset. I can't stand the focus ring around links and things too, but that's in one of the W3C's standards, so I live with it. Thankfully Mozilla will never go so far as to implement document.all.

#100 I wouldn't bet on that

by mbokil

Thursday November 28th, 2002 8:08 AM

Reply to this message

I have heard that engineers at AOL have prepared a path that will allow document.all to work for DHTML. This patch may never make it into Mozilla but I bet AOL Communicator will support it. Yes, it is annoying that it violates the W3C standard but since IE has over 90% of the market now it has sadly become an industry standard.

#60 Custom install doesn't allow customization

by motobass

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:51 PM

Reply to this message

Hello, on Windows, at least, the custom installation option doesn't let you make any choices about what not to install. It's been like that with the recent builds too, but I figured that was for testing purposes.

#128 Re: Custom install doesn't allow customization

by dveditz

Friday November 29th, 2002 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

If you install into the same directory you must upgrade all existing components to avoid crashes caused by component mismatch. If you want a different set of components you need to install into a different directory or uninstall the old version first.

#62 Some banner ads not showing

by darnell

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:54 PM

Reply to this message

Has anyone noticed that you can't see some banner ads with Mozilla 1.2?

Look at CNN.com. At the top of the page there is a banner ad right next to the big CNN.COM logo. But you can't see it with Mozilla 1.2. Is this a bug or do I need to change a setting?

#70 Sorry this got posted multiple times.

by darnell

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

I was hitting refresh on my browser and hitting OK without knowing the browser was reposing my message each time

#89 Re: Some banner ads not showing

by axl

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:13 AM

Reply to this message

#109 Banner ads

by jgraham

Thursday November 28th, 2002 1:44 PM

Reply to this message

#110 Link not working: my bad

by jgraham

Thursday November 28th, 2002 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

#130 Same problem at this site:

by ecarlson

Friday November 29th, 2002 12:38 PM

Reply to this message

DPReview forums: <http://www.dpreview.com/f…rums/forum.asp?forum=1008> It worked fine in 1.1, and in IE 5.5.

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

#63 Spam

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 3:55 PM

Reply to this message

I thought the spam UI would be in 1.2... I guess I was wrong. Darn.

#64 Some banner ads not showing

by darnell

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

Has anyone noticed that you can't see some banner ads with Mozilla 1.2?

Look at CNN.com. At the top of the page there is a banner ad right next to the big CNN.COM logo. But you can't see it with Mozilla 1.2. Is this a bug or do I need to change a setting?

#67 Some banner ads not showing

by darnell

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 4:51 PM

Reply to this message

Has anyone noticed that you can't see some banner ads with Mozilla 1.2?

Look at CNN.com. At the top of the page there is a banner ad right next to the big CNN.COM logo. But you can't see it with Mozilla 1.2. Is this a bug or do I need to change a setting?

#69 Some banner ads not showing

by darnell

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

Has anyone noticed that you can't see some banner ads with Mozilla 1.2?

Look at CNN.com. At the top of the page there is a banner ad right next to the big CNN.COM logo. But you can't see it with Mozilla 1.2. Is this a bug or do I need to change a setting?

#75 I am tossing Mozilla out - somebody made a booboo

by windtalker <charles@litek.com>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 8:17 PM

Reply to this message

Installing Mozilla 1.0 was exciting unitil I found out that I can no longer edit my Bookmarks intelligently. The search function only finds the URLs, but does not tell you where they are (who is the jerk who decided that?) The results show up in a new window, without indicating which bookmark directory they are in. You can only click them to go to the page. Therefore, I have to do a search again to use the bookmark again. That sure is stupid. My bookmark file has built up over the years to over 10,000 entries and I work hard to keep them organized, but now, without seaching sucessively to the next bookmark and allowing me to drag it to the directory I want it in, I can kiss clean bookmark organization goodbye. Well... I actually will kiss Mozilla good-bye, as the still birth that it is, even though tabbed browsing is much desired. Too bad... I am cheer for free software, but there are people making bad decisions and I feel locked out.

#92 Re: I am tossing Mozilla out - somebody made a boo

by jilles

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:59 AM

Reply to this message

The bookmark implementation in mozilla is indeed pretty bad. I can live with it but I see everyday it is flawed. To mention just a few anoying things:

- sorting makes it impossible to rearrange your bookmarks. The sorted view does not stay sorted anyway if you add new bookmarks so what's the point of using it?

- with multiple windows open, the sidebar does not update correctly.

- all versions of mozilla, including 1.2 have issues with drag & drop of bookmarks.

- middle click on a bookmark in the sidebar (or any link in the sidebar) does not have the expected behavior of opening a new tab (if you set the preference to open new tabs on middle clicks).

- internet explorer favorites are read only, there is no real import function for them.

- url icons are not stored for bookmarks.

There are also many nice bookmark features that I don't use. However, you should give mozilla credit for bookmark groups and bookmark keywords.

#101 Re: Re: I am tossing Mozilla out - somebody made a

by pepejeria

Thursday November 28th, 2002 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

+ other bugs, like IE Favorites not imported for new profiles etc. I cant believe that this bookmarks functionality has been overlooked for so long time. A browser that cannot sort the bookmarks? Aaarrgh...

Really gives a bad impression for new users.

#93 Re: I am tossing Mozilla out - somebody made a booboo

by mporta

Thursday November 28th, 2002 5:32 AM

Reply to this message

there are rfe (request for enhancement) to change this. see these (more or less) related bugs

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95748> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93058> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118393> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100012>

if you really care please vote the bugs, and ask your friends to vote them too!

thanks.

#81 No Edit->Preferences->Privacy & Security->Pop-ups?

by megazone <megazone@megazone.org>

Wednesday November 27th, 2002 11:44 PM

Reply to this message

1.2b had this *great* feature - but it is gone in 1.2. Oversight? Something that shouldn't have been in 1.2b in the first place? I went back to 1.2b for this.

#84 Re: No Edit->Preferences->Privacy & Security->Pop-

by vgendler

Thursday November 28th, 2002 12:06 AM

Reply to this message

Use this Preferences -> Scripts & Plugins -> Open unrequested windows. Uncheck the last item.

#85 No Edit->Preferences->Privacy & Security->Pop-ups?

by megazone <megazone@megazone.org>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 12:11 AM

Reply to this message

I know about that, I was using it before 1.2b. Not the same thing - very much inferior to what is in 1.2b.

#86 Ah, it was backed out.

by megazone <megazone@megazone.org>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

#96 cache

by phantom_1138 <phantom_1138@yahoo.com>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

when I close a page mozilla saves something to disk. It slows down the system.

#97 Re: cache

by phantom_1138 <phantom_1138@yahoo.com>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 7:17 AM

Reply to this message

when closing a window not a tab. Hard disk works very intensely when closing a windows then moving to an another mozilla window.

#98 Yes, the hard disc access when closing

by zero0w

Thursday November 28th, 2002 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

Same here.

I found that there are a long hard disc access when I close a Mozilla browser, that didn't exist at all in Mozilla.org 1.2 beta. The hard drive is getting noisy... can this be fixed without the 'noisy close' long access writing when closing Mozilla?

#99 downgrade

by phantom_1138 <phantom_1138@yahoo.com>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

I downgrade to 1.2b, it's impossible to use 1.2 with that bug. 1.2.1 dould be released very urgent.

#103 RPMs for RH 7.x?

by jonik

Thursday November 28th, 2002 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

Are those coming at some point?

# rpm -Fvh *rpm error: failed dependencies: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) is needed by mozilla-1.2-0_rh8

#121 Never mind.

by jonik

Friday November 29th, 2002 4:38 AM

Reply to this message

It seems they're on the ftp server now, so never mind... :)

#106 mozilla mail is a s..t

by phantom_1138 <phantom_1138@yahoo.com>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 11:07 AM

Reply to this message

why don't we set up smtp servers for each e-mail account separately easily as outlook, you should edit smtp server list in a strange order to work. for 3 months most smtp servers work only for their own pop3 accounts. like; smtp.thedomain.com only works with pop.thedomain.com. Currently mozilla mail is useless for multiple accounts, not for average users.

#111 AOL Communicator leaked!

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:27 PM

Reply to this message

#112 Re: AOL Communicator leaked!

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Thursday November 28th, 2002 4:39 PM

Reply to this message

It's indeed mozilla based!!! So, now we know that developers were moved to that project (for more probability). Now I have more hope that this shows that AOL is interested in Mozilla and will continue to develop it!

let's hope when they'll done with Communicator they will return prople to mozilla...

#113 Embedded midi files

by abckids

Thursday November 28th, 2002 6:57 PM

Reply to this message

1.1 and earlier used noaudio.dll to play embedded midi files. 1.2 won't - it requires yamaha or something else. Is this progress?

#114 Re: Embedded midi files

by abckids

Thursday November 28th, 2002 6:59 PM

Reply to this message

Make that npaudio.dll - not noaudio.dll

#120 I18n fonts screwed

by rdebay

Thursday November 28th, 2002 11:45 PM

Reply to this message

When I do a google search and specify Japanese as the language, sometimes I get a page of results with ridiculously small fonts. Other times I don't, but when I browse to the found page, I get the small fonts. Of course, this only happens when I'm NOT trying to demonstrate it, so I haven't been able to come up with a test case. BTW, I haven't been able to install any Japanese fonts, so this isn't related to the actual fonts, but to the handling of them (if they were there :-). I checked the page source every time, and the style sheets and the HTML wasn't bad enough to cause these problems. Has anyone else had this problem? I didn't see it with 1.2b, and I often visted Japanese sites and used Altavista to translate without a problem (once it happens, it keeps happening with the translated pages until you backup past the point where it first happened).

ObLink: <http://www.morikami.org> (if they ever fix their site)

#131 where is Mozilla 1.2.1 bugfix?

by ndebord

Friday November 29th, 2002 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

?

#132 Re: where is Mozilla 1.2.1 bugfix?

by macpeep

Saturday November 30th, 2002 3:51 AM

Reply to this message

They said "We've got a fix and will be releasing a 1.2.1 shortly."

It's not "shortly" yet.

#135 Mail Composition - html tags in status bar

by leonya

Monday December 2nd, 2002 11:40 AM

Reply to this message

I just noticed that when composing an email, in the status bar there are html tags that can be selected (usually just a <body> tag), as they do in the Composer. Is this new in 1.2? However, these don't work well - they don't update. I found that a way to force update the display of these tags is to reselect an item from the Paragraph Format pulldown, such as "Body Text"... Anyone know of any bugzilla bugs on this? Thank you.