MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.0.2 Released

Wednesday January 8th, 2003

mozilla.org has released Mozilla 1.0.2, a stability and security follow-up to 1.0 and 1.0.1. The latest release from the stable 1.0 branch, Mozilla 1.0.2 is not a features release and is recommended only for consumers who have a good reason not to upgrade to the more recent Mozilla 1.2.1 or Mozilla 1.3 Alpha.

Mozilla 1.0.2 can be downloaded from mozilla.org's Stable Releases page or direct from the FTP server. More information can be found in the Mozilla 1.0.2 Release Notes.


#1 What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by johann_p

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:02 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder how instable 1.2.1 really is in comparison to 1.0.2. Is there some objective assessment of this? What about security issues? I wonder how to talk more concretely about those good reasons ...

#2 Re: What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by amr

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:10 AM

Reply to this message

I wondered that, myself. I personally don't have ANY stability issues with 1.2.1

I plan on keeping with the latest 1.2 releases, but I'd still be interested in hearing if there's any conclusive security/stability differences in the two.

#6 Re: Re: What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by eiseli

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 12:12 PM

Reply to this message

There is a bug in the recent builds (after 1.1) which makes it impossible to do my daily e-banking business. That's bug 181440 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181440> Because of this, I will upgrade my current 1.0.1 to 1.0.2, but for my usual usage, I will continue using 1.3a. So easy to have different versions of the single software on your system, unlike IE ;-)

#5 Re: What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by willll <willll@juno.com>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

i think it is stabilty of code rather than the stability of the program. so add-ons to the code and stuff like that that worked with 1.0 will work with 1.0.2, but not necessarily with 1.2.1 . but 1.0.2 has security fixes that 1.0 does not . the latest trunk builds probably have all the same security fixes as the latest 1.0 builds.

#11 Re: What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 5:39 PM

Reply to this message

>>What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

Reason for its existence? It exists because the Mozilla codebase has more than one catagory of consumer. Reasons to use it? That depends on what type of Mozilla consumer you are.

If you're using 1.0 or 1.0.1 and you don't want all the new 1.1 and 1.2 features but you do want something with some targeted bugfixes then maybe 1.0.2 is for you. If you are building a product based on Mozilla 1.0 branch code and you don't want to have to make radical changes to new APIs or incorporate (or discorporate) large hunks of new trunk code then maybe the 1.0.2 code is for you.

There are a number of reasons you might want to use the 1.0 branch code or releases but if you have to ask then you probably should be using the lastest stable trunk milestone, Mozilla 1.2.1 <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/#1.2.1>

You might find my comments from the last time this question was asked to be of some use. <http://www.mozillazine.or…viewtopic.php?p=5297#5297>

--Asa

#28 Re: Re: What is a good reason for 1.0.2?

by teilo

Friday January 10th, 2003 6:07 PM

Reply to this message

> There are a number of reasons you might want to use the 1.0 branch code or releases > but if you have to ask then you probably should be using the lastest stable trunk > milestone, Mozilla 1.2.1 (LINK)

So if 1.2 is stable why is 1.0 the *latest* <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/stable.html> stable release?

I would have beleived that any x.y.0 release (ie non nightly/alpha/beta) should be stable and as far as integrators I also beleived that at least within the same x.y release the APIs' should stay the same. What am I missing?

#3 Reasons for 1.0.2

by turi

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

Reasons for using 1.0.2 are if you're a company that either tests and preconfigures it's software before deploying it on the companies computers and therefore wishes to have a version that doesn't differ hugely from the former or if use mozilla's codebase for your own product and don't want to have an ever moving target (the API of the 1.0.x series is frozen).

There's no real reason for not going with 1.2.1 if you use it on your own computer (except if you encounter problems with 1.2.1 that aren't present in 1.0.x).

#7 Re: Reasons for 1.0.2

by Gunnar

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 2:07 PM

Reply to this message

Looking at problems people post about in the forums, they mostly seem to affect versions 1.2 an up, but rarely the 1.0 branch.

#21 Re: Re: Reasons for 1.0.2

by prometeo

Thursday January 9th, 2003 2:04 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe because people in the forums usually use latest milestones/nigthly builds for testing?

#22 Don't think that's it

by Gunnar

Thursday January 9th, 2003 2:38 AM

Reply to this message

Good point, but I don't think that's it. I try to replicate these problems using 1.0.x, but in most cases the problem (e.g. with web sites) does not materialize when using the 1.0 branch.

#25 True, but...

by prometeo

Thursday January 9th, 2003 3:56 AM

Reply to this message

That's why 1.0 is the "stable" branch. All other versions are known to be less tested, since so many new features and improvements have been implemented. I really hope that another milestone (1.4? 2.0?) will have such a deep testing as 1.0 has gone through (a few months, not just weeks), so that everybody can enjoy another very stable branch with improved speed and bayesian spam filters, and maybe even calendar. BTW, more and more standard compliance is going into 1.x (x>0) versions, and such changes won't make it into 1.0 branch since they require deep changes to the code base...

#23 makes sense

by sproctor

Thursday January 9th, 2003 3:13 AM

Reply to this message

people in forums test the later versions, so it makes sense for them to find the faults in those. if someone is interested enough in mozilla to be filing bug reports, commenting on forums, etc they probably use 1.2 or later and probably already commented on what they saw wrong in 1.0.x. so it makes a lot of sense that newer problems should be discussed rather than rehashing old ones, etc.

#4 What was fixed?

by pbened <pbened@hotmail.com>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

I don't see anything in the Release Notes about what was fixed in 1.0.2 except a vague "contains stability and security improvements." What are these stablity and security improvements??? I would love to know!

#9 Re: What was fixed?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

So ask bonsai.

--Asa

#17 Re: "So ask bonsai."

by ken

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 11:18 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Asa,

Am I missing something?

This is a quote from here: <http://bonsai.mozilla.org…gi?treeid=SeaMonkeyBranch>

"01/08/2003 22:15:08 PST: The tree is currently OPEN The last known good tree had a timestamp of 11/21/2002 15:43:07 PST." ... "Nobody seems to have made any changes since the tree opened."

Thanks, K

#24 Re: Re: "So ask bonsai."

by jgraham

Thursday January 9th, 2003 3:47 AM

Reply to this message

Unless I've mucked up with Bonsai, the changes since 1.01 should be here <http://bonsai.mozilla.org…03&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot>

I hope that helps....

#8 Mozilla 1.0.2 is ... Netscape 7.01?

by DeepFreeze3

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 3:41 PM

Reply to this message

Isn't this Netscape 7.01's cousin? I thought it was already out.

#10 Re: Mozilla 1.0.2 is ... Netscape 7.01?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

This release came from nearly the same place on the 1.0 branch as Netscape 7.01. It's not identical though. There are several fixes in 1.0.2 that landed after Netscape pulled Mozilla code from the branch for inclusion in 7.01

--Asa

#12 Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by D0ktorGiggle

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 6:16 PM

Reply to this message

Is anyone else surprised that MZ didn't mention the that Apple's new browser is using an open source rendering engine? This has to be the biggest news item for open source web browsing community in quite a while, and it certainly deserves some mention. I realize it's not good news for gecko, but it is relevant, and it's good news for the open source community at large, but it makes MZ look like an AOL corporate organ to just pretend it didn't happen. And it does relate to Mozilla. Here's what Cnet had to say about it: "While Safari amounts to another chip on Apple's shoulder, it represents a significant setback for Mozilla, the open-source browser development group funded by AOL Time Warner's Netscape unit that supplies the technology behind the Netscape browser, among others... Netscape declined to comment on Apple's choice of KDE." Now I guess that the next version of the Omniweb OS X browser may use KHTML instead of Mozilla too. Ouch!!

#13 Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by bzbarsky

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 6:36 PM

Reply to this message

Mozillazine posts whatever its users submit. Did _you_ submit an article on Safari?

#15 Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by borggraefe

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 6:48 PM

Reply to this message

I did.

Stefan

#16 Try safarizine.org instead

by oliversl

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

Well, this is *Mozilla*zine, try safariazine.org instead :-)

#19 Re: Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 9th, 2003 1:33 AM

Reply to this message

In case anyone cares, four people submitted news about Safari. This compares to the zero who submitted news about the recent treo of Bugzilla releases. Submissions aren't always the best metric.

Alex

#26 Omniweb doesn't use gecko

by doron

Thursday January 9th, 2003 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

Omni doesn't use gecko, they use their own, pretty bad engine.

#14 Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday January 8th, 2003 6:37 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm, mozilla.org releases a new browser (1.0.2, this thread) and mozillazine waits a day to post a story. Apple releases a browser based on KHTML and mozillaZine doesn't put a story up the same day so it must be an AOL conspiracy. I'm sure that Alex (who is the primary editor posting stories at this site, is not and has never been an AOL employee) is just an AOL pawn conspiring to keep Paul Festa (a cnet author you quote who consistently writes negative articles about Mozilla) from getting a link and a story at mozillaZine. Maybe we should attack Alex for not posting when mozillaquest does its monthly "slam mozilla" article. It's surely a conspiracy that he's not.

Have you submitted a story to mozillaZine on this subject using the submitArticle link (over to the right side of this page)? If not then why not? Are you so new to this site that you didn't know the overwhelming majority of stories are user-submitted?

--Asa

#20 Re: Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 9th, 2003 1:37 AM

Reply to this message

"Hmm, mozilla.org releases a new browser (1.0.2, this thread) and mozillazine waits a day to post a story."

Actually, that's because it was released while I was asleep. :-)

"I'm sure that Alex... is just an AOL pawn conspiring to keep Paul Festa... from getting a link and a story at mozillaZine."

That's right on. In fact, I'm just off to collect my latest payoff from Steve Case.

Alex

#18 Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 9th, 2003 1:30 AM

Reply to this message

"Is anyone else surprised that MZ didn't mention the that Apple's new browser is using an open source rendering engine? This has to be the biggest news item for open source web browsing community in quite a while, and it certainly deserves some mention."

MozillaZine covers news relating the projects coordinated by mozilla.org and, to a lesser extent, derivative products based on these projects. It's not a general open source news site. Therefore, while the launch of Safari is an important and interesting development, it's not really within MZ's remit.

"I realize it's not good news for gecko, but it is relevant, and it's good news for the open source community at large, but it makes MZ look like an AOL corporate organ to just pretend it didn't happen."

MZ isn't pretending it didn't happen. You can quote me on this: "Safari happened." :-) We're not denying it's existence. If we were, this thread would have been deleted by now. We're not an AOL corporate organ either. As you mention from the CNET article, "Netscape declined to comment on Apple's choice of KDE." Therefore we can only guess what AOL's reaction is. No-one from AOL has contacted MZ and told us not to cover the story. The decision not to run it was entirely MozillaZine's.

"Here's what Cnet had to say about it: 'While Safari amounts to another chip on Apple's shoulder, it represents a significant setback for Mozilla, the open-source browser development group funded by AOL Time Warner's Netscape unit that supplies the technology behind the Netscape browser, among others... Netscape declined to comment on Apple's choice of KDE.'"

News site love to depict the marketplace as a battlezone. It makes stories more exciting. Therefore, in the reporter's mind, if someone (the KHTML developers) wins, someone else (mozilla.org) has to lose. Anyway, it's not like Apple switched from Gecko to KHTML; they just didn't chose Gecko in the first place. Mozilla hasn't really lost anything, it's just not gained something. More of a lack of a significant boost than a "significant setback". It's probably worse for news for Microsoft: I assume that Safari will at one point displace IE as the default Mac browser.

I hope this explains the situation. Feel free to ask me if you've got any further questions.

Alex

#27 Re: Re: Does MZ ignore inconvenient news?

by D0ktorGiggle

Thursday January 9th, 2003 5:22 PM

Reply to this message

That's a fair explanation. I wasn't implying that Steve Case is calling the shots, only that ignoring bad news kind of makes it appear that way (which has always been a problem with this site.) And I still think this is mozilla-related since gecko was designed to be used for just this kind of project, and judging from the blogs and the forums on this site, this is very big and disappointing news for the mozilla community and developers, and not a good sign for future adaption by potential vendors. If I find an article on why prospective vendors are using Opera (for portable devices) and KHTML (for OS X) instead of gecko I'll send it in (unless it's from mozillaquest). In the meantime, I'll be watching to see if you post anymore articles announcing stuff like "Internet Explorer for UNIX Discontinued" :)