MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.6 Alpha Released

Friday October 31st, 2003

The Mozilla Foundation has just released Mozilla 1.6 Alpha, the first milestone of the 1.6 development cycle. Amongst its other enhancements, 1.6a features many Mail & Newsgroups improvements, including vCard support, an option to remove mail from a POP server after x days and a preference for placing the user's signature above quoted text when composing an email or newsgroup posting. For more information, see the Mozilla 1.6 Alpha Release Notes. This latest release can be downloaded from the mozilla.org Releases page or directly from the mozilla1.6a directory on ftp.mozilla.org.

Update: The original Windows builds did not contain the Personal Security Manager, which enables encryption for services such as HTTPS and secure IMAP. This error has now been corrected and new builds are available. Windows users who have had problems accessing secure Web pages or using other secure Internet protocols should re-download.


#1 Firebird/Thunderbird

by hao2lian

Friday October 31st, 2003 6:13 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm, no Firebird/Thunderbird replacement. I'm so suprised. =)

#13 Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:29 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, as I'm sure you are kidding, as you are very long time and loyal member, being sincere... If you would just use the "nightlies" of each - Firebird and Thunderbird - you'd HAVE "precisely" this 1.6a as well!!! Because, I'm running them, and others on my machine, as I mess with tons of variations, and Thunderbird 0.4a 20031030, which is based on 1.6a, does in fact have everything, including vcard, etc., that 1.6a mentions in the Release Notes as available for Mail/News...

Just a short fyi - in case others didn't know this - and might wish to try FB/TB - they need to use the "nightlies" to get the features of 1.6a though... However, I also enjoy the "Suite" - as it does in fact include everything all together - and have used it for several years - I just usually am not a heavy poster, because of major family medical needs.

#16 Re: Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:34 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry Hao2lian, didn't mean 'you personally' when I said if YOU would use the nightlies - because I know that YOU do test regularly... I meant that in a general way - just wanted to clarify that. Sorry for the mis-statement.

#17 Re: Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:35 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry Hao2lian, didn't mean 'you personally' when I said if YOU would use the nightlies - because I know that YOU do test regularly... I meant that in a general way - just wanted to clarify that. Sorry for the mis-statement.

#15 Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:33 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, as I'm sure you are kidding, as you are very long time and loyal member, being sincere... If you would just use the "nightlies" of each - Firebird and Thunderbird - you'd HAVE "precisely" this 1.6a as well!!! Because, I'm running them, and others on my machine, as I mess with tons of variations, and Thunderbird 0.4a 20031030, which is based on 1.6a, does in fact have everything, including vcard, etc., that 1.6a mentions in the Release Notes as available for Mail/News...

Just a short fyi - in case others didn't know this - and might wish to try FB/TB - they need to use the "nightlies" to get the features of 1.6a though... However, I also enjoy the "Suite" - as it does in fact include everything all together - and have used it for several years - I just usually am not a heavy poster, because of major family medical needs.

#37 Re: Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by wvh <wouter-mozzine@fort-knox.rave.org>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 6:13 PM

Reply to this message

Is all of that double-posting also a "nightlies" feature? ;)

#42 Re: Firebird/Thunderbird

by slugs

Monday November 3rd, 2003 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

Hao2lian? Sounds familiar... u in sillypore?

#2 Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by jelwell

Friday October 31st, 2003 7:39 PM

Reply to this message

From the mozilla roadmap, Item #3: "...The major changes after 1.4 involve switching to Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird, and working aggressively on the next two item". What's going on? oh well.

<http://mozilla.org/roadmap.html>

joe.

#4 Re: Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by nonpareility <jbird3000@hotmail.com>

Friday October 31st, 2003 10:28 PM

Reply to this message

Try the Firebird roadmap. It's newer.

<http://www.mozilla.org/pr…cts/firebird/roadmap.html>

#8 just use them ...

by johann_p

Saturday November 1st, 2003 2:29 AM

Reply to this message

nobody keeps you from using FB/TB - but users of the suite (and there are many who still prefer the suite, mabe more than FB/TB users) like to see that one get improved and made more stable too.

#3 Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by zevious

Friday October 31st, 2003 8:39 PM

Reply to this message

If you want Firebird and Thunderbird, just use them . (Like the rest of us)

#14 Re: Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:32 AM

Reply to this message

"Like the rest of us"

Incorrect! I guess you've never actually seen the number of downloads for mozilla suit builds!?!

#21 Re: Re: Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 10:20 AM

Reply to this message

>Like the rest of us

>>Incorrect! I guess you've never actually seen >>the number of downloads for mozilla suit builds!?!

Actually, Firebird download numbers are swiftly approaching SeaMonkey download numbers (at about 70% right now) and Firebird is still clearly labeled a "technology preview". There are certainly more SeaMonkey downloads of 1.5 than of Firebird 0.7, but to suggest with a couple of exclamation points and a question mark ("!?!") that to compare the two was rediculous is, I think, over-reaching a bit. Firebird is very nearly as popular as SeaMonkey.

--Asa

--Asa

#23 yes, though ...

by johann_p

Saturday November 1st, 2003 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

there are probably more channels to get Mozilla than just the direct downloads. Mozilla gets mirrored more often and is included in many linux distros. I also know many cases where MozillaSuite is used in companies or research institutes (where it is much more popular than FB/TB), where only one copy is downloaded but many people use it, so download stats should always been taken with a grain of salt, no matter what you want to prove with them :)

#29 Re: yes, though ...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 7:37 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm. zevious said: "If you want Firebird and Thunderbird, just use them . (Like the rest of us)" where surely "Like the rest of us" meant "the rest of us that are using Firebird and Thunderbird even though they are not yet the primary mozilla.org release or are not yet final (1.0) releases" to which bugs4hj somewhat defensively responeded: "I guess you've never actually seen the number of downloads for mozilla suit builds!?!" to which I responded: "Actually, Firebird download numbers are swiftly approaching SeaMonkey download numbers" to which you responded: "download stats should always been taken with a grain of salt, no matter what you want to prove with them".

Maybe you meant to respond to bugs4hj and not me?

--Asa

#31 Re: Re: Re: Yeah, what happened to firebird?

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 4:51 AM

Reply to this message

First of all, I am responding to your comment, and not to others, just to clear the sky ;)

Thanks for filling the number in, because I know a lot of others like to know where the suit stands, and it seems pretty stable. Now, I did not write/say that the comparation is rediculous, because that was you, and not me. What I wrote was that not everybody is using MFB/MTB, and that statement still stands, and is backuped by your: "There are certainly more SeaMonkey downloads of 1.5 than of Firebird 0.7"

It is good to see Mozilla Firebird is going well, but lets remember one thing. A lot of people still use older browser software, and that can be prooven statistically, so prior SeaMonkey and Netscape versions (6/7) are still out there and in use and that can also be prooven with stats. However, Mozilla FB/TB is still young/new, like you said: "technology preview" so we will have to wait about 2/3 years, if not longer, before we know the real usage stats.

I hope everything works out well for SeaMonkey and the rest, but I was only trying to say: "No, not everybody is using MFB/MTB", just for people that might think otherwise.

Again, thank you Asa, for clearing the sky, with your download stats, I am still a happy man (the suit still lives), /HJ

#20 The rest of us here uses MozillaSuite

by johann_p

Saturday November 1st, 2003 9:50 AM

Reply to this message

There are still many people out there who prefer the suite for many reasons.

#5 it's great

by quarsan

Friday October 31st, 2003 11:01 PM

Reply to this message

it seems to be working very well. the delete after x days mail option is great for a work account i use on several machines. there seem to be some improvements in composer too - it shows source code with less hashing, for a start.

i do think that firebird and thunderbird are great products, but i prefer a suite of applications that i use online. i do hope the moz suite continues to develop. it really does get better and better

#6 Win32 is busted ...

by Matti

Saturday November 1st, 2003 12:46 AM

Reply to this message

The Win32 build is missing PSM (Personal Security Manager) due to a configure error. You can't access any HTTPS/SSL sites with it..

I hope we get a new build in the next days.

Additional Note : The Suite is better if you use both, Browser and Mail (TB+FB are using more memory together as the Suite)

#9 Re:Win32 is busted

by hstark

Saturday November 1st, 2003 4:53 AM

Reply to this message

Is there a work around to get PSM installed. I would like the other features but need PSM.

#10 Re: Re:Win32 is busted

by mlefevre

Saturday November 1st, 2003 5:47 AM

Reply to this message

Not really - the PSM just isn't there.

I'm sure the Mozilla folks will get a fixed build up there soon - maybe Monday. If you can't wait that long, you could get the build before, which will be pretty much the same as 1.6a, from <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…htly/2003-10-28-04-trunk/>

#11 Re: Re: Re: Re:Win32 is busted

by hstark

Saturday November 1st, 2003 5:50 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks, I'll wait

#12 Re: Win32 is busted ...

by warpozio

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

Is that the reason why win1.6a is almost 1 megabyte smaller then win1.5?

#25 Re: Re: Win32 is busted ...

by mlefevre

Saturday November 1st, 2003 12:56 PM

Reply to this message

Yes.

It has got slightly smaller since Mozilla 1.5, which was 11.9M. The pre-1.6a nightly build from just before the release (which is the size 1.6a should be) is 11.8M. The broken 1.6a release build is just 11.2M.

#7 Read moz zine

by sime

Saturday November 1st, 2003 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

Ive lost the mozillaZine article link but the intergration (whatever you want to call it) will be [something along the lines of] implemented in the 'first quarter of 2004'.

#18 Re: Read moz zine

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:48 AM

Reply to this message

#24 Re: Read moz zine

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 11:10 AM

Reply to this message

"Ive lost the mozillaZine article link but the intergration (whatever you want to call it) will be [something along the lines of] implemented in the 'first quarter of 2004'."

<http://www.mozillazine.or…articles/article3833.html>

Chris Blizzard's comments, near the bottom.

Alex

#19 I apologize to everyone for my 4 posts under Hao's

by eturnal

Saturday November 1st, 2003 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

This is the VERY first time I've EVER posted in the MozillaZine "actual" page, rather than the forums - so, I'm not used to (at all) how to do it - and when I scrolled back up and saw that they had each posted 2 times - I felt horrible, honestly - so, since I don't know how to "delete" them, if that is even possible - I at least wanted to apologize, and let you know that it's only because I'm not used to "these" posts. I'm really sorry - I would never do that!!! Thanks. Eturnal. :-(

#22 Don't sweat it.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

Don't worry. Some of us that post here a lot still accidentally multiple post. There's no way for a user to remove the posting but it doesn't really hurt anything so I wouldn't worry.

--Asa

#40 Re: Don't sweat it.

by max_spicer

Monday November 3rd, 2003 3:48 AM

Reply to this message

How does multi-posting happen? Is it because reloading the page after you've submitted resumbits your post? I would reload to try, but I don't want to fall foul of it myself.

#26 Win32 builds fixed

by mlefevre

Saturday November 1st, 2003 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

The original Windows builds were missing the PSM (which handles encryption for secure sites and passwords), as mentioned in comments above. Those broken builds have now been replaced with complete ones, so if you got a duff one then try downloading again now!

#27 Win32 builds fixed

by mlefevre

Saturday November 1st, 2003 5:26 PM

Reply to this message

The original Windows builds were missing the PSM (which handles encryption for secure sites and passwords), as mentioned in comments above. Those broken builds have now been replaced with complete ones, so if you got a duff one then try downloading again now!

#28 usercontent.css breaks pages

by BjarneDM <mozilla@mathiesen.info>

Saturday November 1st, 2003 5:36 PM

Reply to this message

I've had to delete the chrome/usercontent.css stylesheet from all of my profiles. For some reason, it broke several pages badly, in particular <http://trafikinfo.hur.dk/> . So, if you experience strange behaviour with a webpage 1) not displaying parts of the page 2) some elements placed incorrectly - this might be the cause. I don't know how I got a usercontent.css in my chrome folder. I has to have been created by etiher one of the *.xpi's I habitually install or Mozilla.

#33 Re: usercontent.css breaks pages

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

"I don't know how I got a usercontent.css in my chrome folder."

Bjarne, do you use BannerBlind because that overwrites, or installs a new copy, of usercontent.css, at least that is what they told me...

/HJ

#34 Serious Bookmarks Bugs

by BjarneDM <mozilla@mathiesen.info>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 9:40 AM

Reply to this message

I *did* use BannerBlind, but not in a while - not since 1.5b due to <http://mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4580> . But having said that, usercontent.css might have survived. Hmmm ... maybe I should try to see if having deleted usercontent.css solves the IRC problem too !?!

#35 usercontent.css & BannerBlind

by BjarneDM <mozilla@mathiesen.info>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

Nope - no success :-( the conflict is still there even when having removed usercontent.css

#30 POP3 deleting

by gadeiros <Harald@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 4:04 AM

Reply to this message

When will it be possible to download and display email headers only from a POP3 email account and delete selected corresponding emails, without downloading them completely, while downloading the remaining wanted ones ?

This is the most wanted feature of some people I know preventing them from using Mozilla mail.

Is there already a bug/wishlist item for this ? Any plan for implementing this ?

#32 Re: POP3 deleting

by max_spicer

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 7:01 AM

Reply to this message

I seem to remember finding a bug with this request in it, but can't remember the number I'm afraid. It's true that this would be a great feature in any email program, and I'm always surprised by the apparent lack of any program that can do it. Providing that the pop3 server implements the optional top command, this is a simple thing to do manually. I've always assumed that there is a good reason why email programs don't offer this, but have never found out what it is!

#36 Re: Re: POP3 deleting

by gadeiros <Harald@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 10:32 AM

Reply to this message

Pegasus does this since a couple of years.

And there are tools like "Mailbox Dispatcher" who can do this (but nothing else).

#38 Re: Re: POP3 deleting

by tseelee

Sunday November 2nd, 2003 7:37 PM

Reply to this message

#39 Re: Re: Re: POP3 deleting

by max_spicer

Monday November 3rd, 2003 3:46 AM

Reply to this message

Excellent, thank you.

#41 Re: Re: Re: Re: POP3 deleting

by gadeiros <Harald@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>

Monday November 3rd, 2003 4:15 AM

Reply to this message

The question is:

Is there any work in progress or at least planned to CLOSE (=implement/fix) this bug/feature wish ?

BTW, I would have let one of the other duplicates open, which describe better for what it's good (although this feature could be used for a couple of reasons).

#43 POP3 deleting

by leafdigital

Tuesday November 4th, 2003 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

I would assume that no particular work is in progress unless you see recent comments to that effect in the bug.

My guess would be that this functionality would be best suited as an extension, rather than a core part of TB. I agree that it's very useful functionality though, so I think it would be good to see it as an in-house developed, supported, and recommended extension. But it does seem like an 'icing on the cake' feature so I wouldn't think it should be treated as a priority until TB nears 1.0.

--sam

#44 Mozilla user-agent stats on our web-site

by Jeex

Wednesday November 5th, 2003 7:56 AM

Reply to this message

Just thought you might be interested to note that we've seen a steady increase in the number of Gecko-based user-agents (Mozilla 1.X mainly) to our global public web-site over the last three months. Our site is not a techy site (a la slashdot), so hopefully these stats are more meaningful than they might be otherwise...

Here are the stats: - Aug 2003: 2.76% (Total hits on the site: 407K) - Sep 2003: 4.18% (Total hits on the site: 476K) - Oct 2003: 7.92% (Total hits on the site: 486K)

In line with these numbers, the combined amount of hits from MSIE 5/6 user-agents dropped by over 7% in those three months (from 85% to 77%). Opera hits rose slightly over the period - latest total was 1.01%...

Good news - hopefully this is the case across the web!

Cheers,

-- James

#45 Signature above text

by hensema <erik@hensema.net>

Wednesday November 5th, 2003 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Greetings, Erik.

A signature above the quoted text is lame. Very, very lame.

#46 Re: Signature above text

by dave532

Friday November 7th, 2003 4:12 AM

Reply to this message

Blame Microsoft for this and many other examples of bad email etiquette that have since somehow become 'business convention'.

I don't think there's even any way on Outlook (Express) that lets you bottom post, certainly the email reply format Outlook uses (it uses the same style for replies and forwards) doesn't encourage proper quoting.