MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.4.1 Released

Saturday October 11th, 2003

A minor update to Mozilla 1.4 has been released. Mozilla 1.4.1 contains around 100 additional bug fixes but no new features. Windows users who had installer problems with Mozilla 1.4 or experienced display resource issues will be especially interested in this build, which is available for all platforms. Download Mozilla 1.4.1 from the mozilla.org Releases page or direct from the download site (http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.4.1/ if you're using HTTP; ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.4.1/ if you're using FTP). More information can be found in the Mozilla 1.4.1 Release Notes.

Update: Thanks to Daniel Wang for reminding us that Mozilla 1.4.1 includes a spellchecker, a feature not present in 1.4.


#1 1.4.1 rocks

by Epic <C_J_Shen@yahoo.com>

Saturday October 11th, 2003 7:09 AM

Reply to this message

It works excellent for me. Thanks for the wonderful work of the Mozilla team.

#2 News correction

by danielwang <stolenclover@yahoo.com.tw>

Saturday October 11th, 2003 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

Why doesn't the news article mention this is the latest *stable* branch build? 1.4.1 RC has spell chekcer, so "but no new features." is clearly wrong.

#7 Re: News correction

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday October 11th, 2003 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

It was an oversight. We're not perfect.

Alex

#3 Netscape Update?

by SomeGuy

Saturday October 11th, 2003 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

Is there any chance we would see an updated version of Netscape from this? I'm guessing not but I know some people using Netscape 7.1 on computers that have that resource leak and it would be nice to upgrade them. I don't want to shock them in to using a different web browser (even if the main difference is the icon, splash screen, and throbber) but I will probably have to do that eventually. Or I suppose even I could hack Mozilla 1.4.1 to say it is Netscape 7.11 or something.

#4 Re: Netscape Update?

by JuanGonzalez

Saturday October 11th, 2003 1:31 PM

Reply to this message

They still offer Netscape 7.1.

<http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/>

#5 Re: Re: Netscape Update?

by pizzach

Saturday October 11th, 2003 2:31 PM

Reply to this message

I don't think he was worried about 7.1...

#9 Re: Netscape Update?

by JuanGonzalez

Saturday October 11th, 2003 7:06 PM

Reply to this message

I means Netscape 7.1 and Mozilla 1.4 were released at the same time (June 30th):

<http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=3345>

<http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=3346>

This time is different. Maybe there is some delay (days, weeks?) because of the current lack of Netscape resources, maybe Netscape won't update because there is no need for critical security fixes this time. Someone knows?

#10 Re: Netscape Update?

by nonpareility <jbird3000@hotmail.com>

Saturday October 11th, 2003 7:58 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, the current and total lack of Netscape resources would do it.

#16 Re: Re: Netscape Update?

by leet

Sunday October 12th, 2003 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

Hmm, Netscape's dead as a browser, whose developers are all gone from AOL. I don't see why there'd be new releases whatever bugs are in them.

#18 Re: Netscape Update?

by JuanGonzalez

Sunday October 12th, 2003 6:31 PM

Reply to this message

Given that AOL is still supporting (surely with minimal resources) the Netscape.com portal and Netscape 7.1 (just download, no developers apart from Mozilla), it seems that they have the still valuable Netscape brand in the reserve, let's say.

Perhaps they don't know what to do with this brand yet. It wouldn't be difficult to sell, really, if they decide this way.

For example, Sheri R. Lanza said (I think referring to July 15): "AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein assured me that his company would continue to support Netscape. In spite of appearances, Netscape is part of AOLís multibrand strategy. Weinstein said that the layoffs were part of an 'ongoing strategy, matching employees with the companyís strategic priorities.'" <http://www.infotoday.com/…wsbreaks/nb030804-1.shtml>

The news of July were all similar: <http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1026078.html> , etc.

More recent is the end of the transition months Netscape -> Mozilla (September 30): <http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=3762>

Apart from the official statements, it seems clear that Netscape is not an AOL priority today, and the minimal support does not include development. Therefore, of course I don't know, but I think it's improbable that they assign some of the AOL developers for a Netscape update, unless there is a critical security fix from Mozilla.

Unlikely, of course. Mozilla is far safer than Explorer/Outlook. ;)

#6 mZ home page

by zack

Saturday October 11th, 2003 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

The mozillaZine home page still links to 1.4 as the "latest stable milestone" on the page's top menu links bar. This should probably be updated to link to 1.4.1.

#8 Re: mZ home page

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday October 11th, 2003 4:58 PM

Reply to this message

Fixed. It's more work to update than the articles and I was in a hurry.

Alex

#11 dangerous feature?

by brewthatistr

Saturday October 11th, 2003 8:58 PM

Reply to this message

according to <http://www.mozilla.org/re…illa1.4.1/README.html#new>

" 'Launch file' after downloading has been enabled for .exe files" is in the "new features and fixes" category.

is that more innocuous than it sounds? is it a just a preference that is now available? or is it a preference that is now defaulting to execution?

it seems like a bad idea to let executables run automatically on download. i personally always virusscan them before running them.

#12 Re:

by Sinuhe

Saturday October 11th, 2003 11:12 PM

Reply to this message

I imagine all it means is that you can press the "Launch File" button in the download dialogue and it will execute the file.

#13 Re: Re:

by neilturnerUK

Sunday October 12th, 2003 3:11 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, it does. A security warning pops up the first time you do this. It's more convinient than copying and pasting the filename into the Run.. dialog.

#14 Re: Re: Re:

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday October 12th, 2003 5:06 AM

Reply to this message

"A security warning pops up the first time you do this."

Actually, it pops up every time until you check (or is it uncheck? I can't remember) the box in the warning dialogue.

Alex

#15 diffs

by WeSaySo

Sunday October 12th, 2003 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

compat_i_bility.

Also, is there any way to know what was added to the 1.4 branch between the 1.4 and 1.4.1 releases?

#17 suck

by afree87 <afree87@netscape.net>

Sunday October 12th, 2003 12:41 PM

Reply to this message

OK, Mozilla had months to fix this bug, and they did nothing because of Operation Ignore <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…how_bug.cgi?id=18574#c311> .

The bug in question: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196670>

We gave them a chance, but now 1.4.1 is out and the patch was not checked in. Time to crash Mozilla!

#19 Re: suck

by Dobbins

Monday October 13th, 2003 8:32 AM

Reply to this message

What you are arguing for is continuing one of the prime problems that Mozilla had from the start, checking in something without insuring that there is a clear need for it. At this time there is no need to have mng support other than being politically correct. Animated Gifs will eventually be replaced by another format, and tha format MIGHT be mng, or it might be something else that is developed over the next few years. Currently mngs are allmost never found on the web except for test cases on sites that advocate using them. Including support in Mozilla isn't going to change this because 98% of users still won't be able to see them. It would be a foolish site designer who locked out the vast majority of users. There simply isn't any reason to include a protocol that has little use, and which increases the size and possibly the stability of the stable branch when Mozilla has a developmental version that is being persued on the trunk. Making threats because you didn't get your way is more likely to anger people at the Mozilla foundation than any thing else, making it less likely that they will listen to the people advocating adoption of this format.

#21 RE: suck

by napolj2

Monday October 13th, 2003 11:49 AM

Reply to this message

This MNG debate has been going on for a while. Can't we just move full MNG support into an extension and leave it at that? That way the people who want it can have it, and the few websites that make use of MNG can provide a link to the extension. If MNG use ever picks up, then we can just land the code back in the trunk.

#20 MozBrowse?

by pbreit

Monday October 13th, 2003 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

Any idea when Mozilla Browser 1.0 will be ready?