Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla Releases Firefox 1.0 RC1 579

islandroots writes "Mozilla has finally posted the first Firefox 1.0 release candidate on their FTP servers. This could very well be the last official release of Firefox before the big 1.0 launch date on November 9th. Mozilla FTP Servers"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Releases Firefox 1.0 RC1

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @06:58AM (#10652007)
    When we're all playing Halo 2 on November 9th! Pick another release date!
  • Extensions (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @06:59AM (#10652010)
    After reading comments that indicate that your installed extensions will show up as incompatible with RC1, I think I'll wait. Apparently the browser has to automatically consider extensions as incompatible until authors check them or something along those lines.
    • by da5idnetlimit.com ( 410908 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:05AM (#10652051) Journal
      "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041026 "

      and you are right, some extensions don't work anymore (I had "browsertime" not working), but all the others I use seem fine (download manager tweak, translation panel, user agent switcher, dictionnary search)

      On the other hand, so many things that were working only so and so are now working again ..(search the web is one, opening an url you highlighted in a new tab is another...)

      So if you are not THAT dependant on ALL your extensions give it a try... also that way you can mail your extension wrtiter and get them/help them to fix that compatibility problem...

      • by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:35AM (#10652678)

        ...dictionnary search.

        That was funny.

        Firefox still sometimes effs up Slashdot's rendering. Or is it the other way around?
        • I think the problem is that slashdot is using non standard code. But that does constantly amaze me that one of the main supporters of mozilla (and its brothern all of which render the same) doesn't render properly in mozilla. WHATS UP WITH THAT?! :)
    • I'm using it with adblock. What else do you need?
      I used to use the single window extension but RC1 has those options built in so I no longer need it.
      • Re:Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:06AM (#10652436) Homepage Journal
        How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically? The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images? The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard? The ability to switch user-agent on the fly? The ability to download with software other than the browser?

        There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?
        • Re:Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Proteus ( 1926 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:48AM (#10652804) Homepage Journal
          There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?
          Firefox has been Beta, and still is. You can expect better consistency between production-release versions, but expecting that fixing bugs and refining the codebase will never break outside applications (extensions) is insanity.
          • Re:Extensions (Score:3, Insightful)

            by smc13 ( 762065 )
            "Firefox has been Beta, and still is."

            RC stands for release candidate, right? This is supposed to mean that it isn't in beta, most of its bugs are fixed, and they are doing final tests to make sure everything works. One of the RC releases will end up as the final release, right?

            Shouldn't the release candidates have consistency?

            Steve Cohen
            • Re:Extensions (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Proteus ( 1926 )
              Shouldn't the release candidates have consistency?
              Yes, but this is RC1. It should have consistency between it and RC2, but not for 0.10 (aka 1.0 PR, a bad naming if I've ever seen one).

              There is no guarantee that a Release Candidate will be compatible with the previous testing version, only with future RC's in the same tree.
          • Re:Extensions (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @10:20AM (#10653853)
            Then don't try to push beta software down my throat. Don't start this campaign to get 1 million downloads for a preview release. I bet no one told their friends & family that when they download Firefox, they were downloading beta software. Oh yeah, and don't bitch when companies aren't adopting Firefox. Save all this for the 1.0 release.
            • Are people putting a gun to your head and forcing you to run firefox? Maybe you should call the police, if you can reach the phone.

              Firefox is beta software, so it breaks some stuff between versions. Unfortunately, it's also better than the 6th revision of the competitor with 80 - 90% marketshare.

              If anyone's pushing firefox down your throat, it's Microsoft. Give them a call and tell them to get their act together. Bitching at people here does nothing.
        • Re:Extensions (Score:4, Informative)

          by ToLu the Happy Furby ( 63586 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:47AM (#10653450)
          How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?


          Becasue this is a testing release only. Users are encouraged to download RC1 only if they are willing to file bugs; normal end users are supposed to stay with 1.0 PR until 1.0 final is available.

          That's why this story needed to provide an FTP link to RC1--it's not available via the mozilla.org web page or the Firefox autoupdate. The next couple weeks between RC1 and final are intended to allow extension authors to certify compatability and/or make needed changes. Then when 1.0 final hits, autoupdate should upgrade 1.0 PR users and their extensions automagically.
    • Re:Extensions (Score:5, Informative)

      by mosschops ( 413617 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:24AM (#10652154)
      How about after setting:
      extensions.disabledObsolete = false
      in about:config ?

      Since there's a good chance extensions that worked under 1.0PR will be fine in 1.0 RC1.
    • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by slavik1337 ( 705019 )
      At least this is a better way to catch incompatabilities. *cough* SP2 *cough*
    • Re:Extensions (Score:5, Informative)

      by silverfuck ( 743326 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `remraf.nad'> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:34AM (#10652211) Homepage

      I did this to get all my extensions working with one of the recent nightlies (think it was 20041026 or 20041022), and it's fine with RC1 too:

      1. Exit FF
      2. Open your extensions.rdf, held in 'extensions' under your profile directory.
      3. For each extension, change the "em:maxVersion" entry to "1.0" (from "0.10" or whatever).
      4. Save, open Firefox again, and re-enable all your extensions.

      Worked flawlessly here (on about a dozen extensions), and should work for pretty much any extension, as there were no major changes from PR to RC1, it's mostly bugfixes (except for the single window mode, obviously don't re-enable Aaron Spuler's Single Window extension).

  • Should I just wait? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dante Shamest ( 813622 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @06:59AM (#10652011)
    How different is this from my Preview Release? Should I download it? Or just wait until Nov 9th?
    • by tsager ( 196659 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:02AM (#10652028) Homepage Journal
      The (rough) changelog is here:
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/qa/ changel og-rc1.html
    • by plj ( 673710 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:04AM (#10652044)
      From MozillaZine [mozillazine.org]:

      Asa Dotzler writes: "Today we have our first Firefox 1.0 candidate builds available for testing. You can get these test builds from FTP. If you've already downloaded 1.0 PR (the "feature complete" preview) and you're not really interested in testing and bug reporting, then you should probably stick with 1.0 PR for a couple more weeks and upgrade when we release the official Firefox 1.0.
    • I have been using the nightly build from 20041024 to fix a browser freeze when trying to print with 1.0PR.

      This version has a new Save Page As dialog which is more cumbersome for me (read: more Windows-like) than before. In order to traverse directories, you have to make another click to open a dialog box, but then at least you can see the whole path.

      maybe this is calling for an extenstion to restore the old behavior.
    • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:34AM (#10652207) Journal
      How different is this from my Preview Release? Should I download it? Or just wait until Nov 9th?

      Among the largest changes are:

      - Tabbed browsing preferences, see "Advanced" panel in Options.
      - Several bug fixes to the new find toolbar.
      - Browser migration improvements.
      - Security fixes, such as an important fix to the problem with inactive tabs able to grab input focus.
      - Maybe a dozen crash fixes, some being among the most commonly reported crashes.
  • First Post (Score:5, Funny)

    by goldsounds ( 787265 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:00AM (#10652018) Homepage
    ... with Firefox 1.0 RC1 It counts for something, doesn't it?
  • Java Update Bug (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrunkenTerror ( 561616 ) * on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:01AM (#10652021) Homepage Journal
    Be aware, there's some sort of Java bug with the application update mechanism. There is a bit of a thread here. [mozillazine.org]
  • Gonna wait (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JasonEngel ( 757582 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:02AM (#10652025)
    I've used each version of Firefox (or whatever their earlier names were) since 0.7. I am on PR1 now, or whatever the version label is. Oddly, I feel compelled to wait and not try this release candidate. I know the date of the planned 1.0 release and for some reason knowing that has me thinking it's perfectly ok to wait until then.
    • Re:Gonna wait (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yeah, I'm still on the last .9x release. I figure that since the official release will be soon, I don't want to risk breaking what I have now. In addition, I don't want to go about updating the extensions just to do it in another week.
  • Of course they did. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:03AM (#10652030)
    I just installed 1.0PR and got everything just the way I wanted it, including a recalcitrant Java terminal emulator working. Ah, well, price of progress, and off I go to do it all again!
    • I just installed 1.0PR and got everything just the way I wanted it, including a recalcitrant Java terminal emulator working. Ah, well, price of progress, and off I go to do it all again!

      Don't! The final release is only a couple of weeks away. Don't fry your nerves unless they fixed a bug [mozilla.org] that really pissed you off. I'm waiting for the final 1.0 myself (hoping they manage to fix this bug [mozilla.org] before the release).

      -Janne

  • Will it support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pommiekiwifruit ( 570416 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:04AM (#10652037)
    this dodgy website [slashdot.org]. I am using 1.0 RC1 at the moment and it often renders this site very badly, hiding the text in negative-X land. Perhaps I should have stuck to internet explorer, which this site is obviously designed for.
    • Re:Will it support (Score:5, Informative)

      by barcodez ( 580516 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:07AM (#10652059)
      It's really annoying I know. A workaround is to do ctrl++ then ctrl+-. So control and the plus key followed by control and the minus key.

      I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?
      • This is true for Mozilla 1.7.3 as well. At least for me that is.
      • Re:Will it support (Score:5, Informative)

        by tsager ( 196659 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:20AM (#10652129) Homepage Journal
        The bug is fixed in trunk. But unfortunately the fix won't make it for Firefox 1.0 as the merge of the two source trees will only be made after release (due to need of excessive regression testing).
        Bug about the issue is here:
        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?i d=21752 7#c108
      • Re:Will it support (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eyeye ( 653962 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:21AM (#10652133) Homepage Journal
        More annoying is slashdots multiple comment pages.

        Does anyone read past the first page - the following pages contain mostly comments you've already read.

        Or has it been fixed now?
        • Does anyone read past the first page - the following pages contain mostly comments you've already read. Or has it been fixed now?

          No, it hasn't been fixed. It's a royal pain when there are lots of posts, because you can read the first page, and then read the same exact thing on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. Eventually you'll find a page that doesn't start with the same posts that you've already read.

      • by koi88 ( 640490 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:31AM (#10652197)

        I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?

        How dare you. It's never Mozilla's, FF's or slashdot's fault. Stick to the usual suspects, please:
        • Microsoft
        • George Lucas
        • patent attorneys
        • SCO
        So if you run Windows, it must be Microsoft's fault, if you run Linux, it's SCO's fault (the code I borrowed from them is incredibly buggy).
        If you use BSD, it's because BSD is dying.
        If you use Max OS X, either George Lucas' ruined it or some patent attorney is to blame (I'm not sure on the last one).
      • Re:Will it support (Score:4, Insightful)

        by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:51AM (#10652319) Homepage Journal
        The /. editors rightfully decided that on this site noone cares to read late posts, with the stories being posted so quickly. This site is obviously designed/managed for people with very very short attention spans who cannot stay on a discussion for more than 30 odd minutes and who are not very good at following threads of discussion.

        Note that I did not say the following: people coming here have ver very short attention spans and cannot stay on a discussion for more than 30 odd minutes and are not very good at following threads of discussion. (But I do think that moderation points are quite often given out to those special folks.)

    • Re:Will it support (Score:5, Informative)

      by Edgewize ( 262271 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:12AM (#10652097)
      Here is a short javascript bookmarklet that fixes table rendering. To prevent Slashcode from mangling it, I've inserted some linebreaks. Condense it back into one line and then use it as a bookmarked URL; whenever you select it, it will fix all of the incremental-display bugs on the current page.

      javascript:(function(){
      var s=document.body.style;
      var x=s.display;
      s.display='none';
      s.display=x;
      })( )
    • Actually, the slashdot.org site tentatively validates as compliant with both HTML 3.2 and 4.01 transitional standards using the W3C HTML validator. This means that it is not designed just to support IE but rather, the broader 3.2 and 4.01 HTML standards. And actually, if the DOCTYPE declaration for "HTML 4.01 Transitional" had been inserted at the top, the code would pass!
      • Re:Will it support (Score:2, Informative)

        by POWRSURG ( 755318 )
        Informative?

        I think the poster is making a joke here. Slashdot's HTML is neither valid 3.2 or 4.01 even with the DOCTYPE declarations. Not.by.a.long.shot. In fact, /. has gone through the effort of preventing users from sending their site to the W3C validator (unless some mirror is used)....
    • Re:Will it support (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:29AM (#10652185) Journal
      this dodgy website [slashdot.org]. I am using 1.0 RC1 at the moment and it often renders this site very badly, hiding the text in negative-X land.

      Fixed in the trunk builds, and will therefore be in all Firefox versions after Firefox 1.0 Final.
      This is Bugzilla bug #217527 [mozilla.org].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:04AM (#10652043)
    Although it's nice to have an announcement on slash, it would also be nice to have a pointer IN the article to a changelog which would give me reasons to upgrade from "Pre-Release" to "Release Candidate"

    Why?
  • by Edgewize ( 262271 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:07AM (#10652062)
    This "release candidate" is really just an interim release between 1.0PR and 1.0 final. The Firefox team knows that there are still significant bugs that must be addressed before 1.0-final. See The Burning Edge [squarefree.com] for a small taste of what's been fixed since 1.0PR, and what is still left to do.

    A word of caution: there will be significant bugfixes between now and the final release, but there may or may not be automatic update notifications. If you decide to install this on the computers of your friends and family, make sure to upgrade them again later ;)
  • by EvilMonkeySlayer ( 826044 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:11AM (#10652086) Journal
    See http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/ [www.moox.ws]
    It's firefox and Thunderbird compiled specifically for processor architectures. (they have slightly better performance than normal Firefox)
  • what does this mean? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:14AM (#10652104)
    Its a bug release - ala no new features.

    Keep those bug reports coming!

    "This is a rough changelog for the RC-1 release. It's probably got a few bugs on it that aren't actually fixed and it's certainly missing a few bugs that were fixed, but it should give you a pretty good idea about most of the 250 or so bugs we've fixed since the Preview Release."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:22AM (#10652141)
    I really enjoy using Firefox, it's a real breath of fresh air after years of IE window opening, cluttering the taskbar and having to deal with popups wasting my time. The only beef I have is the extension system, why is it organised that way?

    Extensions

    Are difficult to install for my family, who simply don't understand or trust the process.

    Often incompatible with latest releases, preventing me from upgrading for months

    Incomaptible with each other

    Can cause problems EVEN if deemed "compatible", and often even uninstall fo extension does nothing! Have to reinstall fire*! This is my biggest annoyance, Adblock broke the downloading progress bar, then tabbrowser extensions ruined my cookies settings. All too often I feel like the extensions are like a house of cards piled up, and I'm hesitatant to even install a new theme in case they all fall over and I have to install them all over again, fingers crossed.

    Really, the whole extensions system is a mass of incompatabilities, conflicting requirements, errors and security dubious sources. I'd prefer any bloat to that!

    • by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:33AM (#10652203) Journal
      " really enjoy using Firefox, it's a real breath of fresh air after years of IE window opening, cluttering the taskbar and having to deal with popups wasting my time."
      Cluttered Windows task bar, yes. However IE with Windows XP Service Pack 2 does block popups.
      "Are difficult to install for my family, who simply don't understand or trust the process."
      While security concerns could be justified [mozillazine.org], does your family really need extensions? And if they do, can't you help them?
      "Often incompatible with latest releases, preventing me from upgrading for months"
      Firefox isn't out as a finished product yet. As far as I know, the extension system will be frozen with 1.0, and from then on, there won't be any incompatibilities. The incompatibilities have been a result of changes, and the changes a result of Firefox's unfinished state.
  • by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:25AM (#10652160) Journal
    A discussion in the MozillaZine forums raises an important point about potential security problems when using extensions [mozillazine.org].
    "What happens when one of those authors goes bad? We are so used to installing these extensions we really never give it a second thought, especially upgrades. verson 0.5 of ACME extension does what we want so yea lets install 0.6 clickerty click. We probably install more extensions than we ever clicked "YES I WANT A DIALER" button in IE. Isnt this a huge community driven security risk."

    In a nutshell, one is worried that the UMO (update.mozilla.org) staff does not have the resources to properly scan all extensions and extension updates for malicious code. And even if you do check the extension when submitted, the author may add an update later with malicious code, and then Firefox installations all over the world may get infected.

    Currently, they may be able to handle the task, but if Firefox manages to gain even more popularity, one can probably expect even more submitted extensions, and with a larger user base, it becomes a tempting target for crackers.

    Fortunately, the discussion in the MozillaZine forums seems to result in a lot of nice ideas about how one can handle this, but it might still be something one needs to keep in mind.

    It would be sad if Firefox was hit by security problems with extensions similar to how ActiveX has been a problem in Internet Explorer.

    Perhaps Firefox's growing popularity will lead to more donations, of which some money can be used to hire staff to really make sure that UMO is not used as a tool to spread malware?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:30AM (#10652191)
    Firefox (or Phoenix or Firebird) was originally started as a lightweight web browser [slashdot.org], presumably in response to concerns about what I'll call proper Mozilla (i.e. the suite) bloat.

    It now seems to implement everything that the Mozilla Browser does, and I don't really find it any faster than the Mozilla Suite, and I like the integrated mail client (which has great search, spam filtering and other facilities).

    Some people object to using the suite if they don't use the mail client, but really, come on, it's taking up only a few MB on your hard disk. Get over it!

    If you do use the associated Thunderbird [mozilla.org] mail client then you're actually using more memory as the GRE (Gecko Runtime Environment) is not yet sharable between different processes.

    Plans like putting a full page ad in the New York Times [spreadfirefox.com] for FireFox seem a bit crazy to me. What about the mail client, IRC client and forthcoming calendar? Advertise once there's a whole suite, and even then not in newspapers!

  • Testing release... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ganiman ( 162726 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:41AM (#10652247)
    Right off of the spreadfirefox.com website:

    a note to SFX community: This is a testing release. This is not a product release. We're not pushing this release on our PR users. The majority of PR users should stick with PR until 1.0 ships. This is a testing release and we don't need everyone downloading it, just the folks that want to be involved with testing and bug reporting. Please don't evangelize this release or start pushing all your friends and family to upgrade. Most of them should wait until 1.0 in about two weeks.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. Because someone trolls the web all night waiting for Mozilla to release another version of Firefox, they get rewarded with their in lights on the front page of slashdot. Did you wonder why it's only on the FTP server and not advertised on the web site?
  • by LordJezo ( 596587 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:41AM (#10652248)
    My company portal uses SVG graphics and no matter what I do I cannot get Firefox/Mozilla to view them.

    Sort of makes it useless for me on a coorprate level and that makes me very sad.
  • by contrapuntalmindset ( 697143 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:00AM (#10652380)
    Things Firefox does differently or does not have that Mozilla does (from my experience): * Bookmarking groups of tabs and then opening them all with a single click - Mozilla yes, Firefox no. * Opening new blank tabs with a button - Mozilla yes, Firefox no. To me these are features I use very often and that I can't use in Firefox. I hope they continue Mozilla. Thanks for listening.
  • by Loco3KGT ( 141999 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:01AM (#10652388)
    I thought this was super neat. I went to Dodge's website - www.4adodge.com and started to price/build a new car. I got a popup saying "Your browser is not officially supported." Before I started cussing like a sailor I continued reading and it say "If you would like to continue, press OK. Otherwise, press cancel." I couldn't believe. Someone had the state of mind to let me keep going at my own risk. It was unbelievable.
  • Upgrade Problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <<chris> <at> <talkingtoad.com>> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:02AM (#10652397) Homepage Journal
    I upgraded just now (win32), and now my home button doesn't work. It totally ignores it. When I middle click on the home button, it _DOES_ open home in a new tab. This is really odd.

    Has anyone else had this problem?
  • AMD64 Suport? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VivianC ( 206472 ) <internet_update@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:10AM (#10653019) Homepage Journal
    Since I am not a coder, does anyone know if there will be a 64-bit build of Firefox? I'd like to use it on my 64-bit XP Beta machine.

  • by xot ( 663131 ) <fragiledeathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:38AM (#10653347) Journal
    I use v0.9.3 of firefox on one machine and the 1.0rc on my other machine.both the machines have exactly the same config, the are both hp ,same models bought on the same day.But the one with 0.9.3 performs really well.The new version keeps hanging n crashing after a few hours of use n abuse.
    have you guys experience a decrease in speed of the later version?
  • Here's an idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by British ( 51765 ) <british1500@gmail.com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:52AM (#10653506) Homepage Journal
    Maybe make a Firefox/Mozilla SDK for sites that are IE-only Firefox friendly? that should help propagation.
  • by Espectr0 ( 577637 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @10:27AM (#10653956) Journal
    Some sites are now doing something different with the popups, that fools every pop up blocker out there.

    Try http://astalavista.box.sk/ [astalavista.box.sk] for a sample

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...