Mozilla.org Launches Mozilla 1.3 721
theBrownfury writes "Mozilla 1.3 is out and about. New to this version are features like image auto sizing, bayesian junk-mail filtering, dynamic profile switching, about:config for a pretty view into all of Mozilla's "secret" settings, an initial version of Midas for rich text editing, and a lot of other fixes for performance, standards compliance and site compatability. Also with 1.3 Mozilla is now applying machine learning to improve the autocomplete feature. Mozilla 1.3 is now the official stable release from mozilla.org. Users of all previous versions should upgrade to 1.3 for the latest in features and stability. More info at the 1.3 release page and discussions at mozillaZine.org."
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
kitchen sink [mozilla.org]
There is also a plug-in under work, which displays this sink when you type about:kitchensink
Nope (Score:5, Funny)
What about phoenix? (Score:5, Interesting)
Phoenix dead at age 1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phoenix dead at age 1 (Score:4, Funny)
Rembember it's Phoenix [everything2.com], it will just raise again and start a new life!
Re:Phoenix dead at age 1 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about phoenix? (Score:5, Funny)
Automatic image resizing (Score:5, Informative)
Automatic image resizing is off by default in Mozilla (although on by default in Phoenix), and can be toggled by clicking on the image.
I have to say I don't like it much either. For Phoenix users, it can be turned off by adding user_pref("browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing ", false); to user.js in the profile directory, or by manipulating the browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing preference in about:config [about] .
Re:Automatic image resizing (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a 1600x1024 desktop. I have a CSS file that gives me nice large fonts, but I can't do much with images. When I'm viewing web comics, much of the time the text in the speech bubbles is so tiny I have to lean way forwards to read it. I read web comics every day, so I'll be using this feature every day.
P.S. If there were an option to simply scale everything by a factor of 2, I'd turn that on by default. Any web page designed for 800x600 would fit great on my screen. (Okay, it would be a little bit tight vertically, but horizontal is more important.)
steveha
Image auto-sizing (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you have a preference to _enable_ the feature. It's off by default. Also, once enabled (by going to Edit->Preferences...->Appearance and checking the box titled "Enable automatic image resizing") a simple click on the image will restore it to its original size.
This really is a friendly implementation. I much prefer it to the feature implemented by the other guys.
--Asa
Re:Image auto-sizing (Score:3, Informative)
Hovering the image changes the cursor to a resize cursor, so it's clear that clicking will do _something_.
Re:What about phoenix? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with Mozilla? "Bloat" what exactly is "bloat" memory footprint? HDD footprint? Load Time? Compaired to IE I find it to be very compeditive, plus you are not helping lord gates and mount redmond take over the net/world. You are providing them with a serious challenge which is better for everyone.
Sorry, I just work up and I'm a little cranky. I don't meean to bitch at the parent post specificly just people that are complaining about nit picky stuff while overlooking all the time/energy spent giving them a free speech/beer answer to IE and redmond (something
Re:What about bloat (Score:5, Informative)
That the idea to use it as a platform to develope portable applications (using ECMAScript + XUL) is catching on slower than some people would expect. This is a pity, because ungodly amounts of effort goes in making this possible, and still people see it just as a web browser (a large one).
Other than that, Mozilla-the-web-browser is fine, Mozilla-the-messaging suite is at least good enough, and Mozilla-the-javascript-debugger shows lots of promises.
I don't include Mozilla-the-IDE (Komodo) in the list, since it deviates too much from the usual distribution (even if it is Gecko Inside(TM)).
Now waiting for Mozilla-the-organizer (thru Calendar, planned for 1.4 ~ 1.5). Perhaps a Mozilla-the-file-manager would be something worth implementing (but Meow [mozdev.org] seems definitively dead).
Re:What about bloat (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there are two basic architecture issues that turn a lot of people off. The first is Javascript (ECMAscript). The only place this language has a foothold is in HTML. If the real goal is to have people write general applications, nobody uses javascript and so this meets a non-demand.
The second is the failure to separate concerns into layers very well.
Re:What about bloat (Score:3, Informative)
They dropped the ball (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time, they CLAIMED that you could do all this cool stuff with XUL, but the documentation (including the 1 ONE official book on XUL, sucked). They all focused on building the GUI inside of the Mozilla browser.
We were working with a potential partner that has a browser based application, whose bain of existance is IE's print feature (they log printing with their print button, but an IE print would trash that). The idea of a "stripped down" browser that would start at their screen would rock. Additionally, using XUL widgets would let them eliminate the frames and other garbage, making their app easier. They liked the idea of using a XUL toolbar instead of a frame with buttons.
Unfortunately, weeks of research through their docs went nowhere, and we worked on a Java solution, and the deal went south over time. Now we have our own Java based solution, and don't want to migrate to XUL.
The XUL + ECMAScript stuff should have been pushed earlier with proper documentation. Instead they pushed it to grab some marketshare when they weren't ready.
I love Camino/Chimera, and the other Gecko browsers (use Phoenix when on a Windows machine), but they missed a lot of time with not getting XUL as an early solution. They should have put out (early) some shells that you could start from then add your other functionality.
Sure, other projects have picked it up since then, but with the XUL + ECMAScript solution being the red-headed stepchild for a while, they lost some steam.
It'll happen, but every year that they wasted will take 2 years to recover, as growth has slowed down and projects chose other tech.
That said, I love Mozilla now, but I think that the shifting of priorities cost them mindshare that will be painful to recover.
Alex
Re:What about bloat (Score:5, Interesting)
Since my computer started getting infected with all kinds of ActiveX exploits, I've switched to browsing the internet only with Mozilla. (I use IE for work stuff that requires ActiveX) Popup management alone would have been a good reason to switch. However, I haven't noticed it being any slower than IE lately. I _HAVE_ noticed that Windows tries to swap Mozilla out of memory the first chance it gets. It's almost uncanny. I'll have a bunch of applications running, and Mozilla is always the first one to get swapped out when I'm working on something else. Obviously, this rarely happens with IE (presumably because 9/10 of it is loaded when you boot Windows). Anybody have any idea why it seems to be so much worse with Mozilla? (Running Windows 2000).
Re:The best tool. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hm. First, I will say this: IE is stable, sure. But does IE do what the user wants to be done?
How many users can raise their hands and indicate that it's okay for web pages to pop up additional browser windows to display advertisements. Perhaps even maximize some of them.
How many users would say it's okay to "stretch" the standards -- standards that the rest of the Internet is based upon -- implementing them in MSIE so that pages end up being IE-only?
I will give you this: MSIE is stable on Windows 2000 and XP in my experience. Mozilla is stable on Windows *lt;any version>, Linux, *BSD, Mac, and so on. Mozilla lets you decide if you want sites to spawn new browser processes on your machine. Mozilla complies with established standards -- standards that extend far beyond the Wintel world.
If you use linux because it works for you, that's just great, but don't go making blanket statements that are dead wrong. Wishing doesn't make it so. If IE 'sucked,' it would be obsoleted by popular opinion. It doesn't and it isn't.
Honestly, this has nothing to do with reliability, or Linux. It has to do with a browser doing things according to *your* preferences, *your* best interests, as opposed to those of the company distributing the browser (or their partners).
And, WRT your familiar commentary about the magic of having "the source," how much does that mean to the 99.6% of the world who can't code? I certainly can't code beyond scripts, so I don't care and I'm not about to hire someone to do it for me. If it's broken, I find something that ain't, just like everyone else.
It's not about being able to modify or review the source, it's about the methodology that is open source. The fact that hundreds, possibly thousands in this case, of competant programmers are reviewing each-other's source code. All coming from different environments, different backgrounds, different training -- and all spotting different potential problem areas. Bringing in different new ideas.
This, as opposed to a company who may say something like "Okay, you've found a potentially serious security flaw. Here's what we're going to do: pretend it's not there, we'll fix it in the next major release, and hope no "hacker" finds it on his or her own."
Don't tell me this doesn't happen on a daily basis over in Redmond (and in other closed-source projects).
Re:What about phoenix? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not at all accurate. Phoenix developers have checked in changes to thousands of lines of code in hundreds of Phoenix files just this month and Phoenix also picks up almost all of the backend Mozilla changes that happen every day. Just because it's not moving at the pace it did when it was all brand new doesn't mean it's not moving.
--Asa
Re:What about phoenix? (Score:3, Funny)
It is official; my access_log confirms: Phoenix is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Phoenix community when Microsoft confirmed that Phoenix market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all desktops. Coming on the heels of a recent review of my apache user agent logs which plainly states that Phoenix has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what w
Re:What about phoenix? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about Phoenix? (Score:3, Informative)
So get it and see. We make builds pretty much every single day. http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/phoenix/nightly/latest
--Asa
Crap! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Addendum: Never Fear (Score:5, Informative)
From domainwhitepages.com [domainwhitepages.com]:
OrgName: Netscape Communications Corp.
OrgID: NSCP
Address: 501 E. Middlefield
City: Mountain View
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94043
Country: US
NetRange: 207.200.64.0 - 207.200.127.255
CIDR: 207.200.64.0/18
NetName: NETSCAPE-CIDR
NetHandle: NET-207-200-64-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.NETSCAPE.COM
NameServer: NS2.NETSCAPE.COM
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 1996-09-06
Updated: 2001-03-28
TechHandle: AOL-NOC-ARIN
TechName: America Online, Inc.
TechPhone: +1-703-265-4670
TechEmail: domains@aol.net
I think AOL can hold up aginst a slashdotting...
Re:Addendum: Never Fear (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds like a challenge! Everyone, hit [aol.com] AOL [aol.com] quick [aol.com]! We can do it! GO GO GO!
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Re:Crap! (Score:3, Informative)
If you're running a nightly build, and you're expecting it to be stable, well, that's your own fault, isn't it?
Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/.
If the latest nightly is crashing consistently and repeatedly, try to search for an existing bug report, and if you can't find one, submit your own. Somebody else who's more f
Autocomplete (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Autocomplete (Score:5, Funny)
Neat feature (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds good. Eventually I can just tell it "porn" and it will go grab all sorts of crazy shit for me to do naughty things to. Of course, I hope it doesn't work like the Tivo's related feature or I'll end up with 30 translations of goatse.cx and a giant pic of Janet Reno in a bikini.
Re:Neat feature (Score:4, Funny)
Spam filtering (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Spam filtering (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More Importantly! (Score:5, Informative)
"Tools | Mark Selected Messages as *Not* Junk"
There have been a bunch of posts to the newsgroup and this has been the problem.
Unless you tell the filter what is spam *AND NOT* spam then it only has half of the information it needs to make a decision. It's a bimodal decision tree that is used to determine whether a message is spam or not. ie;
for each word {
the probability it is spam is x
and the probability it is ham is y
}
A calculation (Bayes) of those probabilities intersecting usually places the probability that any given message is spam either close to 1 (spam) or 0 (ham). What happens if you don't train ham is the probability of all messages will be around .5 and that is not enough to say anything definitively and defaults to delivery.
Mozilla! Machine learning???? (Score:3, Funny)
Mozilla is contacted by slashdot.
Thursday March 13, @04:30PM
Mozilla is slashdotted.
Thursday March 13, @04:50PM
Mozilla takes FIRE BREATHING REVENGE OF DOOM! LAUNCHES NUCLEAR MISSLES AT "THE THREAT"
Thursday March 13, @05:01PM
Mozilla successfully slashdots slashdot with nuclear missles.
Re:Mozilla! Machine learning???? (Score:3, Funny)
> Mozilla takes FIRE BREATHING REVENGE OF DOOM! LAUNCHES NUCLEAR MISSLES AT "THE THREAT"
MOZILLA was a browser, he was a dragon-browser, he was just a dragon, but he was still MOZILLA! Burninating the BLINK tags! Burninating the DOM! Burninating all the Frontpage users in their non-compliant HTML! (NON-COMPLIANT HTMLLLL!!!!!) AND THE BEAST SHALL COME FORTH SURROUNDED BY A ROILING CLOUD OF VENGEANCE... uh, I mean IN THE NIIIIIIGHT!
- The Book of Consummate Vs, 12
Speaking of Fire-Breathing Revenge of Doom... (Score:3, Informative)
This will sound stupid to the Slashdot Crowd, but many of the people that I've switched to Mozilla really, really liked the mascott. I've even had several of the women comment that they used Mozilla because they thought the logo was cute; the guys though it looked cool (these people are not technical types).
Why they would switch to the current bland and antiseptic splash screen is beyond me. I mean,
One really good thing about this is... (Score:5, Informative)
Get Mozilla 1.3 here [mozilla.org] and here [sourceforge.net].
fuck! (Score:5, Funny)
You know your internet connection is slow... (Score:3, Funny)
Kjella
Re:You know your internet connection is slow... (Score:3, Informative)
Either that, or perhaps AOL/Time Warner has a hell of a lot of bandwidth at their disposal? Hmmmm... largest ISP in the world, huge media conglomerate, lot of bandwidth...
How To Build Mozilla w/ Anti-Aliased Font Support (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, you can find a webcam movie of me eating a donut by clicking the link below.
Re:How To Build Mozilla w/ Anti-Aliased Font Suppo (Score:5, Informative)
The RPMs for RedHat 8 have the Xft support enabled. (They're not released yet, but they probably will be soon.)
It's not enabled by default because it requires libraries (Xft2, fontconfig) that many users don't have. At some point someone might modify the code so that it tests for the presence of the library and loads all the required function pointers manually, but that's a bit of work. What's available now is good enough for distributors and good enough for people who know to get the RH8 RPMs.
Re:How To Build Mozilla w/ Anti-Aliased Font Suppo (Score:5, Informative)
pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
pref("font.FreeType2.autohinted", false);
pref("font.FreeType2.unhinted", false);
pref("font.antialias.min", 0);
Looks good to me!
Re:How To Build Mozilla w/ Anti-Aliased Font Suppo (Score:4, Informative)
Strangly enough, thats not way I would Build Mozilla. Usualy I use these to get what I want, this includes all sorts of goodys, that are not just font specific. Also I shy away for the "-march=i686" but I do use O2.
ac_add_options --enable-crypto
ac_add_options --enable-ldap-experimental
ac_add_options --enable-optimize=-O2
ac_add_options --enable-reorder
ac_add_options --enable-cpp-rtti
ac_add_options --enable-cpp-exceptions
ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2
ac_add_options --disable-toolkit-gtk
ac_add_options --enable-xft
ac_add_options --enable-freetype2
ac_add_options --enable-oji
ac_add_options --disable-debug
ac_add_options --disable-short-wchar
ac_add_options --with-system-zlib
ac_add_options --with-system-jpeg
ac_add_options --with-system-png
ac_add_options --with-system-mng
ac_add_options --disable-tests
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
IEZilla (Score:5, Funny)
Force-upgrade people without them noticing.
Machine Learning in Autocomplete not in 1.3 (Score:5, Informative)
Machine Learning autocomplete is NOT implemented (Score:5, Informative)
No NTLM? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh and the bug is 3 years old. I know some work is being done on the Windows Mozilla, but damn. Three years?
Re:No NTLM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No NTLM? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't hold your breath for a cross-platform solution that will allow Linux user to work in such an environment, though. (Which is a bummer for me, because that's why I'm following the bug.)
Re:No NTLM? (Score:5, Informative)
Huh?
We have a Squid proxy server running right now using NTLM authentication with help from Winbind. The Squid FAQ has an entry here [squid-cache.org] which explains how to implement it.
Hope this helps...
*grrr* WTF?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*grrr* WTF?!? (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at ATI's release notes for their newest drivers, they explicitly list this as an ATI bug.
> why is Mozilla the only application affected by
> this bug
Because Mozilla happens to tbe the only app you have that uses the particular functionality that's buggy in the driver, whatever that is? How many apps do you use that do transparency, translucency (fast, mind you), background tiling in hardware, etc?
Looks good so far. (Score:3, Interesting)
I know judging a browser by it's ability to handle the twisted "html" these sites use is a bad thing to do. However, it's nice to see Mozilla take on the challenge and succeed anyhow.
Midas (Score:3)
Only problem is that I can't find a single web page which demonstrates Midas in-action, what gives?!
Re:Midas (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Midas (Score:3, Informative)
IE has the ability to insert arbitrary HTML which makes table insertion much easier. We had to use DOM manipulation for our demo. I haven't added IE specific code for table insertion yet.
As far as the API goes, we worked very hard to make the API compatible with IE.
If you want to understand how we differ from IE, see:
http://www.mozilla.org/editor/ie2midas.html [mozilla.org]
I have on my todo list to make the demo work better in IE. In particular, I'd love to get the button look and feel working better in IE.
Bad import feature! Bad! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad import feature! Bad! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad import feature! Bad! (Score:3, Informative)
In IE, use the 'import and export' wizrd, in the file menu, to export favourites to a HTML file. Then import them into Mozilla.
It's not automatic, but it does work.
RPMs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla is fantastic :-) :-) (Score:5, Funny)
Mozilla usage is rising! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla usage is rising! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also noteworthy is that Linux machines accounted for 1% of the operating systems used to access Google in January 2003, while different flavors of Windows account for 91%. Macs accounted for 4%, the "other" category for the remaining 4% (Source: Google Inc.). I guess that gives a pre
All I have to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
An excellent example of what open source can accomplish, and I really mean that. Kudos and all that.
Image autosizing! (Score:3, Interesting)
If this feature has indeed been added to mozilla (and MS could learn this as well), please add an option to turn it off!
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at [netnexus.com]
How *I* want completion to work (Score:5, Interesting)
If I type "www.moz" and I've been to "www.mozilla.com" (and various subdirectories) and "www.mozone.com" (and various subdirectories), it should show just those two matches, without the subdirectories. I should then be able to hit tab to choose one or the other, and then continue to type. Say I choose www.mozilla.com and type
Now, if the only pages matching this is "/info/win32/editor.html" "info/win32/browser.html" "/info/linux/browser.html" then I should get to choose between "/info/linux/" and "/info/win32/".
This way I can type "sl" and see all the individual sites starting with sl, before looking through thousands of lines like
"http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/1
Also, if there are no matches, the window shouldn't come up at all. It's a pain to have to click repeatedly to get out of the URL entry if the url you are entering doesn't match anything. (at least on the Linux version)
They call autosize a feature!? (Score:3, Funny)
Problem with Autocomplete (Score:3, Interesting)
Example: If I start typing in 'http://s' for example, it will gladly show me a list of 20 URLs from slashdot.org, but not a single one for stickdeath. Why doesn't it do like (Windows) Explorer-style autocomplete - when I type in the above, provide me with domains from which to choose. When and if I pick Slashdot, then it should provide links from slashdot only, but why on earth does it assume that by typing a few letters, that it should automatically complete 10 documents from the same website, but none from any others?
--Dan
And who said the browser war was over??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla just keeps getting better and better... With all the features it has, it's well on it's way to becoming the super user's uber browser. I had to tweak one of the "secret features" a few weeks ago. (Port 1080 is denied unless you explicitly tell the browser that it's OK to access) The info I found, referred me to the about:config screen. When I saw it I was very impressed at how much potential there is for using this browser in so many different ways. The only thing they need on Linux now is the "Quick Start" or whatever they call it launcher program. That way you will only have to wait a fraction of a second for Mozilla to appear. I think this could be implemented by having another Mozilla componenet that you can run at X login. It doesn't actually display any output, it just loads the base elements of Mozilla needed to launch any Mozilla app. That would be EXTREMELY cool...
-- For my comments on the new difficulties in first posting and the "broken-ness" of metamoderation, go here:
http://slashdot.org/~Trolling4Dollars/journal/2699 5 [slashdot.org]
Alt tags... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I can see the ALT tags by doing properties on the images, but I'd rather be able to simply see them on mouse over.
But why (redux)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I know I can save some folders and do other weird stuff to make sure this doesn't happen, but by god, think of the newbies. (Ok, so the last part was a bit over the top, but still...)
Oh, and with the new spam-filtering-rules Mozilla has now become my fav mailclient. Combined with IMAP it just rocks.
Thank You to all developers. Perhaps I should go file that bug now. The annoying one.
Re:But why (redux)? (Score:5, Informative)
--Asa
Re:But why (redux)? (Score:5, Informative)
Until recently add-ons could only be installed in the Mozilla application directory, where they get deleted every time you upgrade to a newer version.
A bug was recently fixed that makes it possible to install add-ons into the user profile directory, where they persist through upgrades.
Note that until 1.4alpha comes out, this fix will only be available on the nightly builds [mozilla.org]. Also, add-on authors have to modify their add-ons to install into the profile directory. If you are an add-on author, see the bug for an example of how to do this:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16296and still no fix for horrible DNS caching bug (Score:5, Interesting)
Search bugzilla for "dns cache".
No "Snap to Default Button", yet (Score:3, Informative)
It's only a minor annoyance, but Mozilla doesn't yet snap to the default button [mozilla.org] in Windows if that setting is configured in Control Panel (when set, the mouse cursor should automatically move to the default button in dialog boxes). You might think it wouldn't be such a tough fix, but it's apparently ellusive :-/.
If you like, you can vote for the bug [mozilla.org] (you'll need a free Bugzilla account [mozilla.org] to vote). You'll probably need to copy-n-paste the URL, as Bugzilla doesn't accept referers from Slashdot.
Yes!! (Score:3, Interesting)
No MacOS 9 support anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you want to help a poor Mac (and Linux, for my servers) user who can't afford to upgrade to Jaguar, go to this website [mouken.com] and make a donation! (or buy something).
Shameless, I know. Shame is too expensive for my budget.
Have they fixed the e-mail speed problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an inbox (no messages left on server) with about 90 e-mail and 10 MB of attachments. My folders in total have around 30 MB of e-mail. This is on Windows 2000, 800 MHz cpu, 7200 RPM 60 GB disk, HDD FULLY defragmented two days ago, folders compressed not less than a few days ago..
"Compressing" the folders takes 1.5 minutes, despite the fact that I swear I did it only a few days ago. Deleting an e-mail with a 2 MB attachment runs the CPU and HDD for 15 seconds. Same goes for "saving" the attachment to disk.
Oddly enough, even though those operations sound and feel heavy, HDD rattling like heck and system all slow like molasses, the HDD is only reading and writing at 0.5 MB/s, and the CPU is no higher than 10-40 pct.
Now *that's* an unscalable architecture.
Worst of all, while you're saving an attachment to disk your pointer is not locked to an hourglass, and you're free to close the e-mail and delete it from your inbox (which you will do the first time you don't notice the "M" icon still spinning in the e-mail). You get no warning, but I guess because that happens "while" it was trying to extract the attachment, the attachment save gets silently cut off, and you end up with a corrupted partial file on disk (bad zip, etc etc).
That's ONE HELL OF A USABILITY BUG.
After only 1 month, I'm dumping Mozilla Mail as fast as I can.
Is there some auto-update feature? (Score:3, Interesting)
-Zipwow
emacs team (Score:3, Funny)
Right Click Tab Menu (Score:3, Informative)
the windows version? Before it had "new tab" on the top, now "close tab" is
the top one.
You get to the menu by right-clicking anywhere on the tabs bar.
Upgrading Fun and Mozilla (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been usin' and lovin' Moz for a long time now, but I'm always worried about going from one version to the next....can I just "cheat" and install overtop? Should I uninstall the old Moz first for the best stability? I tend to be anal in this area because I like my installs to be 'clean,' yet at the same time I'm lazy and want to do as little work as possible.
What is the most I can "get away" with?
Why was popup blocking castrated? (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately, you can return the functionality by putting the following line in your prefs.js file:
Re:Why was popup blocking castrated? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How do you spell 'bloat' -- M-O-Z-I-L-L-A (Score:5, Funny)
At least it doesn't have an operating system built into it like IE.
not to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't we supposed to be nerds here? Doesn't that mean we should all be capable of installing a fucking browser properly?
Re:Already installed (Score:5, Funny)
I LOVE mozilla... too bad more users don't have this expirience.
Just installed it on OS X. Installation was literally "dragon-drop" (ba dum bum).
Re:Performance fixes? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:find NEXT as you type (Score:3, Informative)
Re:about:config? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it has. But with 1.3, it's now editable. Now you can load it up and make direct changes to the prefs right in the browser window.
--Asa
Re:So... what should we expect for 1.4? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:sound not working on linux (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's got a new splash screen... (Score:3, Informative)
And save it as "mozilla.bmp" in your Mozilla folder.
Re:And they still doen't support IE's DHTML model (Score:4, Interesting)