MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.7 Release Candidate 2 Available

Monday May 17th, 2004

The Mozilla Foundation has made Mozilla 1.7 Release Candidate 2 available for download. Like the first release candidate, which came out last month, this build is designed to ensure that there are no major bugs remaining before the final release of Mozilla 1.7. The Mac OS X version of RC 2 now includes the Quality Feedback Agent (Talkback) crash reporting tool, bringing it in to line with Windows and Linux and making it much easier for developers to pinpoint the causes of crashes.

1.7 RC 2 will probably be followed by a further release candidate before the final launch of Mozilla 1.7. After the milestone ships, the 1.7 branch will replace the 1.4 branch as the stable development baseline, with Mozilla Firefox 1.0 and the next major version of Netscape expected to be built from it. More information about this latest release candidate can be found in the Mozilla 1.7 RC 2 Release Notes and builds are available from the Releases page or the mozilla1.7rc2 directory on ftp.mozilla.org.


#1 Linux gtk1 build

by zero0w

Monday May 17th, 2004 12:17 PM

Reply to this message

First, congratulation on releasing a new rc build for the best Mozilla version ever.

I have just downloaded and installed 1.7rc2 on my Linux box. When installation is completed, I encountered this error message:

"nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(libnegotiateauth.so) Load FAILED with error: libcom_err.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory"

Is there anything wrong with this?

Otherwise, browsing the web so far everything is OK.

#2 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by buff

Monday May 17th, 2004 1:45 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm. I can't reproduce that error on linux with 1.7rc2. I am using Fedora Core 1. Possibly you need to remove your preference files under the directory .mozilla and try running it again.

While I still follow the old suite builds I feel like there is so little new stuff going on in them. I just want to know when the next release of Firefox is coming. Now that is interesting news.

-Mark

#3 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by Gnu

Monday May 17th, 2004 2:09 PM

Reply to this message

The next suite release is directly tied to the next Firefox release. Firefox will branch into pre-0.9 when the Mozilla 1.7 code goes final, since Firefox is intended to be based on the final Mozilla 1.7 stable code. Mozilla 0.9 will be "feature-complete", then 1.0 will basically just entail the tidying up.

#10 Re: Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by mlefevre

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

Actually that's technically not quite right (and neither is the article I guess). A branch has just been created for Firefox and Thunderbird so that 0.9 development isn't held up waiting for 1.7 final to happen. So Firefox 0.9 will be based on 1.7RC2, although fixes that go onto the 1.7 branch from now should get applied to the "Aviary 1.0" branch as well, so there shouldn't be too much difference in practice.

#4 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by thomas

Monday May 17th, 2004 2:16 PM

Reply to this message

I can reproduce the error with SuSE Linux 8.0:

# ./mozilla-installer nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(talkback.so) Load FAILED with error: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(libnegotiateauth.so) Load FAILED with error: libgssapi_krb5.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(talkback.so) Load FAILED with error: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(libnegotiateauth.so) Load FAILED with error: libgssapi_krb5.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(talkback.so) Load FAILED with error: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nsNativeComponentLoader: SelfRegisterDll(libnegotiateauth.so) Load FAILED with error: libgssapi_krb5.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

#5 mozilla (QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.

by thomas

Monday May 17th, 2004 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

and when i start mozilla, i get this message: $ mozilla (QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.

#55 (QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.

by burlagadda

Thursday July 8th, 2004 1:10 AM

Reply to this message

I even get the same error mesg. Any fix for this.

Thanks in advance, Ravi <ravi@atc.tcs.co.in>

#56 Re: (QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.

by Tzimisce

Tuesday July 27th, 2004 5:48 PM

Reply to this message

I get the same error too when i launch mozilla form a standard user account, but it's run perfectly when i launch it as root... What's wrong? Any body have an idea?

#57 Re: (QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.

by cgmusselman

Saturday January 15th, 2005 2:20 PM

Reply to this message

I get the same message when I try to run Mozilla for the first time as root on Fedora.

#58 libgssapi_krb5.so

by hossain9

Wednesday May 10th, 2006 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

Installed the rpm from this site <http://rpmfind.net/linux/…query=libgssapi_krb5.so.2>

and in /usr/lib # cp libgssapi_krb5.so.2 libgssapi_krb5.so worked for me.

#6 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by yglodt

Monday May 17th, 2004 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

> Re: Linux gtk1 build

anyway who in 2004 is using mozilla on a gtk1 system? INHO just drop gtk1 in favor of gtk2...

#7 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by thomas

Monday May 17th, 2004 2:57 PM

Reply to this message

1. I have no current GTK2 libraries on my SuSE 8.0 system, an I do not have the desire to install them. 2. The GTK1 build are the official releases of mozilla.org 3. There is no current GTK2-build of Mozilla 1.7rc2 available: <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…a/releases/mozilla1.7rc2/>

#18 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by bzbarsky

Monday May 17th, 2004 6:27 PM

Reply to this message

The last time I tried this (six months back), I decided that the gtk2 builds were just too buggy (crashy, mostly, at the time). Since then, I've seen little incentive to invest the time I'd need to invest to switch. What are the benefits for me of using a GTK2 build, other than buzzword-compliance? (Assuming I tell you up front that I don't care much about gnome-vfs integration and GTK theming, of course.)

#21 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by zero0w

Monday May 17th, 2004 7:33 PM

Reply to this message

> anyway who in 2004 is using mozilla on a gtk1 system?

When you want to browse in non-AA mode without altering the rest of the system or XFree86/X11 setting.

#24 Re: Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by james

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 12:51 AM

Reply to this message

You can do that with the gtk2/Xft build as well. Just create another fontconfig config file and set the FONTCONFIG_FILE environment variable to point at it, then start mozilla.

Your new fontconfig config file could just include /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and then turn off antialiasing. See the fonts-conf(5) man page for details.

#25 Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by zero0w

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for the advice but I wanted to do that _without_ altering the rest of the system or XFree86/X11 setting.

#8 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by mvl

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:06 PM

Reply to this message

afaik, that isn't a problem. It means certain authentication mechanisms (kerberos related) won't be available. Likely, you don't even need them. So, as long as mozilla works fine, don't worry.

#11 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by fuzzygorilla

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

Excuse me, but Mozilla is now an End User Product. It is not okay for end user products to spit out meaningless warning or error messages. Either it is a bug that is causing the messages or it is a bug that the messages are being spit out with no cause. In either case, these are precisely the reason for having release candidate builds. However, Mozillazine is not a substitute for Bugzilla. If you are having problems, open a bugzilla bug and add a note to the message thread on Mozillazine with the bug number (so interested readers can follow up without having to waste time searching bugzilla).

#12 Re: Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by roseman

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:31 PM

Reply to this message

right side of mozillazine page is: FORUMS -- <http://forums.mozillazine.org/> is another good place to post problems, or ask questions, though start with bugzilla :)

#13 Re: Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by mlefevre

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:39 PM

Reply to this message

My understanding is that Mozilla does consider it to be a problem, and so the message wouldn't be a bug. mvl is just saying that the fact that it is broken probably won't affect normal usage.

If you want a user-support type answer, then it's probably something like "your system doesn't meet the minimum requirements for Mozilla - we can't help with that, you need to fix your system". But saying that is probably less helpful than advising that the message can be safely ignored in 99.99% of cases.

In my limited experience, it's not all that unusual for programs on Linux to spit out messages which can be ignored.

#17 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by darinwf

Monday May 17th, 2004 4:38 PM

Reply to this message

This is nothing to be alarmed by. It means that your Linux system does not have the system libraries required to support the negotiate authentication protocol. You'd know if that was important to you. The code is behaving as designed; however, the error message probably does not belong in a release build. We have optional logging facilities that should probably be enabled instead.

Also, this should only occur after the first launch. Can you confirm that that is indeed the case?

#20 Re: Re: Linux gtk1 build

by zero0w

Monday May 17th, 2004 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

The error message occured only after installation.

It does not occur anymore when I launch it again in console.

#48 Re: Linux gtk1 build

by zero0w

Wednesday May 19th, 2004 12:22 AM

Reply to this message

Another Linux gtk1 specific problem is that <apostrophe> symbol is shown as <box> in Mozilla 1.7 rc1, rc2. This problem is registered as bug 232026. Hopefully it can be fixed before releasing 1.7 final. Note that this problem does not exist in Mozilla 1.6.

Apostrophes on some web site show up as squares: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232026>

#9 FTP upload now included??

by zookqvalem

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:14 PM

Reply to this message

In Moz 1.7 RC1, FTP upload isn't included but the FTP upload code had been checked into the 1.7 branch a while ago. So, is it now included in 1.7 RC2 or not yet???

Zook

#16 Re: FTP upload now included??

by mlefevre

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, it is. Browse to an ftp URL, and then check the file menu.

#14 Next major Netscape release?

by max_spicer

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:40 PM

Reply to this message

What next major Netscape release? I thought NS releases were now history. Then again, it can't take much effort to slap their icons in etc...

#15 Re: Next major Netscape release?

by mlefevre

Monday May 17th, 2004 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

#19 Re: Re: Next major Netscape release?

by zookqvalem

Monday May 17th, 2004 6:54 PM

Reply to this message

The ZD-Net article just nailed it when it said AOL realized that it need Netscape to keep AOL from sinking and keep AOL end-user in.

#22 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by PC1

Monday May 17th, 2004 8:26 PM

Reply to this message

but how will it run on my old 233Mhz compaq laptop?

I installed Sarge on a partition and on both the Win98, and the Sarge (Kernel 2.6.5-1) systems, Opera 7.50 came out twice as fast (at least in startup) as FireFox. I am hesitant to install Mozilla 1.7 and would rather wait for the new FireFox to come out. I would like to mention that on Win, Opera 6.06 is twice as fast as their 7.50 version!

#31 Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 8:39 AM

Reply to this message

Runs great on my old 381 Mhz Compaq laptop.

233 Mhz should be enough. If it's slow, add RAM. Max it out.

Wouldn't hurt to put in a new hard drive either (more disk space = lower seek time = faster swap file = faster virtual memory).

#35 Re: Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 9:33 AM

Reply to this message

"Runs great" except that the performance regressions mentioned below are slowing it down.

#36 Re: Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by PC1

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

I have a Compaq Presario 1681 233Mhz pentium (not even pentium II). with 96MB RAM (Max possible) and 96MB SWAP. The hard disk is a Fujitsu 3.2-GB 2.5-Inch Hard-Disk Drive (MHA2032AT) 4000 rpm with only 128KB cache (the only link is to a dell site): <http://support.ap.dell.co…s/storage/86135/Specs.htm>

hdparm resulted in mild improvement (Timing buffer-cache reads: ~90MB & Timing buffered disk reads: increased (only) from ~380KB to ~960KB on average). On "hdparm -i /dev/hda", the cache still reads 0. The hard disk parameters look pathetic. I am wondering if it is worth getting a new hard disk, which brand, and if it would be easy for me to replace it.

Thanks

#40 Re: Re: Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

The real question is how much free space is on the disk. If it is more than 50% free, that should be good.

A new drive would probably keep the machine useful for a longer period of time. To upgrade, I would drop in at your local computer technie shop (locally owned, not big box corporate) and inquire about it. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot of time (days, weeks) in the upgrade process, it's better to spend a few extra bucks and let the pros take care of a hard drive upgrade.

#44 Re: Re: Re: Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by Malc

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 2:04 PM

Reply to this message

Without an extra IDE I/O card, the system might not be able to access all of a new hard drive.

#45 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by PC1

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 7:07 PM

Reply to this message

It seems a hassle to go thru that. The Win98 part works fine and I can still use the Desktop at home. I was wondering whether I made a mistake by installing the 2.6.5 kernel instead of the 2.4.26 (or even the 2.4.22 as in "DamnSmallLinux") on the laptop. The 2.6.5 on the Desktop is working fine and FireFox is as snappy as ever.

#39 Re: 7% Faster and 5% smaller

by bzbarsky

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 10:05 AM

Reply to this message

> Opera 6.06 is twice as fast as their 7.50 version!

And 7.50 does a lot more than 6.06. Of course Firefox does a lot more than Opera 7.50 in many areas (XML support, DOM, etc). So it's a matter of how much functionality you want -- the more you want the program to do, the more code it will take, and the longer it will take to load that code into memory at startup.

#23 Performance?

by cmhbytehead

Monday May 17th, 2004 8:57 PM

Reply to this message

Is anybody else struck by performance issues in this release? Running on a 450MHZ P3 Windows 2000 system with 384 MB. RC1 was nice and snappy. RC2 is middle click, get an Untitled tab, wait about 3 seconds, and THEN it starts to load the page. Closing a tab takes 2 seconds. Switching tabs seems to be slow as well. Yeah, I know, slow PC, but I didn't have this with RC1.

I also got caught in popup hell, and I'll be posting a bug for that.

#30 Re: Performance?

by roseman

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 7:10 AM

Reply to this message

with 1.6mhz p3 w98se 512M i find rc2 at least as snappy as rc1 was, if not a sneeze better. prolly the same, but without the worries about the "download error" false positive warning when saving image from web page to disk.

#32 yeah

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, there were some performance regressions between RC1 and RC2.

#33 Re: yeah

by mlefevre

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 9:26 AM

Reply to this message

There were? Can't say I've noticed any myself, or seen any bugs. Are there bugs filed for whatever regressions you're talking about?

#34 bugs

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 9:31 AM

Reply to this message

#37 Re: bugs

by jgraham

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

I was under the impression those were 1.8a branch bugs?

#38 Re: bugs

by bzbarsky

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 10:04 AM

Reply to this message

Please look at bonsai before making claims like that. Those bugs are due to a checkin that never landed on the 1.7 branch, so they aren't in RC2.

#41 Re: Re: bugs

by morg

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 10:18 AM

Reply to this message

Well, that's good. RC2 still seems slow.

#42 Re: Re: Re: bugs

by mlefevre

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 10:29 AM

Reply to this message

Well if you can pin down something that's definitely slower, file a bug about it :)

Perceptions of things that "seem" slow don't help much. Could be down to some small difference on a computer, a difference in performance somewhere on the internet, a difference in server loads, a difference in what happens to be in the cache, a difference in how the user is feeling, the weather, or just about anything else. The numbers say that RC1 and RC2 are the same in performance terms, and my own perception is that that would be right, but...

#43 Re: Re: Re: Re: bugs

by roseman

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 11:04 AM

Reply to this message

small changes in perceived speeds with new version... could it be due to a hard disk that was defragmented after previous version installed; then used for a while.. disk gets fragmented... then new version installed on a fragmented disk. new one will seem to run a bit slower (at least load slower, and any time it reads disk will be a little less efficient). this could make small difference in perceived performance ?

#49 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bugs

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Wednesday May 19th, 2004 1:00 AM

Reply to this message

Two small tips:

1) you can speedup mozilla's startup time by adding /prefetch:1 i.e. mozilla -nosplash /prefetch:1 - no need for QuickLaunch with this

2) make sure "nglayout.debug.disable_xul_cache" is set to false

#50 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bugs

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Wednesday May 19th, 2004 1:04 AM

Reply to this message

Oops, but the #1 tip doesn't work on windows 98se but WinXP

#26 EML messages import/save ?

by moondog_x

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 2:01 AM

Reply to this message

Hello, here I go again : ) Still can't find a way to reopen the eml files I save from MozillaMail. the bug was somehow patched in thunderbird 0.6, but it's really not something to be taken seriously.....you can only view a prevously saved message, one at a time, and you can't even save it in mail folders : (

What's expected is good'ol drag and drop. Drag the eml on your thunderbird/MozillaMail folder and have it copied there.

Or else REMOVE the "save as file" command, which looks like a joke when one realizes you can't import your messages back into the program that saved them in the first place.

#27 UI for multiple identities per account?

by marsje

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 4:50 AM

Reply to this message

I thought the UI for multiple identities per account was checked in as well, but I guess that was in de 1.8a branch. Can anyone confirm that?

#28 FTP upload now included??

by zookqvalem

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 6:19 AM

Reply to this message

In Moz 1.7 RC1, FTP upload isn't included but the FTP upload code had been checked into the 1.7 branch a while ago. So, is it now included in 1.7 RC2 or not yet???

Zook

#29 Re: FTP upload now included??

by marsje

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 6:39 AM

Reply to this message

It's included. I tried it and it works. Go to a ftp site and go to File -> Upload File... But unfortunatelly no drag and drop support yet and no support for multiple files or directories. So one file at a time.

#46 RC-1 ? What about RC-2 ?

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 8:18 PM

Reply to this message

"When compared to Mozilla 1.6, Mozilla 1.7 RC 1 is 7% faster at startup, is 8% faster at window open time, has 9% faster pageloading times, and is 5% smaller in binary size."

See also: <http://www.mozilla.org/re…lla1.7rc2/README.html#new>

#47 Re: RC-1 ? What about RC-2 ?

by bzbarsky

Tuesday May 18th, 2004 8:42 PM

Reply to this message

Are you asking about the numbers? They're the same for RC1 as for RC2.

If you mean the page should be fixed, you may want to mail the page's maintainer....

#51 Re: Re: RC-1 ? What about RC-2 ?

by bugs4hj <bugs4hj@netscape.net>

Wednesday May 19th, 2004 1:22 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for the info Boris. Oh, and Asa should have my e-mail by now.

#52 bug 47838 still no pasting images four years on

by lkjhgfdsa <zxcvbnm114@dcemail.com>

Wednesday May 19th, 2004 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

It's fixed in thunderbird but still no pasting of clipboard images into email. Outlook has it, netscape 4 had it even thunderbird has it but no mozilla mail.. Four years of waiting, promises of money to no avail. Still nothing. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47838>

#53 Netscape?

by ryaxnb <tfgtotiah@msn.com>

Friday May 21st, 2004 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape?!?!?!!?! I thought Netscape was dead and 7.1 was to be the last version.

#54 Re: Netscape?

by tseelee

Sunday May 23rd, 2004 6:53 PM

Reply to this message

It's revived recently. Although AOL's not contributing to the Mozilla development still. (What are you doing with an msn.com addy?)