Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 1.2 Unleashed 693

Posted by timothy from the shaftoe's-lizard-vision dept.
asa writes "Mozilla 1.2 has just been released. New to this version are features like Type Ahead Find, basic toolbar customization (text/icons/both), support for GTK themes on Linux, multiple tabs as startpage, Link Prefetching, "filter after the fact" and filter logging in Mail, Palm sync for Mozilla addressbook on MS Windows, and more. This is the latest stable release from mozilla.org, and all users of Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla 1.0.1, Mozilla 1.1 or any of the alpha/beta/release candidates are encouraged to upgrade to this release. You can get builds and more info at the Mozilla releases page and you can find daily Mozilla news and discussion at mozillaZine.org."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.2 Unleashed More

Mozilla 1.2 Unleashed

Comments Filter:

  • Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rpjs ( 126615 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:00AM (#4766147)
    Now that we have Phoenix, I mean...

    • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ciryon ( 218518 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:03AM (#4766156) Journal
      I'm using Phoenix in Linux but Mozilla in Mac OS X.

      Mozilla is a good, stable browser with lot's of plugins available. It you have a fast computer it's probably a better choice than Phoenix.

      Ciryon

      • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:49AM (#4767031) Homepage Journal
        Mozilla is a good, stable browser with lot's of plugins available. It you have a fast computer it's probably a better choice than Phoenix.

        Phoenix doesn't build whatever I've tried. So I use Mozilla. Mostly.

        I've stopped using Mozilla mail client, once Evolution evolved finally to what it is now - Outlook killer for Linux users.

        I am not interesting in plugins, but, very rarely, when there is no way arount to get to the site rather than through stupid flash - I use Opera. On the same platform with the same plugin binaries Opera works. Mozilla doesn't. I mean Mozilla doesn't work with plugins out of the box - the best is it shows the flash (somehow, in ery bad quality), but any mouse click on it sends Mozilla to the crash.

        Basically, the only way to call Mozilla 1.x stable is when you don't use it for anything else besides HTML browsing. Everything else (mail, calendar, custom built XUL forms) will crash Mozilla sooner or later. With HTML it's oppositely different - it shows more than 20 tabs in 3-5 windows for weeks on my testing Linux box without crashing. And if it's getting slower - I just restart (close-open-load) some of tabs. Opera is far bellow such stability level. With HTML.

        Everything above is true for Linux. On Windows, I use Mozilla with plugins without such problems - it's stable. And when I name plugins, I mean Flash and Java. So, the problem with plugins is the problem with Linux binary plugin code, not with Mozilla. Perhaps, both Macromedia and Sun have no interest in Linux platform, but have very strong interest to keep their source code closed.

        P.S. But why Opera (by the way, also distributed in binary code) works with same binary plugins better than Mozilla?

    • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:06AM (#4766167) Journal
      Actually, as Phoenix is a cut-down version of Mozilla, it means we shall soon "type ahead" with it too.
      BTW, Mozilla is better for those who also want an integrated mailer, we're not discussing the very same app, here...
    • Well seeing as phoenix uses the gecko rendering engine, any improvements to Mozilla/Gecko will get incorporated into pheonix, so development on Mozilla is good for Phoenix....

    • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:10AM (#4766179)
      Er, yes. I find Moz to be plenty fast enough, and I use a truckload of extensions which don't quite work in Pheonix yet.

      I don't really see what all the fuss is about, I'm using XFT builds for Redhat 8 that Blizzard puts out and they're snappy and look great. I did try Phoenix when I was on Windows, but found it to be no faster than Mozilla but with fewer features. I might try it again in a bit, but Moz is just fine for me.

      I'm waiting on Galeon 2 myself, at least then it'll integrate well with gnome.

    • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:25AM (#4766229) Journal
      Sure. You want a web browser these days, you use Phoenix. You want a "communications suite" that lets you chat, send email, etc, you get Mozilla. Different goals.

      Of course, since you change a single #define and then compile Moz to get Phoenix, I'm not sure that you can really say that you aren't using Mozilla...

      • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:4, Informative)

        by colinramsay ( 603167 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:35AM (#4766261) Homepage
        Not true. From the Phoenix 0.4 release notes:
        Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite? It's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.
        Phoenix is just Mozilla with a couple UI tweaks. We wonder when people will stop saying this. 30,000 lines of code have already been added or changed from Mozilla. We've forked the global history and download manager backends. And XHTML2 is coming to Phoenix.
    • I do and will continue to do so, actually I use the daily builds with the spam filter. I really like Mozilla and it's mailer is just great for me - nothing flashy or fancy.

      Oh, I run it on a machine with 512Mb RAM so Mozilla doesn't seem like that much of a hog.
    • Yes, I use it to read my mail. Since that doesn't need so much speed, it is fine. Probably will never be my browser.

      Then again, I don't use Phoenix either - though I do try every new release to see if I could switch to it. Not yet is all I can say.

      What I do use? IE and Opera. They work great, render nicely and are fast. So, I can't block some ads? Big deal. At least maybe my favourite sites will be up for a few more weeks, due to them getting at least some money then.

      IE is still set to block ActiveX and scripting, third-party cookies etc. Those are the things that bother me. Not some images.

    • Re:Anyone still using Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:54AM (#4766673) Homepage
      The Mozilla html editor is TOP NOTCH. It has never crashed on me. The code it produces is human readable! If you just want a quick, straight-forward HTML page, it is the way to go. Pheonix can't do that.
      • Phoenix isn't SUPPOSED to do that! Phoenix is just a browser. Mozilla is a suite of internet applications that includes HTML authoring. Phoenix is just the browsing components of Mozilla stripped out and refined to provide a smaller, faster, simpler interface.

  • Xft support is there, but you've gotta work for it (Score:5, Informative)

    by AmunRa ( 166367 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:01AM (#4766149) Homepage

    Although XFT (Anti-aliased font) support is now in Mozilla 1.2, it is not enabled by default. you have to 'roll your own' and pass the appropiate configure flag (--enable-xft) to get it to work!

  • are we there? (Score:5, Informative)

    by muyuubyou ( 621373 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:02AM (#4766153)
    With Type Ahead Find and some IE skin [mozdev.org] we might port grandma to Mozilla without complaints.
    • I hate to spoil this, but it would appear that the IE theme won't work with Mozilla 1.2... or at least I can't get it to work.

      Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the modern theme.
    • Unless i am missing something NTLM support is still missing. In order to use mozilla I seill have to use an external proxy [geocities.com] to create NTLM support.

      Grand ma does not need it, but i need it to pass my company M$(or novell, i am not sure) proxy.

    • Re:are we there? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WWWWolf ( 2428 ) <wwwwolf@iki.fi> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:27AM (#4766233) Homepage
      With Type Ahead Find and some IE skin we might port grandma to Mozilla without complaints.

      And with Lo-Fi Classic skin [mozdev.org] it probably runs on my mother's computer (P166, Linux) without problems. And on my father's (Celeron 300, Win98SE) and mine (PIII-600, Linux/Win98SE) even better =)

      (I wonder why people complain that it "doesn't look like IE"? Lo-Fi is admittedly uglier than IE, but it at least honors system defaults and is damn fast, which is why I love it...)

    • Re:are we there? (Score:4, Funny)

      by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.fras[ ]name ['er.' in gap]> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @11:38AM (#4767496) Homepage
      >With Type Ahead Find and some IE skin we might port grandma to Mozilla without complaints.

      Actually I did port my grandma to Mozilla just over a year ago. Mapped the Mozilla icon for the IE icon, called it "The Internet" and moved her bookmarks. The only change she noticed was "that nice little dragon" on the splash page.

  • First install! (Score:5, Funny)

    by holviala ( 124278 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:04AM (#4766159)
    223.74 KB/s

  • With some limits (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Martigan80 ( 305400 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:04AM (#4766160) Journal
    Building on Mozilla's customizability, you can now show toolbars as text/icons/both (in the default Classic theme).

    So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

    • So not all things are available unless you use the classic theme-that sux.

      And boy, does the Classic theme suck. Why don't they make the modern theme a default? Someone installing Mozilla for the first time might be pushed away merely because of the classic theme...

  • Directory listing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ace Rimmer ( 179561 )
    One of the first things I noticed is great speed improvement. For example the directory listing
    (which used to take a few mugs of coffee) is now reasonably fast.

    Whoohoo. I can finally try to look inside a doxygen generated documentation on a local disc! ;)

  • New roadmap (Score:5, Informative)

    by edgrale ( 216858 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:06AM (#4766165)
    For those of you who are interested, here is a link to the new roadmap [mozilla.org]

    source: mozillazine.org [mozillazine.org]

    • Re:New roadmap (Score:2, Funny)

      by WWWWolf ( 2428 )

      New release? New roadmap? How soon before the clown at MozillaQuest [mozillaquest.com] releases an article like "Mozilla 1.2 is the buggiest release of the Browser-Suite ever, and the release of 1.0 is delayed even further?" Please don't mention Bugzilla or the article will get something about sweeping the bugs under the carpet or something =)

  • New flash player, too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darCness ( 151868 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:10AM (#4766180)
    In case you weren't aware, a new Flash player for GNU/Linux [macromedia.com]
    has been released too. It's recommended that you upgrade to this version if you're
    going to use Mozilla 1.2. Unfortunately, audio seems
    to be broken (at least for me under Mandrake GNU/Linux 8.1).

    I've filed a bug report with Macromedia about this. Keep
    it in mind if you upgrade.

    • Why is it that commercial vendors who say they support linux only provide packages for Red Hat?

      Last I heard, Red Hat only ran on x86. Or actually I remember they had an S/390 distro too.

      On other x86 distributions, you at least have the hope of using alien to switch the package format. But I use Debian on a PowerPC Macintosh.

      I'm pretty sure Macromedia wrote software for the Macintosh before they even had any products for Windows. Flash right now is supported on the Macintosh, so the software is supported on PowerPC architecture.

      How about getting us a Flash for Debian PowerPC Linux?

      The "Red Hat" only mentality is why I think there isn't much hope of companies succeeding in shipping proprietary products for Linux. People on other distros or architectures get particularly irritated that they can't do whatever the product provides and write an open source replacement, where they wouldn't have bothered if the commercial app supported all the platforms.

      If a bunch of volunteers working for no pay can support, what is it? 8000 packages on eleven architectures, why can't a commercial vendor support all the major Linux distros and architectures?

  • shame there aren't more users (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:12AM (#4766183) Journal
    less than 7% of my million monthly hits are something other than Internet Explorer

    it's a damn shame esp. when Mozilla is now the superior product.

    • how much of this is because people with 'alternative' browsers (like opera, for instance), change their reported browser tag?

      I, personally, have no idea, but I thought I'd throw this possibility out there

      -Om, Posting from Omniweb
      • Opera still reports itself as Opera, just fools crappily written browser checks.

        Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows 2000) Opera 7.0 [en]

        If your log analyzer can't handle that (nowadays), it is time to switch to one that actually get updates. Because this is how it has been at least since Opera 4. :)

    • Re:shame there aren't more users (Score:5, Interesting)

      by G-funk ( 22712 ) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:34AM (#4766258) Homepage Journal
      Mozilla now is like ie 3/4 at the time... A far better product to use (standard compliance not withstanding), but as stable as a 2 legged stool.

      I love mozilla, I use 1.0 all the time under linux at work, but it just can't cut the mustard when it comes to windows. It was a sad moment when I had to return the little "e" to my quicklaunch bar after a few weeks of bittersweet mozilla pain.

      • Re:shame there aren't more users (Score:4, Informative)

        by jonr ( 1130 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:45AM (#4766297) Homepage Journal
        The more I use Mozilla, the more I like it. A good mesure of a quality software (or anything else). IE feels like a toy browser now. Mozilla is stable, fast and support correct standards. I just don't understand what people are doing wrong to get Mozilla unstable, on my Atlhon 750/XP it runs for days.
        J.

      • Re:shame there aren't more users (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Plutor ( 2994 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:00AM (#4766365) Homepage
        I'm not entirely sure where you got this impression of Mozilla. I started using it around M8 or so, and at that point I would have agreed. But ever since it hit 1.0 (and even arguably before that), it has been as stable as MSIE. I have used Mozilla exclusively for my web browsing needs for the past couple years, and I could not be more happy with it. Cheers to asa and the rest of the Mozilla crew for making a high-quality product I'm extremely happy with!

        I can't remember the last time Mozilla crashed on me.

      • Re:shame there aren't more users (Score:5, Informative)

        by rseuhs ( 322520 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:19AM (#4766459)
        You should really try Phoenix. It's very stable (I only had 2 crashes in 2 or 3 months of near-exclusive use) and fast.

        Also very nice is the fact that Phoenix needs not to be installed. It just works anywhere you unzip it. No registry problems, no risk of destroying settings, etc. And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.

        So unlike most other browsers (including IE) you don't risk hosing your system when you install/upgrade.

        So I would really recommend you to give it a try.

  • Immediate theme change? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SurfsUp ( 11523 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:12AM (#4766184)
    What happened to it? The last time this worked was around 0.95 or so. Having to restart to change themes is, for one thing, primitive, and another, a pain in the butt.

    Anybody know what's going on here?
    • I'm using the same theme with 1.2 (orbit retro [mozdev.org]) that i was using for 1.2b... Apparently themes were broken between 1.2a and 1.2b, but no idea what will happen with 1.3a...

    • Re:Immediate theme change? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Christopher Whitt ( 74084 ) <cwhitt@NOsPaM.ieee.org> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:40AM (#4766594) Homepage
      The feature was called Dynamic Theme Switching or something like that. I can't get to bugzilla right now to search on it. I remember that it caused a whole pile of regressions and new bugs and it was backed out. I think there was an intention of giving it another try later, but I would say that any patches that are lying around are probably completely bit-rotted by now.

      When mozilla.org recovers from the 1.2 release and slashdotting, try searching for dynamic theme switching in bugzilla.

      Christopher

  • Running it now... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by haxor.dk ( 463614 )
    Moz 1.2 runs great. Fast, stable, the HTTP pipelining is a *gem*.

    And, of course, no M$ spyware.

    What more can a nerd want?
    • Mozilla has no spyware ? bah then i dont want it!

    • Re:Running it now... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tet ( 2721 )
      What more can a nerd want?

      The ability to run multiple instances of Mozilla on different screens. This worked until 1.0rc2, and then they removed it. Since I *need* this funcitonality for my job, I have to keep a copy of the old version lying around :-(

      • Ever since 1.0, I believe, Mozilla now has had the @lock file in your personal mozilla directory that prevents multiple instances of Mozilla from being running. The way to work with this is to use something like this Mozilla Starter Script [kingant.net], which you use to replace your existing mozilla starter script (the one called "mozilla" that sets the MOZILLA__FIVE_HOME and executes mozilla-bin). This script allows you to specify whether a new window opens for each new instance or just have it open the URLs in a new tab. I've been using it for a while and I find it very handy.

  • funny (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jki ( 624756 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:17AM (#4766197) Homepage
    from the link prefetching FAQ [mozilla.org]:

    What about folks who pay-per-byte for network bandwidth?
    - prefetching is a browser feature; users should be able to disable it easily

    Is there a preference to disable link prefetching?
    - Yes, there is a hidden preference that you can set to disable link prefetching. Add this line to your prefs.js file located in your Mozilla profile directory: user_pref("network.prefetch-next", false);

    Although I admit link-prefetching may be good, but if it becomes a on-bydefault feature in most browsers, the ones that it will damage are the content providers. Those cannot turn it off (and actually do not have anyway of knowing whether their content is being prefetched (and not potentially viewed at all) or not. Well, I am just whining. Generally, Mozilla seems to be doing great :)

    • Re:funny (Score:2, Informative)

      by ultrabot ( 200914 )
      I thought content providers have to explicitly specify what links to prefetch?

    • Re:funny (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rovaani ( 20023 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:29AM (#4766243)
      If you'd read the whole FAQ you are quoting you wold see that
      Are anchor (<a>) tags prefetched?
      No, only tags w/ a relation type of next or prefetch are prefetched. However, if there is sufficient interest, we may expand link prefetching support to include prefetching tags, which include a relation type of next or prefetch in the future. Doing so would probably help content providers avoid the problem of stale prefetching links.
      So content-providers can decide all by themselves if they want to pre-serve the content. Althoug it is possible for a malicious web-site to set pre-fetch headers pointing to third-party web-site , thus draining their bandwidth.

      Also:

      As a server admin, can I distinguish prefetch requests from normal requests?
      Yes, we send the following header along with each prefetch request:
      X-moz: prefetch
      Of course, this request header is not at all standardized, and it may change in future Mozilla releases.
      • So content-providers can decide all by themselves if they want to pre-serve the content

        No they can't. rel="next" does not suggest it should be prefetched or it's likely to be where the user will go next, merely that that's the next document in a series.

        SlashDot uses them -- look at the document nav bar in Moz/Opera, you'll see Next/Previous, which go to the next/previous story. Unless you have a habit of reading every article, Moz will pointlessly prefetch the next story up, and you'll happily ignore it. Users who used to (e.g.) read every other story now actually end up fetching every story anyway.

        rel="prefetch" is fine, rel="next" makes me nervous. I don't want content providers to stop using rel="next" because of the deranged behavior of some clients :P

        • Re:funny (Score:3, Insightful)

          by asa ( 33102 )
          SlashDot uses them -- look at the document nav bar in Moz/Opera, you'll see Next/Previous, which go to the next/previous story. Unless you have a habit of reading every article, Moz will pointlessly prefetch the next story up, and you'll happily ignore it. Users who used to (e.g.) read every other story now actually end up fetching every story anyway.

          rel="prefetch" is fine, rel="next" makes me nervous. I don't want content providers to stop using rel="next" because of the deranged behavior of some clients :P

          If slashdot uses link rel=next and no one uses it then why are they including it in the source? Authors use this tool to specifically connect pages. It is assumed that people will be navigating to the next document linked or the author wouldn't include that tag. Authors who are using link rel= next that don't want people navigating to that linked document shouldn't be using next so you shouldn't be nervous about content providers stopping use of the tag. What have you lost if slashdot removes the tag if, as you suggested, no users actually uses the link rel=next to get to the next article?

          --Asa
      • Yes, we send the following header along with each prefetch request: X-moz: prefetch

        Ohh, did not notice this. Thanks for the info. I hope Mozilla AND Explorer, Opera & the rest of the browsers will comply to the proposed standard in their future implementations. That way it might be control prefetching while staying sane.

  • Unleashed... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:19AM (#4766204) Homepage

    Isn't that a bit dangerous for a dinosaur ? I mean I'd prefer to see it safely tethered to my desktop rather than going out on its own causing wanton destruction. Hell I have enough problems without something running around unleashed on my box.

    When will we ever learn ?

  • Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deadmantalking ( 187403 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:21AM (#4766213)
    A serious question. OpenOffice started incorporating GTK/GNOME widgets, Mozilla builds support for GTK themes...
    Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?
    Anyone has any insights?

    • Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:24AM (#4766222)
      Why is it that they all go in for GTK/GNOME not QT/KDE? Are the latter combination more difficult to integrate? Something about the QT license? Better mktg by the GNOME guys?

      Something about the QT license. It's GPL or proprietary (it's your choice), while LGPL (the license of GTK) is more corporate-friendly.

    • Re:Why do they all go to GTK/GNOME? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shillo ( 64681 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:52AM (#4766331)
      In the case of Mozilla, they needed a lightweight windowing system abstraction (on top of which they built their own set of widgets), and gdk was the right choice. GDK is a layer underneath Gtk, and it provides a lightweight portability system sitting directly on Xlib. Qt (AFAIK) has something similar, but Qt's portability layer is canvas-like (again AFAIK), which isn't so convenient if all you want is simplified drawing primitives.

      OO.O is benefitting from Ximian work, and that naturally involves GNOME.

      Sun/HP/the rest of the CDE people wanted something that can easily replace Motif in all the places where Motif appears. Since this means a lot of legacy pure-C apps, Gtk seemed a natural choice, too.

      So in each case, it was a different issue, rather than a single, obviously decisive feature.

      As for the technical differences, yes, Gtk and Qt are different, but not as much as the advocates of either like to think (personally I prefer Gtk/GNOME, but the only strong technical reasons I can name are bonobo-activation, atk and gstreamer systems, which I consider uber-cool, but not absolutely essential).

      --
    • Mozilla has used GTK to render its widgets as long as I can remember (since M7 or so). It sounds like they just added support for the theme portions of GTK.

  • Without Mozilla, IE would not be free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dagg ( 153577 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:28AM (#4766237) Journal
    If AOL stopped supporting Mozilla development, then they wouldn't be able to hold it over Microsoft's head. It is quite a dance those companies play.

    This was posted using Mozilla 1.2

    --

    Your sex on a platter [tilegarden.com]
  • I like Mozilla and I think it is the only challenger to IE now.

    However there are certain shortcomings. Number one is that there is no WYSIWYG editor for Mozilla. Something like HTMLArea. There is sort of such editors, but they do not work as nicely as IE WYSIWYG editors. I mean they are not even close to IE editors. So Mozilla should work very hard to bring such features. As the number of applications that use such features increase Mozilla will destined to doom unless it brings such features.

    Second there is no support for drag and drop. There is drag and drop but not using onDrag and onDrop type of events which makes the programming extremely simple. That's a must have in my mind.

    Third Mozilla for some reason is a little bit slow in Windows. Not the engine itself, but the program. For some reason it feels less responsive compared to IE. I thought that it is because of this skin, someone claimed that that's not the case, I am not sure whether he is right or wrong. But there is no point of having skins on the browser, it is totally stupid, useless. Get rid of the skin thing permanetly. Try to make sure that your program feels like a native application. Mozilla on Mac OS X is somewhat joke. It doesn't feel like a native application.

    Mozilla's being standard complaint is good, however on the net lots of articles are written for IE, because of the historical reasons as we know it. So Mozilla should allow the users to make a nicer transition by enabling certain non-standard IE-only features as much as possible.

    Before Mozilla I was only using IE, because Netscape was not good enough, even though at first I tried not to use IE. Now with Mozilla that changed a little. I still use IE most of the time, but I like Mozilla too.

    • Mozilla's being standard complaint is good, however on the net lots of articles are written for IE, because of the historical reasons as we know it. So Mozilla should allow the users to make a nicer transition by enabling certain non-standard IE-only features as much as possible.

      I would prefer to see more articles describing how to avoid proprietary IE methodologies, like document.all in favor of w3c standards. In most cases there is a standard-compliant way of doing things. If IE has some worthwhile proprietary features maybe we should be encouraging w3c to adopt them, but it is a slippery slope to conform to IE-only features.

  • Please use mozilla net installer (Score:5, Informative)

    by suds ( 6610 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:41AM (#4766280) Homepage
    Please use the netinstaller (~250kb) which would find a closest mirror for you automatically to download.

  • Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Koyaanisqatsi ( 581196 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:41AM (#4766282)
    One of the last uses I had for explorer was to browse CNN. Mozilla 1.1 had problems formatting HTML on some (most) CNN articles;

    Upgraded, tested, and now it works like a charm. What is that procedure to remove IE again?

  • Mirrors (Score:2, Informative)

    by melvin22 ( 523080 )
    Well, someone had to do it. You can find mirrors here: http://mozilla.org/mirrors.html [mozilla.org]

  • Prefetch paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codexus ( 538087 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @08:51AM (#4766325)
    Is that prefetch thing such a good idea?

    For example, it will prefetch a document from another host that the one you're browsing. In the FAQ they say that they don't see that as a security risk. But I really don't like the idea that I could be tricked into prefetching stuff I don't want by a simple HTML tag (goatse, copyrighted material and other illegal stuff).

    Yes it can be disabled but not from the GUI preferences, so many people won't even notice it.

    Well I'm probably just being paranoid. :)
  • Unfortunately the net installer will not find it, but there is a complete set of rpms (including SRPMs) for Redhat 8.0 here [mozilla.org]. It appears to install over Mozilla 1.0.1 (distributed by Redhat) quite nicely.
  • I have been a happy moz 1.1 user since it came out. Particularly, I like tabbed browsing and anti-pop-up. Also moz 1.1 supported my Internet Bank, which uses certificates and https.

    Unfortunately, with moz 1.2, my bank no longer accepts the certificate, even though I have a clean, new install. Why? Also, the keyboard shortcuts for tabbed browsing (like ctrl-shift-click), is gone. Why?

    I use Moz because the older Phoenix didn't have a Quick Start. Does the new Phoenix support this?

  • Then Mozilla would be great. When I click on a mailto or news url it would use the programs I want, not the ones AOL wants.

  • tabbed browsing still "broken" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by X_Caffeine ( 451624 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:28AM (#4766513)
    I can't believe they still haven't incorporated "single window mode" into the built-in tabbed browsing features of Mozilla. Every person I've talked into trying Mozilla wants to know why windows still open all over the place when they're using tabbed-browsing mode. Instructing them to go find an obscure plug-in, and then configure it, is not an acceptable solution for Joe Mousepad.

    P.S. The default theme is impossibly ugly. ORBIT

  • I think it's interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MungoBBQ ( 524032 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:36AM (#4766563)
    ...that after hearing so much about the user's right to freedom of choice when it comes to browsers, the Mozilla Messenger makes it impossible to use MS Internet Explorer to view the URLs I receive in e-mails.

    Yes, I use MSIE for web and Mozilla for e-mail since its IMAP functionalities blow Outlook Express out of the water (actually, it does that just by being bug-free), but why on earth am I not allowed to open links I click in my e-mails with MSIE?

    Maybe it's just me, but I think it's ironic that Mozilla is trying to tie me down to its web browser just because I want to use it for e-mail.

  • I like "view selection source" (Score:5, Informative)

    by BroadbandBradley ( 237267 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:41AM (#4766599) Homepage
    hightlight an area of a page, right click and there's an option to "View selection source". which opens the html source and cues it to the area you had selected.

    Mozilla is IMHO, the best available.

  • WARNING - online banking likely to fail (Score:4, Informative)

    by bjornte ( 536493 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:36AM (#4766948)
    Due to this bug:

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172097

    online secure banking that works in Mozilla 1.1 may not work in Mozilla 1.2. It seems that Moz 1.2 does not send cookies to HTTPS sites, thus preventing some kinds of authentication.

    Until this problem is fixed, people who use online banking etc. should stick to Moz 1.1.

  • Toolbars non-collapsable (Score:3, Informative)

    by madprof ( 4723 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:40AM (#4766973)
    I downloaded a toolbar that lets me turn graphics, colours and cookies on and off at the click of a button.
    This no longer has the little thing at teh side that lets me shrink it down - this was mentioned in the Release Notes.
    What I'm puzzling over is why they removed that. Is there any way to make the toolbar shrink up and free screen space now it has gone?

  • Prefetching (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mnot ( 71203 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @12:38PM (#4767990) Homepage Journal
    I'm extremely wary about the new prefetching feature in Mozilla. The Web caching community has tried this from about every angle, but the general consensus of professionals (with one notable exception [bluecoat.com]) is that prefetching is a bad approach.

    For one thing, it assumes free bandwidth; not such a hot idea in a lot of places (e.g., Australia, where you pay per Mb).

    I've also had network and server administrators calling me in a panic because they're being flooded with requests from a single machine - whoops.

    Prefetching is generally pretty antisocial; it says "my browsing experience is so important, damn your network, damn your servers, I'm getting it all!"

    This doesn't mean that it isn't of great interest to the research community, of course; go to any caching-related conference and you'll see earnest proposals for prefetching (along with yet more hyper-optimised replacement algorithms... *sigh*).

    Specifically, I'm concerned that the Mozilla implementation won't fare any better; in one way, it's better that it uses explicit prefetching hints (rather than some "optimized" algortithm... I hate heuristics), but OTOH it's horrible; this is ripe for abuse by over-zealous webmasters. I wonder how long it'll be before we see a demo of a DOS attack based on this...

    Also, not providing a preference UI to control this isn't so bright; Mozilla has matured past the "world is my debugger" stage, at least in this respect. There are legitimate reasons for turning this off; in fact, I think there's a strong argument for turning this off by default.

  • RedHat 8.0 XFT builds now up (Score:4, Informative)

    by AmunRa ( 166367 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @01:13PM (#4768299) Homepage

    As subject, if you look under the Red_Hat_8x_RPMS folder in the mozilla-1.2 directory, there is now two folders: vanilla and xft , with pre-built RPMs! Get them now from a mirror [mozilla.org]...

    Now if only I'd waited a couple of hours ;-)

  • Wish I could build it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by koreth ( 409849 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @02:55PM (#4769219)
    This'll probably get modded -1, Pathetic, but so far I've been completely unable to get a working Mozilla binary to build under Windows. Builds and runs fine under Linux. I've uninstalled and reinstalled all the required tools a bunch of times, checked and rechecked my environment against the build docs, etc. Here's a web page [midwinter.com] with more details. If some kind soul could tell me what I'm doing wrong, you'd have my undying admiration!

    (Yes, I've tried posting to the Mozilla newsgroups, but this is exactly the kind of request that gets ignored by everyone there.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close