Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla Foundation's Future: No Mozilla Suite 1.8 486

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the calling-it-quits dept.
batb0y writes "The Mozilla Foundation has published its Mozilla Application Suite transition plan, confirming that there will be no official Mozilla 1.8 release. There will be a 1.7.6 release to be maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. All future suite versions from the Foundation will be minor updates only." Don't despair, however, as there is already a community effort underway to continue development.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Foundation's Future: No Mozilla Suite 1.8

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Firefox forever! (Score:5, Informative)

    by bofkentucky (555107) <bofkentucky@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @08:54PM (#11905879) Homepage Journal
    Umm, netscape 8 is based on Firefox/Thunderbird.
  • Re:That sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rick_T (3816) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @08:57PM (#11905902) Homepage
    > What exactly do you like more about Mozilla than
    > Firefox?

    One thing I like is searching or entering URLs in a single large bar. By default, Firefox has separate search and URL bars on the same line, which mean you can see less of the search term/url you're entering.

    My wife says that it's easier for her to open tabs with the mouse from mozilla (the new tab button is immediately obvious to her in Mozilla, but not in Firefox).
  • by Trillan (597339) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:11PM (#11906013) Homepage Journal

    The Mozilla Foundation has been looking for people to work on the Mozilla Suite for a while now. Nothing prevented people from doing work on it.

    That it was killed indicates there just wasn't enough support to continue it.

    Thus, the help for the community is limited to those who either were not aware help was needed, or are willing to work on a rebranded Mozilla Suite (it's trademarked, isn't it?) but not on the original Mozilla Suite while the Mozilla Foundation drove it.

    In short, new developers and people who fork for the sake of forking.

  • by arthurs_sidekick (41708) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:14PM (#11906031) Homepage
    Mozilla == the successor to Netscape Communicator. It spoke HTTP(s), SMTP, POP, IMAP, IRC and other stuff. It was the original "kitchen sink" wrapper around the Gecko HTML/XML rendering engine.

    Firefox and Thunderbird were split off as standalone apps that embedded the Gecko rendering component and a few other goodies from the original Mozilla suite, but they've always been their own critters, from an application standpoint.

    So, now it looks like major development on Gecko-based products is going to be on apps that do one small cluster of things well, instead of a large app that does lots of things.

    clear 'nuff?
  • by cortana (588495) <sam@robots.orYEATSg.uk minus poet> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:15PM (#11906035) Homepage
    That's talking about the 1.4 release of Mozilla. The page you reference is about 35 years out of date.
  • by koreth (409849) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:15PM (#11906039)
    No, Firefox is the replacement for the browser part of the Mozilla suite. The whole point is that it doesn't include those other pieces.

    Thunderbird is the replacement for the e-mail part of the Mozilla suite. Nvu is (arguably) the replacement for the editor part of the suite. Et cetera.

  • by Duct Tape Jedi (802164) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:18PM (#11906054)
    Here is a link to The Book of Mozilla [mozilla.org]
  • by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:19PM (#11906060)
    The composer is alive and it's being maintained [glazman.org] actively [nvu.com].

    The current version is 1.0-Beta, and it's much better than any alternative I've seen in the OSS world, much better than mozilla's equivalent. Take a look [nvu.com] or download [nvu.com] it.
  • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Matt Perry (793115) <perry.matt54@yahoo.DALIcom minus painter> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:20PM (#11906064)
    Honest question. What does it matter? Is there some great advantage that I'm not thinking of to having a giant bundled suite of apps, rather than five or six individual downloads?
    It's not just the bundling. I use the suite but all I have installed is the browser component. I just like the suite's browser better than Firefox.
  • Re:That sucks (Score:3, Informative)

    by Denyer (717613) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:21PM (#11906077)
    One thing I like is searching or entering URLs in a single large bar

    Just edit keyword.URL to http://www.google.com/search?q=

    about:config is a lovely thing. Rather like things such as TweakUI for Windows, the defaults are fine for most people, but there are few little extra enhancements that can be easily made, and which appear in plenty of hints & tips guides.

  • You Do Realize (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:21PM (#11906079)
    that the new tab button can be added to Firefox by right clicking on the button toolbar, customize and drag the button onto it?
  • Re:The Death Knell (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:24PM (#11906106)
    Firefox is currently using an older version of Gecko

    The latest version will be fully integrated in 1.1 and will in fact be one of the major upgrades of 1.1

    As far as I know, this is the reason FF renders differently, so it should be the same as Seamonkey by then
  • by snorklewacker (836663) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:30PM (#11906158)
    > While Firefox is a memorable name, it seems like a loss not to take advantage of the Mozilla name recognition.

    You: Oh yes, Mozilla, of course itself a name pun on Mosaic, when Marc Andreesen couldn't call it Mosaic anymore what with it being connected to UIUC and all, so he started developing a new commercial browser, calling it "Mozilla". Well, of course that didn't make a respectable brand, but if you look in the old Netscape readme files, you'll see "It's spelled N-E-T-S-C-A-P-E but it's pronounced `Mozilla'". (Polishes glasses, looks off to the distance) Ahh, those were the days.

    The Public: Mo-who? Is it like that Firefox I saw in The New York Times?

  • Re:The Death Knell (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:40PM (#11906231)
    The latest stable releases of Mozilla 1.7.5 and Firefox 1.0.1 use the same Gecko 1.7.x rendering engine. Once Firefox 1.1 comes out, then it will be a step ahead in terms of final releases. Right now only the beta releases of Mozilla 1.8 have Gecko 1.8 in them. I don't know why FF would render differently than Mozilla other than comparing FF 1.0.x to a development version of Mozilla 1.8.
  • Re:Wait...what?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by BeeRockxs (782462) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:55PM (#11906301)
    No, you are just being stupid. This is not about Firefox or Thunderbird at all, but about the old Mozilla Suite, codenamed Seamonkey, that includes a browser, a mail/news client, a IRC client, a HTML composer and a kitchen sink. The Mozilla Foundation won't be making any new releases of this application suite, but some volunteers are going to do just that.
  • Re:The Death Knell (Score:3, Informative)

    by hacker (14635) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:55PM (#11906310)
    "I just clicked on your link, and you are out of spec. because you serve XHTML as text/html without complying with Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 recommendation."

    MSIE doesn't support XHTML, at all. I know all about the issues with text/html [hixie.ch], but this allows the site to function for those using a crippled browser (MSIE).

    "Furthermore, your code kicks Internet Explorer and Opera into "quirks mode", where they intentionally go out of spec. in order to cater to non-compliant pages."

    That main page was a testing ground for several different ideas I had at the time. It needs to be rewritten anyway, and I'm not surprised it kicks those other browsers into "quirks mode". Shrug. It'll be fixed when I have time to fix it.

    "If you are going to claim to be an absolute authority on something, make sure you're doing it right, eh? :)"

    Thanks, I always do, and will continue to do so.

  • Re:I agree... (Score:2, Informative)

    by ESqVIP (782999) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @09:56PM (#11906313)
    Edit->Preferences. The only reason Options is under Tools in Firefox is because it's trying to mimic IE. :)

    Actually, Firefox has an "Options" item in the Tools menu because that's a Windows tradition. On X-based systems you get Edit->Preferences, just like Mozilla.

    I don't know about OS X, though.

  • by typhoonius (611834) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:00PM (#11906341) Homepage

    You're confused. That's okay, though, it's confusing because there are so many things that use the "Mozilla" name.

    The Mozilla Foundation supports the Mozilla Project. The Mozilla Project includes the Gecko rendering engine and associated technologies such as XPCOM and XUL. It's more than simply a browser; it's a framework for creating applications. It just happens that these applications are mostly browsers.

    The Mozilla Suite (codenamed SeaMonkey), Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, and Camino are all examples of programs that use this framework and that are managed by the Mozilla Foundation.

    Galeon, Epiphany, and K-Meleon are examples of programs that use this framework but operate outside of the Mozilla Foundation (it's all open technology, after all).

    All of these programs use Gecko, the rendering engine and probably the most important part of the Mozilla Project. It not only renders the HTML of web pages but also the user interfaces of many of these apps (through an XML language called XUL). This adds quite a bit of flexibility (it's the reason why we can write Firefox extensions quickly and easily in XUL, JavaScript, and CSS).

    The Mozilla Suite was something of a proof of concept for all these technologies. It's modeled after the old Netscape Communicator Suite. It has a browser, mail client, WYSIWYG editor, JavaScript debugger, IRC client, and probably some crap I forgot about. UI-wise, it hasn't changed in a long time; in fact, it still mostly looks like Netscape 4. It's existed all this time mainly because:

    • Some people prefer the UI. It's clean, conservative, and certainly functional.
    • That said, the UI isn't its purpose. Officially, the Mozilla Suite is a very fancy demo for Gecko, XUL, and so forth, and Firefox and Thunderbird are the actual, real-world implementations of all this technology.
    • Before Firefox and Thunderbird hit 1.0, the Foundation needed the Suite to have at least one stable shipping product to show.

    You can imagine that people who have been using the suite since before Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox existed kind of find it a little silly that suddenly the Suite is considered a fancy demo when, for a long while, it was all the Project had to show (aside from Netscape, which is simply a half-hearted repackaging of the Suite).

    Firefox and Thunderbird are basically forks of the browser and mail client components of the Suite respectively. They have arguably better interfaces and more features (both have RSS support, for instance, which is missing entirely from the Suite).

    I'm a Firefox user, but I'll miss the Suite since it was the application that introduced me to the Mozilla Project, the best thing to happen to the web in a long time, but I accept that nostalgia doesn't pay the bills. Still, I think the Foundation should put out one last Mozilla Suite release. It's kind of cheap to pull the plug on it while the users are waiting for the next version.

  • Re:How Fitting: (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:05PM (#11906371)

    "SeaMonkey" is Moziila 1.8.

    SeaMonkey is (in this order):

    • The codename for Netscape 6.0.
    • The codename for the Mozilla Application Suite.
    • The proposed name for the community-driven Mozilla Application Suite, given that there's concerns about them using the names Mozilla Application Suite or Mozilla 1.x.
  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:13PM (#11906410) Homepage
    Ok, just a recap for those who are confused (I have no inside knowledge, but this is what I've gathered from public statements and the development pages):

    The mozilla foundation, somewhere around 2 years ago, decided replace the Mozilla suite (which has had the codename "Seamonkey") with a group of standalone applications. There were projects already underway to create a standalone version of the browser and e-mail client, and the Mozilla foundation chose these two (which after a couple name-changes became Firefox and Thunderbird) to serve as the base for their development.

    Originally, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" were meant to be code-names for these apps while they were under development, as Seamonkey was the codename for the Mozilla suite. When these products reached version 1.0, they were supposed to be renamed "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla E-mail".

    However, the development versions of the software had become famous/popular enough that people become worried that changing the name would lose name-recognition (which is bad for branding purposes) so it was decided instead that they'd be called "Mozilla Firefox" and "Mozilla Thunderbird". As far as I can remember, those are now the final names, but perhaps someone who knows better will correct me.

    Anyhow, these stand-alone apps were designated to be replacements/upgrades for the old suite, and indeed, most users have stopped using the old suite and are using the new applications. However, many developers still prefer the old suite and are gearing up to start a development group independent of the Mozilla Foundation and branch off from Mozilla 1.7. For this purpose, it has been suggested that they call the software "The Seamonkey Internet Suite" because, no longer being affiliated with Mozilla, they can't use the "Mozilla" name.

    Make sense?

  • Re:I agree... (Score:4, Informative)

    by an_mo (175299) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:14PM (#11906421) Journal
    AS for you missing the editor in FF, install the opensourcewith extension and configure it to open NVU with it. Then press ctrl_shift+u
  • Re:Firefox forever! (Score:2, Informative)

    by fluffybacon (696495) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:26PM (#11906511) Homepage Journal
    How do you know that I'm not gay? [fluffybacon.co.uk]
    Tsk, one obscure reference to Traffic [imdb.com] and suddenly I'm oppressing someone!
  • Re:That sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:35PM (#11906571)
    "I think Micrsoft UI's are generally lousy"

    Think again. Microsoft has spent a lot of time and money refining their UI. It may not be as clean as Mac OS, and there are definately some rough edges, but after seeing how new users pick up on Windows XP's new features, I have no doubts that their product is "easy to use".
  • by blake213 (575924) * <blake...reary@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:48PM (#11906648) Homepage
    And for an interesting read, check out what wikipedia has to offer on "the book of mozilla":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mozilla [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)

    by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:57PM (#11906717)
    does it really matter whether there are five apps that each do one thing or one app that does five things?

    As others are pointing out, Mozilla.org hasn't componentized the backend ("GRE") of the applicaitons yet. That means that Firefox and Thunderbird share very little compiled code, which is not good because they aren't very lightweight programs to begin with.

    I guess Mozilla was designed from the beginning to be one big monolithic application , so discontinuing that application seems a little odd.
  • by sewagemaster (466124) <{sewagemaster} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @10:58PM (#11906725) Homepage
    coincidentally, i just downloaded the nightly build [newaol.com] last night after reading all the great stuff about it few weeks ago [slashdot.org],and was amazed by the speed improvements. i had a bunch of apps (pdf viewer, thunderbird, licq, multiple konsoles) running while running kde, and the mozilla nightly build started in no more than a second, and page rendering was even faster than firefox. i run firefox mainly as a browser, and i do prefer the UI in firefox, but the mozilla nightly just absolutely wowed me.
  • Re:vote on it (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rura Penthe (154319) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:11PM (#11906802)
    Do you Firefox users actually prefer editing a 10 page config file rather than having a nicely-laid out preferences window? I hope you realize the only reason so many useful settings have been stripped from Firefox is because they think its users are too stupid to handle them. I don't know about you, but this is insulting to me.


    As a (primarily) OS X user, the Mozilla suite's preferences window OFFENDS me. It is repugnant. I cannot fathom how any human being with even a rudimentary grasp of proper user interface design could possibly believe that the Mozilla suite is an example of a well thought-out preferences window.

    There is such a thing as exposing too many configuration options to the end user, and Mozilla 1.x embodies that pitfall. Firefox embraced minimalism and found that there are many like-minded people out there.

    Of course, that's not to say that Firefox is without problems. It currently behaves so far out of the expectations of a native Mac app that I only use it on Linux and Windows, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the UI that used to come out of Mozilla developers.
  • Re:That sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by LnxAddct (679316) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @11:52PM (#11907031)
    Err... I've spent alot of time with users and analyzing how to use their computers. WinXP had the worst learning curve out of all windows releases. Win2000 seems to consistently win out. Also, after users learn WinXP's UI, they still remain highly inefficient in what they do. This extends from the operating system to the Office Suite as well. Interestingly enough, OS X has the least intuitive interface (albeit the highest level of eye candy) yet after learning it, users have a higher level of functionality and ease of use as compared to WinXP. Linux desktops, while requring the highest learning curve and sometimes(depending upon the distribution) theme tweaking to be pleasant on the eyes, almost always result in the user becoming most efficient and capable of utilizing the most functionality (the two kind of go hand in hand). I think thats typical of OSS, developers throw in tons of really great ideas and other things, but often don't know how to properly implement it in an interface. Gnome is really doing quite a job of making the linux desktop experience easy for users of all needs from novices to advanced. (That is not to say anything bad of KDE, its just Gnome focuses more on a strict HIG). Of course the desktop in general is only halfway near the level it should be at and hopefully this will all be fixed within a few years.
    Regards,
    Steve
  • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

    by anonicon (215837) on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:07AM (#11907104)
    "Is there some great advantage that I'm not thinking of to having a giant bundled suite of apps, rather than five or six individual downloads?"

    It's not that, it's that Mozilla's behaviors and interface are much, much smoother compared to my experience with Firefox 1.0.0. Some key UI examples:
    * When I download from Mozilla, it automatically allows me to choose where it's going, instead of defaulting to what it thinks is best.
    * The address and search bar are combined - not separate, which means extra keystrokes to do what previously took one.
    * Searching from the /large/, not /micro/ address field takes me to the Google results page where my brain can eyeball the best possible results, instead of annoyingly, automatically taking me to the "I'm Feeling Lucky" result.
    * Removing features so that we get to play whack the mole with multiple extension downloads, installations, and configurations.
    * If you separately download Firefox, Thunderbird, and the components which give you the same functionality as Moz 1.7.x, they take up more space and have a larger memory footprint than the "kitchen sink" suite.

    There are other annoying issues to boot, but listing all of them is just kicking a baby. For now, IMO, Firefox is nowhere near as nice as Mozilla 1.7.x.
  • Re:The Death Knell (Score:2, Informative)

    by pgilman (96092) <.ni.ag. .ta. .reven.> on Friday March 11, 2005 @02:32AM (#11907741) Journal

    "...I'm a full-time, very-pedantic, anal-about-standards, web developer, so I can speak with absolute authority on this"

    incorrect. with those qualifications, one could speak with relative authority, or great authority, but you cannot speak with absolute authority unless you are the official author of all the standards in question.

    furthermore, as at least one other poster has pointed out, your own website is not 100% standards-compliant. while one supposes that you could argue that you'd made it "wrong" intentionally, that would at the least stretch credulity. according to the principle of occam's razor, it's much more likely that your knowledge of and ability to implement these standards is, while doubtless quite excellent, nonetheless less-than-perfect.

    therefore don't be so quick to appoint yourself high lord magistrate of all things web-related; you're simply not (no one person can be!), and you just end up making yourself look like an ass.

  • I use imap (Score:3, Informative)

    by Inoshiro (71693) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:09AM (#11908091) Homepage
    Problem solved.

    I suggest you migrate to it as well. I have an archive back to 1999 accesible anywhere I have Thunderbird, Mozilla, or a web browser (thanks to Squirrel mail).
  • Re:I agree... (Score:2, Informative)

    by vdboor (827057) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:25AM (#11908140) Homepage
    but I do like to hit Ctrl-E every now and then to show coworkers the underlying table structure of a page. It's just a handy visual tool. Especially when I'm doing webdev.

    You really should check out the web-developer extension toolbar in Firefox! It has that feature, and a lot more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @06:59AM (#11908601)

    You can't download more than 2-3 files at once in firefox. Trying to download more causes the dialog to come up when another file finishes.

    That is sort of by design. The browser limits the number of concurrent connections to a single webserver in order to avoid excessive server load. The default maximum is 4. If the browser is maintaining one connection for the page, then there are only 3 left for downloads. It's a user interface deficiency, not a "programmer error". You can increase the number of connections in about:config (network.http.max-connections-per-server, network.http.max-connections, network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server ).

  • by bterzic (22087) on Friday March 11, 2005 @07:56AM (#11908815) Homepage
    First, my sympathy, I was dealing with this exact same issue 2 days ago.

    After some searching I came to the Thunderbird FAQ that says: "you can import your Mozilla Mail settings", but it doesn't say how. It turns out that ONCE during after the install of Thunderbird you get an option to import settings from Mozilla Mail, but the option then disappears from the "Import" dialog box.

    The solution is to open the Thunderbird Profile manager (on windows it's a shortcut in the Thunderbird Start Menu group) and delete your Profile. (be sure that you don't have any data in that profile you need to maintain, back it up) If you now start Thunderbird it'll ask you if you want to import settings from Mozilla Mail. Works like a charm.

    But, it's possible that it won't actually ask this; in that case, close Thunderbird, go to the file system (windows explorer) and navigate to:
    c:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Application Data\Thunderbird\ and delete the file profiles.ini and registry.dat . This will effectively erase all knowledge that Thunderbird has about your profile.

    Start Thunderbird again and it should ask you if you want to import Mozilla Mail settings and email.

    Obviously they should just give you this option on the Import dialog of Thunderbird, who knows why they opted to leave it out there.

  • Re:Fonts (Score:3, Informative)

    by kosmosik (654958) <{ten.kisomsok} {ta} {sok}> on Friday March 11, 2005 @12:11PM (#11910798) Homepage
    You can try recompiling your freetype library to support patented BCI mechanizm (it is perfectly legal to do so). When you do so, with proper fonts (like mscorefonts) you will get exactly the same look as on MS Windows. ;) I use such setup. fonts. in range of 8px to 12px are non-antialiased, fonts outside that range and bold are antialiased. It looks really slick for me. In fact I can post a screenshot to give you insight on what I mean.

    http://oceanic.wsisiz.edu.pl/~kosmowsk/misc/slas hd ot1.jpeg

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...