MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.5 Release Candidate 2 Out

Friday September 26th, 2003

The second release candidate of Mozilla 1.5 is now available for download. This new test build contains around twenty fixes that were not in Release Candidate 1, including a new preference for specifying whether opening a bookmark group should replace the existing tabs or append the new pages to the current set. As usual, builds can be downloaded from the mozilla.org Releases page or direct from ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.5rc2. Consult the Mozilla 1.5 Release Candidate 2 Release Notes for more information and look out for the final version of Mozilla 1.5 in the first week of October.


#1 Bookmarks and Tabs

by admiraljusti

Friday September 26th, 2003 9:59 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like someone at least tried to pay attention to the overwriting of the tabs by a bookmark group.

#2 Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by aguafuertes

Saturday September 27th, 2003 1:12 AM

Reply to this message

Yep, that's what i like so much about this project, developers react to feedback. Being an absolute non-techie, i like this browser because people accept that there are different user preferences. Instead of the "either you are with us or you are against us", this "you are with us, that's great, now please set your preferences" gives me a warm feeling. Oh yeah... ;-)

#3 Bookmarks and Tabs

by admiraljusti

Saturday September 27th, 2003 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

Yep. Heck, if I had some remote coding ability, I'd try and help out.

#7 Re: Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by leet

Saturday September 27th, 2003 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

I disagree with that. Now certainly you're right in a lot of cases, but where the devs have a different idea than the users, they tend to close their ears. Remember that ugly lizard splash screen that everyone I know cringed at? It was very unprofessional and yet stayed for years. Did you see the request for putting signatures on top of quoted text when replying to emails? Virtually every person who has to deal with businesses know that's a necessity, and yet it's still not in because, most of the devs say, top-posting is high crime in newsgroup postings. NEWSGROUPS! Now the lovely little password manager is degraded to IE's version. I can go on and on, but when it comes to visible user prefs, it won't happen if the devs think it's wrong, even if huge numbers of users want a choice.

#8 Top-posting

by ehn <ehn@algonet.se>

Saturday September 27th, 2003 12:31 PM

Reply to this message

Top-posting is equally bad in email as in Usenet newsgroups. Usually people just paste the entire original message after their reply. To what end? A reply is much faster read if the author takes the time to only quote what is actually being replied to and write the answers below the correspending parts of the original message. The user interface of Outlook promotes top-posting to the extent that proper quoting is hardly known outside of the technical community nowadays. That's just sad, and Mozilla should not further such behaviour.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

#11 Re: Top-posting

by Down8 <down8@yahoo.com>

Saturday September 27th, 2003 7:49 PM

Reply to this message

Spoken like a true techno-elitist.

Fsck how you think life should work. I'm here, using the product, and when I choose to reply above quoted text, my .sig should be there, too. The reality of this is that techno-elists, such as yourself, use their .sig for silly little quotes and tech specs and other crap, and not as a "signature" - i.e. something denoting the name of the author. If my reply is above the quoted text, my .sig should be, too, as I did not author the quoted text. And if you think this project is in anyway, shape or form trying to rebel against the de-facto standards that MS has forced on the world, you are more blind than suggested. This project is about providing an alternative to the MS-norm and maintaining compatibility in user-interface so as to make thte transition painless. That may not be the front they put on, but that's the reality.

-bZj

#12 Re: Re: Top-posting

by kepardue

Saturday September 27th, 2003 10:09 PM

Reply to this message

I agree completely... ehn's reply was a perfect case in point to the attitude of the Moz dev's (whether he is one or not--he's a pretty good example of the attitude).

#14 Top-posting

by ehn <ehn@algonet.se>

Sunday September 28th, 2003 2:14 PM

Reply to this message

"Fsck how you think life should work."

Nice attitude! Why is it so difficult for people to stay civil in electronic communication? I'm sure you would not resort to name-calling and similar if we had this discussion tête-à-tête.

"I'm here, using the product, and when I choose to reply above quoted text, my .sig should be there, too."

Apart from the other issues that make top-posting a bad idea, putting the signature above the quoted text would make some users, who have configured their email clients to strip anything after the leading "-- " of the signature, never see the quotation. That might be a good thing, since there is generally no point in quoting entire messages (IMHO), but that's probably not what you intended.

To me top-posting signals that the author considers her time more important than mine. She did not think it worth the time to quote only the things she was replying to and thereby making it easier for me to see how her replies pertain to my writing, but expects me to spend my time deciphering her less-than-clear reply. (Of course, most of the time, top-posting is not an active choice (as so much in today's software world), but simply something the user has been conditioned to by Microsoft software. If Mozilla can be a counter-weight to that, I think it's a good thing.)

"The reality of this is that techno-elists, such as yourself, use their .sig for silly little quotes and tech specs and other crap, and not as a 'signature'---i.e. something denoting the name of the author."

I'm sorry to have to inform you that I don't live up to the prejudiced image that you have formed of me, aparently based on a single message, but I don't use a signature file at all.

"If my reply is above the quoted text, my .sig should be, too, as I did not author the quoted text. And if you think this project is in anyway, shape or form trying to rebel against the de-facto standards that MS has forced on the world, you are more blind than suggested. This project is about providing an alternative to the MS-norm and maintaining compatibility in user-interface so as to make thte transition painless. That may not be the front they put on, but that's the reality."

This project is about what the developers (and those who are willing to fund developers) want it to be. That is sometimes good and sometimes bad, depending on whether you happen to agree with the developers (actually the drivers). I don't always agree with them either---for instance, I think removing MNG support from the trunk was a really bad idea.

#16 Re: Top-posting

by Asacarny

Sunday September 28th, 2003 7:27 PM

Reply to this message

"putting the signature above the quoted text would make some users, who have configured their email clients to strip anything after the leading "-- " of the signature, never see the quotation"

Actually, I believe that the top posting patch turns off the "--" for that very reason. I forced my mother to switch to Mozilla Mail from Outlook Express and she threw a hissy fit about not being able to top post. The user should be allowed to shoot him/herself in the foot if he or she desires to do so. She wanted to go back to OE after learning of that "bug" and I had to persuade her to stay with Mozilla.

I would prefer a million people top posting with Mozilla to a 950,000 top posting with OE/Outlook and 50,000 "converted".

Adam

#18 Re: Top-posting

by ehn <ehn@algonet.se>

Monday September 29th, 2003 6:17 AM

Reply to this message

"I would prefer a million people top posting with Mozilla to a 950,000 top posting with OE/Outlook and 50,000 'converted'."

That's a good point!

I just wish someone would explain what the benefits of top-posting are, because I don't see them, and to me the drawbacks are so obvious.

Oh, and by the way, "-- " was not a typo. The trailing space is actually supposed to be there.

#27 Re: Top-posting

by Asacarny

Monday September 29th, 2003 2:19 PM

Reply to this message

I don't like it, but I could understand why someone else would. For one thing, you get to use your signature as a signature (My mother would put "Kindest Regards" in hers). In addition, your signature always gets seen, as it comes directly after your message. That's how most people view the issue. Of course, then why are you quoting the original message? Someone who likes top posting would probably say for reference purposes.

Yes, there are better ways to do things. Someone in the bug even suggested having a special, additional signature that would be top posted, so you could do the "Kindest Regards" thing without breaking conventions. But that is getting silly. Why don't we just add the top posting option and let the users fuck themselves over with a better e-mail client? Adam

#28 Re: Re: Top-posting

by vfwlkr

Monday September 29th, 2003 11:39 PM

Reply to this message

benefit of top posting (on emails)

- archiving a corporate email thread about a design decision.

#32 Re: Re: Top-posting

by Down8 <down8@yahoo.com>

Wednesday October 1st, 2003 4:36 AM

Reply to this message

I have yet to see a drawback, besides the fixable stripping of sigs after "-- ". All I see is "this is how it was done before," which should be the perfect reason to break the mold (OK, that's extreme and anti-standards... devil's advocate?).

-bZj

#31 Re: Top-posting

by Down8 <down8@yahoo.com>

Wednesday October 1st, 2003 4:32 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, but I take any post on a forum as a form of a personal gathering, so I would indeed use such language, as I do so with my friends. I realize this may startle some, but I don't talk to my friends coyly, nor will I to you. I do appologize if I actually offended you.

I do agree on the "-- " stripping idea, in either format - leave it so all below can be stripped, or remove it when top-posting is enabled. I'd weight it 60-40 towards leaving it out when top-posting.

You may take top-posting as a personal affront, I consider it a courtesy. Explanation: e-mails are not always answered immediately, as many technocrats expect. So, when I reply to someone, and leave their msg inline, though under my reply, I leave it there for them to be reminded of what they originally sent w/o diggin thru the 'sent' folder. No, I will not go thru and reply to each part in turn. I have friends who do this, and I find it hard to follow, especially with the variances in mail readers and their treatment of such 'mid-posting'. And, I feel like I'm receiving a paper back from a professor, with suggestions in the margins.

Yes, I've sterotyped you as an elitist, but it was to make a point. I'm sick of hearing the evils of top-posting as derived from the ancients of usenet. It's over, catch up. An unflshed-out, but applicable, analogy: cars used to have manual transmissions, now most have automatics. I like driving a manual car, and think everyone should learn that way. This isn't the case, so I must deal with it. Regardless, I believe you can agree that most technophiles use their .sigs inappropriately as a place for whitty quotes and system specs.

Oh, and I agree that MNG should've been left in.

-bZj

#9 Re: Re: Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by treebeard <treebeard@treebeard.net>

Saturday September 27th, 2003 12:48 PM

Reply to this message

I agree that the new password manager, well, sucks, IMNHO. Does anyone know of a way to continue to use the old one?

#13 It's not top posting that's the issue...

by rkl

Sunday September 28th, 2003 7:51 AM

Reply to this message

I think it's not necessarily top posting (or other "features" you'd like added/changed in Mozilla), but I reckon it's configurability that's the problem here. Basically, there's pro and con arguments about top posting, so why not simply have it as a preference in Mozilla Mail ?

The developers get it wrong when they immediately reply "I don't want another config option in the prefs in Mozilla, it's already too bloated". In fact, Mozilla should be able to have *thousands* of config options - the problem of how they are actually presented to the end-user (e.g. maybe "Beginner", "Intermediate" and "Advanced" prefs?) is what should be looked at, so that a huge number of prefs can be accomodated.

Yes, there's the still the argument as to what the default settings for each preference should be ("sensible" is my best guess, but that's very subjective), but as long as there are actually prefs for anything someone might to change the behaviour of, then people should be reasonably happy.

#15 Re: It's not top posting that's the issue...

by leet

Sunday September 28th, 2003 5:04 PM

Reply to this message

I agree with you there. And I was trying to make the point: that mozilla developers don't seem to necessarily think they're here to help users. In many cases, they want to set the rules of how people use the product, and are unwilling to provide alternatives that clash with their ideology. Stop telling us what is good or bad. I mean, I appreciate all the work that's been done, but frankly, until you've regained your market share, don't.

#17 That's what extensions are for

by Anthracks

Monday September 29th, 2003 6:14 AM

Reply to this message

Note: I often disagree with development decisions too, I'm not just a mindless fanboy.

Cases like this are why the concept of extensions exists. If Mozilla incorporated literally every feature that anyone wanted, it would be unreasonably huge and complicated. It's not possible to meet *everyone's* expectations, some people's main gripe is that Mozilla is too huge, slow and memory consuming. So, at least with Firebird, they're doing the reasonable thing and providing a good set of baseline features which can be added onto through extensions. 90% of the user base is not going to be interested in the ability to see live HTTP headers or having a built-in interface to Bugzilla, so why make the download it and have it cluttering their interface? Now, there are definitely some things I think should be default features rather than extensions (the warning when closing a window with multiple tabs tops my list of gripes), but on the whole I think their approach of not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into Mozilla is the right one.

As far as wanting everything to be a preference, about:config does provide access to probably at least 100 settings to tweak, and there are extensions to put a nicer GUI on it. This is one thing I do think belongs in an extension; if you're computer-literate enough to want to tweak these settings, you are able to download an extension properly. If a user is not that computer literate, the vast array of options would only overwhelm them and turn them off from Mozilla.

#21 Re: That's what extensions are for

by jrs66

Monday September 29th, 2003 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

"I'm not just a mindless fanboy."

-- You're really smart

#22 Re: Re: It's not top posting that's the issue...

by leet

Monday September 29th, 2003 8:20 AM

Reply to this message

Seems like it didn't make it in time for the milestone? <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62429>

#24 Re: Re: Re: It's not top posting that's the issue.

by leet

Monday September 29th, 2003 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

*meant for the Fb thread. Sorry.

#25 Re: Re: Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by gmiller

Monday September 29th, 2003 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

Just how many times do we have to explain that putting sigs above quoted text will caused the quoted text to be deleted by many email clients when replying? It's not just a matter of top-posting being rude, putting the sig there just can't work from a technical perspective, and the Mozilla project couldn't change everyone else's mail clients to work the way you want even if they wanted to.

#33 Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by Down8 <down8@yahoo.com>

Wednesday October 1st, 2003 4:39 AM

Reply to this message

Easily fixed: remove the "-- " when top-posting.

-bZj

#4 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups

by Ark42

Saturday September 27th, 2003 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

I still really wish some conformity was done with bookmarks and the personal toolbar. At the very least, middleclicking or control+clicking a regular bookmark should open it into a new tab.

#5 uniformity not conformity

by buff

Saturday September 27th, 2003 7:47 AM

Reply to this message

I think you meant to say uniformity. Conformity would be like using Windows because everyone else does.

#10 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups

by Ark42

Saturday September 27th, 2003 3:24 PM

Reply to this message

Sure, uniformity would be just as good...

#6 Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by wilbertnl

Saturday September 27th, 2003 8:09 AM

Reply to this message

"Thanks, folks, for adding this feature to the next release" sounds so much nicer, don't you agree???

#36 Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by sustik

Sunday November 16th, 2003 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

I upgraded to 1.5 from 1.3 and lost all the bookmarks from the toolbar. Well actually all my bookmarks got moved to a folder named 'Bookmarks' under which there is a 'Personal Toolbar Folder' with my bookmarks. It was much nicer having my bookmarks directly lined up instead of havoing going through 2 clicks first.

It seems it is impossible to create another folder on the top level. (Dragging the address from the address window does not work with 1.5 that is.) Was this intentional?

Thanks for anyone bothering to answer. Matyas

#37 Re: Bookmarks and Tabs

by sustik

Sunday November 16th, 2003 1:41 PM

Reply to this message

I upgraded to 1.5 from 1.3 and lost all the bookmarks from the toolbar. Well actually all my bookmarks got moved to a folder named 'Bookmarks' under which there is a 'Personal Toolbar Folder' with my bookmarks. It was much nicer having my bookmarks directly lined up instead of havoing going through 2 clicks first.

It seems it is impossible to create another folder on the top level. (Dragging the address from the address window does not work with 1.5 that is.) Was this intentional?

Thanks for anyone bothering to answer. Matyas

#19 Plug-in Flash

by fgsouza

Monday September 29th, 2003 6:50 AM

Reply to this message

Why Mozilla.org don´t make a agreement with Macromedia to bundle the Flash Player? If Mozilla is to reach end users flash is fundamental! Or maybe have some sort of plug-in autoupdate, that dont require the download of a executable file. Maybe a flash xpi? Is there one?

#23 Re: Plug-in Flash

by maniac <rcsheets@acm.org>

Monday September 29th, 2003 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know, but that may well be an ideological conflict too (as is the reply top-posting mentioned above). Many technofiles, myself included, think there is far too much Flash on the web, and discourage its use. I don't think Flash should be *included* in Mozilla, much like one of the posters above doesn't think live HTTP headers should be part of Mozilla, but it would be good to have it as an extension that doesn't require an installer to be downloaded and run.

#26 Re: Plug-in Flash

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday September 29th, 2003 1:25 PM

Reply to this message

"Why Mozilla.org don´t make a agreement with Macromedia to bundle the Flash Player?"

For a long time, mozilla.org's policy was to only distribute open-source software with Mozilla.

"If Mozilla is to reach end users flash is fundamental!"

I believe with the new focus on targetting end users directly, the policy may be reconsidered.

"Or maybe have some sort of plug-in autoupdate, that dont require the download of a executable file. Maybe a flash xpi? Is there one?"

Even if there wasn't one, it wouldn't be difficult to make <http://devedge.netscape.c…002/xpinstall-guidelines/> (though doing it without Macromedia's permission mya result in getting to know their legal department better). As it happens, Netscape created a Flash XPI (Windows: <http://ftp.netscape.com/p…ws/win32/jgksyc/flash.xpi>, Linux: <http://ftp.netscape.com/p…/linux22/jgksyc/flash.xpi>) for streamlining the installation Flash during the setup of Netscape 6/7.

Alex

#20 Plug-in Flash

by fgsouza

Monday September 29th, 2003 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

Why Mozilla.org don´t make a agreement with Macromedia to bundle the Flash Player? If Mozilla is to reach end users flash is fundamental! Or maybe have some sort of plug-in autoupdate, that dont require the download of a executable file. Maybe a flash xpi? Is there one?

#29 Re: Plug-in Flash

by Caetck

Tuesday September 30th, 2003 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

All 3 needed plug ins are here--Use the "install" to make things easier. <http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/windows.html#Java> Its always better to get Mozilla/Firebird/Thunderbird info/help at the MozForums <http://forums.mozillazine.org/> Most the questions I see being asked here can be answered there, or post for help. IMHO MozillaZine doesnt look like a place for help, but more for voicing opinions. Get over there and get involved with the projects and look for answers and get involved where the Devs hang out. There is a wealth of information there for the taking/asking--everyone is more than willing to help, drop a post and check back--most likely the issue will have an answer left to resolve it =} Have a good day guys n gals.

Geck0 r0cks Mozilla Thunderbird 0.3 (20030923) Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030903 Firebird/0.6.1+ Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20030906

#30 Mozilla 1.5 RC2 Xft

by KmD

Tuesday September 30th, 2003 4:26 AM

Reply to this message

I compiled an Xft build of Mozilla 1.5 RC2, available for download at <http://www.scottbolander.com/mozilla-xft.html>

cheers,

#34 Windows NT4 mailbox deletion when upgrading

by adren

Thursday October 2nd, 2003 2:38 PM

Reply to this message

I've got a user who just upgraded to the latest 1.5rc4 version and without notice all of here mailbox just disappeared

She was a long time Netscape user (back from the 4.7x era) who upgraded repeatidly and all the mailboxes were stored in the C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\default\mail\

after the upgrade this directory was gone without any chance of recovery

needless to say that she was _very_ disapointed to loose 5 years of mails without any wrongdoing except than a mere upgrade from 1.4 to 1.5rc2

I'll try to see if it's reproduceable and post a bug report

#35 Windows NT4 mailbox deletion when upgrading

by adren

Thursday October 2nd, 2003 3:10 PM

Reply to this message

I've got a user who just upgraded to the latest 1.5rc4 version and without notice all of here mailbox just disappeared

She was a long time Netscape user (back from the 4.7x era) who upgraded repeatidly and all the mailboxes were stored in the C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\default\mail\

after the upgrade this directory was gone without any chance of recovery

needless to say that she was _very_ disapointed to loose 5 years of mails without any wrongdoing except than a mere upgrade from 1.4 to 1.5rc2

I'll try to see if it's reproduceable and post a bug report