MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Classic Mac OS Build Likely to be Retired and Removed from Tree

Thursday January 9th, 2003

We've previously reported that the Classic Mac OS build of Mozilla is transitioning to port status but now it looks like the build could be removed from the tree altogether. In a posting to netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey, Asa Dotzler has announced that no maintainer for the Mac Classic port has been found. If nobody steps forward by next Wednesday, the Classic Mac OS build will be removed from CVS.

In related news, mozilla.org is also moving the Mac OS X nightly and milestone builds from FizzillaCFM to FizzillaMach. This change will reap several performance benefits and will also make the builds easier to maintain. It is hoped that this transition will be complete in time for the release of Mozilla 1.3.


#1 Fine with me

by brianmurphy

Thursday January 9th, 2003 8:24 PM

Reply to this message

Macs suck. They are slow, over priced, and don't work well at all. (cracking cubes, 1 button mice) On top of it all, the users whine about everything. "Wahhhh, this doesn't look 'mac' enough for me!!"

#2 Re: Re: A promising development ...

by grahams

Thursday January 9th, 2003 10:14 PM

Reply to this message

flamebait.

#3 Re: Re: Re: A promising development ...

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 9th, 2003 11:45 PM

Reply to this message

Yet so very true.

jason

#7 Oh please...

by MacDaddy

Friday January 10th, 2003 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

Oh please, take your face for a dump.

So many PC users are willing to pass judgement on Macs, I doubt 1% of them have actually spent time using them. Regurgitating spurious tripe from PC orientated tech sites and magazines doesn't win awards. If you don't like Macs, fine. Go rock in the corner with Windows XP spyware edition, or tinker away with Linux. Whatever floats your boat. Spare us your poisonous childish attitude.

#4 Re: Fine with me

by gregk

Friday January 10th, 2003 12:28 AM

Reply to this message

Wanna fight, assmunch? I'll show you whining.

#13 One Button Mice suck

by Ark42

Friday January 10th, 2003 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

There is no excuse for such a crappy idea. wtf is it w/ holding the button down longer to get other functionality instead of right clicking - that is a waste of time to have to hold the button for 1-2 seconds. I like instant results, keyboard shortcuts, etc. Sure you got the cloverleaf command deally, but its no different from control or alt-clicking things. Also, why the hell is the menu bar always at the top of the screen on Macs? That is so annoying, why make a user move their mouse further away from the app they are working with to access the menu instead of attaching the menu to the application? Sure maybe this is moot if the app is maximized, but its not always going to be. Third, the UI just sucks, its as dumb looking as WinXP - it looks like its only fit for little kids who watch nickelodeon and like all the fluffy graphics.

#17 Re: Re: Calendar

by jgraham

Friday January 10th, 2003 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

If you must take out your mac insecurities please at least do so in an intelligent way. From a speed point of view, the mac menubar is great, and here's why:

(windows) Accelerate mouse toward menu item: Deaccelerate mouse as item approaches: Go very slowly to aviod overrunning: Click.

(mac) Fling mouse toward menu item: (mouse hits top of screen, above menu item). Click.

Much faster. I agree one button mice are a bad idea, along with trolling people who use different operating systems to you. Plaese stop it, or at least go to alt.i.hate.macs or wherever.

#25 Ya and...

by pizzach

Friday January 10th, 2003 5:21 PM

Reply to this message

Macintoshes seriously can't suck that bad if they haven't died off yet...And I like my macintosh. I also use the keyboard a LOT and people don't realize that when you know how to use the system, Its not as "suckie" as they had thought. I also want to point out that people don't understand how revolutionary Mac OS X was as compaired to Win XP. I believe while XP was mostly cosmetic, Mac users had gotten some features long missing lite a new memory system to protect the OS from other programs crashing among a whole command line interface that was never there before. If you don't like it you don't. If you do you do. Competition is good....even if the Mac market is that small.

#33 Re: Ya and...

by WillyWonka

Saturday January 11th, 2003 10:28 AM

Reply to this message

The one thing I can never figure out on a mac is how do I delete characters to the right of the text cursor? There isn't a delete key, like on the majority of keyboards out there. (Yes I know there is one called delete, but it doesn't work as expected)

#34 Re: Re: Ya and...

by darinf <darinf@usa.net>

Saturday January 11th, 2003 12:15 PM

Reply to this message

As far as I can remember, in 7/8/9.x , the delete key below the insert key works in most applications to delete to the right of the insertion point. Where are you seeing that it doesn't?

#35 SimpleText doesn't delete right

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Saturday January 11th, 2003 12:59 PM

Reply to this message

> Where are you seeing that [the Delete key next to End] doesn't?

In SimpleText under Mac OS 7.5.3 and 8.1[1], the Delete key inserts a DEL character (ASCII 127) into the document. (I have not used Mac OS 9 or X because I switched to Windows when I found that my college was a Windows shop.)

#38 Re: SimpleText doesn't delete right

by darinf <darinf@usa.net>

Saturday January 11th, 2003 4:13 PM

Reply to this message

That's SimpleText for you. It's .... well, "simple". Try BBEdit Lite or MS Word or any other MS Office app or AppleScript Editor or Eudora or any web browser's address bar or .....

#37 Re: Ya and...

by WillyWonka

Saturday January 11th, 2003 1:54 PM

Reply to this message

Here is the keyboard that I'm talking about <http://spoon.org/pics/Hardware/G4-Keyboard.jpg>

No insert key either.

Oh the fun I had using those hockey puck mice... never again.

#46 ooooooh!!

by pizzach

Monday January 13th, 2003 12:42 PM

Reply to this message

Your using the old iMac Keyboard. Older keyboards looked just like the PC counterparts(aside from a shutdown key that I miss on the newer ones) and the newerones have the insert and delete keys too. You just have the super specialty condensed keyboard that they used to sell.

#26 hey...

by pizzach

Friday January 10th, 2003 5:24 PM

Reply to this message

You can always get a 2 button mouse if you want one. I think the idea of one button is so that it attracts users because it is less onimous looking....hasn't the Mac OS been known for "ease of use." Also, if the Aqua theme looks so bad, why is Microsoft doing such a cheap imitation?

#27 Re: 1 button mouse

by darinf <darinf@usa.net>

Friday January 10th, 2003 5:48 PM

Reply to this message

Apple made their mouse with one button from extensive testing that they performed. The short story is that their entire approach is to mimic how we interact with things in the real world. When you point at something, you point with one finger only, you don't point at a bridge with your index finger to say to something "The bridge I'm asking about is that one" and then point with another finger at the bridge to say "I need driving directions to that". Novice users find it confusing figuring out (or remembering) what button is used for what when there are two buttons. That is why you see so many instructions out there that say "then click with the left mouse button".

#32 Re: Re: 1 button mouse

by vondo

Saturday January 11th, 2003 9:16 AM

Reply to this message

I assume those tests were done 15-20 years ago with people who had never used a computer before, let alone a GUI. Now everyone (well almost) has been using GUIs for 10 years. I suspect those users "know" that click is left click and extra mouse buttons aren't very confusing.

I think I would find rememembering Option-Click and Apple-Click more confusing, but I haven't really used a Mac in 10 years.

I, for one, can't figure out how PC users get by with just two buttons. The whole select and middle-button paste with X windows is one of the most convenient things ever.

To each their own, I guess.

#36 Kids

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Saturday January 11th, 2003 1:01 PM

Reply to this message

Nine-year-old children in elementary schools certainly haven't "been using GUIs for 10 years."

#48 Re: 1 button mouse

by lalato

Wednesday April 2nd, 2003 8:32 AM

Reply to this message

I love it when power users assume that everyone has their level of expertise with computers. I train people for a living... and let me tell you... there are plenty of novice users out there. There are even people that have used computers for years... and they still don't understand right mouse buttons.

By default... anyone reading a post here is a power user... and possibly even a developer. The vast majority of computer users can barely surf the internet.

Besides... it's not as if the Mac OS doesn't have extra button functionality. You can get extra button mice, if you want... but out of the box, the mac is designed for the way regular people think... not the way a programmer thinks.

#29 Re: 1 button mouse

by darinf <darinf@usa.net>

Friday January 10th, 2003 7:28 PM

Reply to this message

Apple made their mouse with one button from extensive testing that they performed. The short story is that their entire approach is to mimic how we interact with things in the real world. When you point at something, you point with one finger only, you don't point at a bridge with your index finger to say to something "The bridge I'm asking about is that one" and then point with another finger at the bridge to say "I need driving directions to that". Novice users find it confusing figuring out (or remembering) what button is used for what when there are two buttons. That is why you see so many instructions out there that say "then click with the left mouse button".

#15 Re: Fine with me

by yancey

Friday January 10th, 2003 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

Folks, this is a message board for Mozilla. Please confine the comments to those related to Mozilla itself. Thanks.

#19 Re: Fine with me

by mbokil

Friday January 10th, 2003 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

Here is the real problem with Macs and OSX: Essentially you take free BSD and wrap a custom, proprietary UI around it called aqua and restrict the CPU to only Apple specified CPU's excluding cheaper Intel and AMD chips. Then you charge for the time and money it takes to Aqua-fy all your applications and servers like Apache, PHP, MYSQL, Java, etc. And when you are done you charge for it all and the overpriced hardware together. Initially updates are free but then following in MS footsteps the pro versions and newer versions cost money. Also, just the fact that BSD supports three button mouses and was reduced to one clunky one by Apple is enough to make you scream. Sure, sure you might argue Apple gives code back in the form of Darwin. Okay that is great no where is the source to Aqua so I can run it on my Intel box. The latest news about Apple making their own browser called Safari based on the KDE KHTML Konquerer engine is a hoot. Hello people, just use KDE on linux and you won't have to pay Apple for their Aqua-fying proprietary code and restricted features. The only good reason to use a Mac with OSX is if you can't handle typing into a shell and you need advanced video editing or image manipulation software.

#30 There so is a shell...

by MacDaddy

Saturday January 11th, 2003 4:17 AM

Reply to this message

You can access a shell in OS X by loading the Terminal application.

#42 Re: There so is a shell...

by mbokil

Saturday January 11th, 2003 9:30 PM

Reply to this message

There might be a shell on os X but most mac users are such dumb asses they don't even know what to do with it. If there isn't a pulsating gel colored button to click on they get all whiny and go into a hissy fit.

#39 No

by googolplex

Saturday January 11th, 2003 7:29 PM

Reply to this message

"Then you charge for the time and money it takes to Aqua-fy all your applications and servers like Apache, PHP, MYSQL, Java, etc."

Since when do you aqua-fy servers?

"Initially updates are free but then following in MS footsteps the pro versions and newer versions cost money."

Yeah companies aren't allowed to make money.

"Also, just the fact that BSD supports three button mouses and was reduced to one clunky one by Apple is enough to make you scream."

OS X supports multi-button mice. I have one I would know.

" Sure, sure you might argue Apple gives code back in the form of Darwin. Okay that is great no where is the source to Aqua so I can run it on my Intel box."

They have to give back everything?

"The latest news about Apple making their own browser called Safari based on the KDE KHTML Konquerer engine is a hoot."

Its still open source and pretty standards compliant, and they are making it better. Why is this bad?

"Hello people, just use KDE on linux and you won't have to pay Apple for their Aqua-fying proprietary code and restricted features. The only good reason to use a Mac with OSX is if you can't handle typing into a shell and you need advanced video editing or image manipulation software."

Hello yourself. Not everyone can "just use KDE on linux". As previously stated you have the shell on OS X and all your unix goodies plus you have a whole bunch of really great software and a great interface. I wouldn't call that restricted features, its more features.

Learn about things before you claim to be right.

#40 Re: No

by mbokil

Saturday January 11th, 2003 9:25 PM

Reply to this message

"Also, just the fact that BSD supports three button mouses and was reduced to one clunky one by Apple is enough to make you scream." OS X supports multi-button mice. I have one I would know.

Your statement is only partly true. New mac systems only ship with a one button mouse. Third party mouses are necessary to gain full three button mouse support. This is just plain stupid. Apple needs to grow up and realize that the two button mouse is not seen as more complicated by computer users. Just their cheap one button strange rocker design that is clunky and a tired design.

#41 Re: No

by mbokil

Saturday January 11th, 2003 9:28 PM

Reply to this message

Hello yourself. Not everyone can "just use KDE on linux". As previously stated you have the shell on OS X and all your unix goodies plus you have a whole bunch of really great software and a great interface. I wouldn't call that restricted features, its more features. Learn about things before you claim to be right.

If you can't use KDE on linux then you are too stupid to be using a computer and should learn how to work the espresso machine at Hardbucks.

#44 Stop

by googolplex

Sunday January 12th, 2003 11:49 AM

Reply to this message

Stop giving Mozilla and Mozillazine a bad name. Do you want people to think this is a site of ranting trolls? I think you are the stupid one.

#45 stop

by mbokil

Sunday January 12th, 2003 4:00 PM

Reply to this message

Stupid is as stupid was my momma always said. ;-)

#47 Re: Fine with me

by Martyr

Saturday January 18th, 2003 3:42 PM

Reply to this message

Keep comments friendly! Looks like you flunked Mozillazine ettiquette rule number one. Now, you didn't say that Mac users were idiots, but I suppose your behavior demonstrates that at least some segment of the PC universe is, hopelessly combatative, riddled with inferiority complexes, and full of irrational hatred. Maybe someday people will think before they post, but looks like that day hasn't arrived yet.

#5 Netscape giving up on older Macs?

by JessePelton

Friday January 10th, 2003 5:59 AM

Reply to this message

I'm a bit surprised that Netscape hasn't offered a maintainer. They offer their suite for the classic OS. Maybe they don't care any more, and maybe that's appropriate. Anyone who hasn't upgraded to OS X by now clearly doesn't care whether they have the latest stuff.

#6 Re: Netscape giving up on older Macs?

by WillyWonka

Friday January 10th, 2003 7:07 AM

Reply to this message

From what I've read Netscape is just a shell of it's former self. Doesn't surprize me at all.

#8 What's a Mach-O?

by ami_ganguli

Friday January 10th, 2003 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Can anybody explain what CFM and Mach-O are to a non-Mac person? Why should one or the other be faster?

#11 Re: What's a Mach-O?

by arsa

Friday January 10th, 2003 9:02 AM

Reply to this message

Basicaly, CFM version is using a special library created by Apple to simplify the move from OS9 to OSX for the developers. It's called Carbon. The main thing that it simplifies is *nix style programming, i.e. you don't need to know it :)

Now, FizzillaMach is using that *nix style backend and new OSX frontend, basicaly reusing already existing *nix backend that was developed for mozilla and slapping OSX frontend on it.

read more here: <http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/>

#9 Flameware?

by cajunguy <cajunman4life@cox.net>

Friday January 10th, 2003 8:25 AM

Reply to this message

Here we go again. Anytime someone mentions an OS we start a flame war. I'll tell you what, I'm using WinXP right now, but I have great respect for Macs, especially after OS X was released. And to MacDaddy... your comment about tinkering with Linux was misplaced. Because if you're running OS X then in a roundabout way you're tinkering with Linux too. Linux is based on UNIX, and, interestingly enough, so is OS X. In fact, OS X looks more like a Linux system to me than a Mac system (main reason: it has a terminal, whereas Macs never before had a command line system). Anyways, just my $0.02

#10 Re: Flameware?

by cajunguy <cajunman4life@cox.net>

Friday January 10th, 2003 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

By the way, the title should be "Flame war" not "Flameware" sorry it's early for me.

#12 Big loss for me.

by aengblom <aengblom@gwu.edu>

Friday January 10th, 2003 9:14 AM

Reply to this message

I am a regular user of Moz on Mac--mostly because it's far and away the best avilable browser on 0S 9 (IMO). I also use Moz mail. (This is a company computer). Outlook is not allowed, so Netscape 4.0 is company standard!

There are a lot of Mac folks who are going to stick to that OS for awhile--because corporate isn't ready, administration (read school) isn't ready or simply because they don't want to upgrade their OS.

OSX is still pretty darn young and I think this is pretty shameful.

#14 Re: Big loss for me.

by bzbarsky

Friday January 10th, 2003 9:43 AM

Reply to this message

No one _wants_ to do this. There is just no manpower to do it. Netscape is not willing to keep maintaining NS7+ for OS9 (NS6 saw about 50% of its downloads on OSX, NS7 saw 70+% of its downloads there, the numbers are even higher for Mozilla builds, of course), and no one else is willing to do it.

So we have two options: Leave it in the tree and let it slowly rot and break as no one maintains it or make it clear what's going on and just remove it.

Yes, it's sad. Please feel free to offer a better solution....

#24 Re: Re: Big loss for me.

by aengblom <aengblom@gwu.edu>

Friday January 10th, 2003 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

understood. It's about setting priorities. I was just putting in one vote that it's important to me. And thus should have SOME priority. I have no knowledge to offer a better solution and will be sad, not mad if it goes away.

#28 It's the same for all OS9 software

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Friday January 10th, 2003 6:44 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape is really just following the lead of Adobe, Microsoft, and every other Mac developer (at the urging of Apple). In fact they maintained OS9 support for some months longer than the other guys.

#31 Re: Big loss for me

by mlefevre

Saturday January 11th, 2003 7:20 AM

Reply to this message

Also one has to remember that Mac Classic is just being removed from the CVS tree going forward, they're not going to delete all the history. Unless some major security bug is found or something, Mac users can happily carry on using 1.2.1. Even in event that a major security hole is found, if someone has a little time they can take the existing code from CVS, fix that thing, and rebuild to make an unofficial 1.2.2 or whatever. It's always a shame that new development will stop, but the existing stuff isn't really lost...

#22 Re: Big loss for me.

by namtro

Friday January 10th, 2003 12:49 PM

Reply to this message

I would also concure; I work for a school where we will simply not be able to upgrade all of our Macs to OSX in the near future. In fact, it might be several years before OS Classic disappears (the darn machines just don't stop!). I would second one of the other posters and say that yes, perhaps it's too expensive (WRT manpower) for future 1.3+ builds, but why break the 1.0.2+ builds for classic Mac right now? Why not continue to support the security and bug fixes on a quality MacOS browser at least for the stable release? I'm just hopeful that is what will happen...

#23 1.0 not dead

by daavery

Friday January 10th, 2003 1:53 PM

Reply to this message

removing Mac Classic from the tree will not remove it from 1.0.x

BUT there is still the issus of getting someone to build the bits

#16 Classic Mac OS support must not be abandoned!

by DJGM2002

Friday January 10th, 2003 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

With regards to those that choose to say things like "Macs suck" "Macs are too slow" . . . etc . . . All I can say to folks that make such comments like that, if you've never even used a Macintosh before, you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make such comments. As for the decision to no longer support "Classic" Mac OS builds of Mozilla, that is stupid, especially when at least 80% of all Macintosh users have not yet upgrade to Mac OS X. So, if mozilla.org wants to lose over 80% of Mac users that can test Mozilla, and file bug reports, crash reports and the like, that's their stupid decision. Ever heard of the saying "cutting your nose off too spite your face" . . . ?

#20 Re: Classic Mac OS support must not be abandoned!

by bzbarsky

Friday January 10th, 2003 12:32 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, the fraction of Mozilla Mac downloads that are OS 9 is below 25% at this point and dropping precipitously (it was over 50% about a year ago, iirc). So I very much doubt that many target users are being lost...

Yes, it's a pity. As I mentioned in another post, suggest an alternative given the lack of people to work on this (are you offering up people to maintain it)?

It's not that we're dropping it because we want to; we're dropping it because not one person has stepped up to maintain it.

#21 Re: Classic Mac OS support must not be abandoned!

by shawnn

Friday January 10th, 2003 12:36 PM

Reply to this message

This is open source. As a result this is not really a 'choice' their making, but simply the fact that no volunteer has come forward to maintain it. If you have the time - step up and be the maintainer!

#18 Fantastic news!

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Friday January 10th, 2003 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

This is great news. Mac OS Classic has always been the odd one out in crossplatform development; this will allow Moz devs to concentrate on things other than the build system and to have a more unified development front. If in 1998 Cygwin/MinGW had been at the level of quality it is now and Moz devs hadn't had to worry about Mac Classic, I have have little doubt we would have had a considerably faster, slimmer Mozilla 1.0, and it would have been released quite a bit earlier. The announcement that they will concentrate on the Win32, Unix, and Mach builds gives extra hope for the quality of 2.0.

In addition, to the poster who complained that Mozilla is dropping 80 percent of Mac users, I reply that the people who haven't upgraded to OS X are the least likely to be changing their browser to Mozilla. I think I saw a figure that said that OS X accounts for about 3/4 of the Mac Mozilla downloads. Moz developers have been spending a very disproportionate amount of effort on that other 1/4.

I do think, however, that they really should maintain the 1.0.x branch for Mac Classic. Mac Classic users deserve their bugfixes too (esp security bugfixes), and promising that the 1.0.x series will remain a very steady base to do cross-platform development work on and then dropping a platform in the middle of the series seems rather strange.

#43 Macs?

by mbokil

Saturday January 11th, 2003 9:35 PM

Reply to this message

You mean Apple is still in business?