Solve real business challenges on Google Cloud and run workloads for free. For Slashdot users: Get $300 in free credits to fully explore Google Cloud. Get started for free today.
As an aside, Anybody know when Moz will officially be branched off into firebird/thunderbird components? I thought this was supposed to happen around 1.6 apparently I was wrong.
From what I've been reading, more people are interested in the suite over the *birds than originally anticipated, so they'll be keeping it around for a while.
However, most developers working on the suite are focused primarily on the Gecko engine, with very little work being done on the front-end of things. Since the *birds are obviously Gecko-based as well, they are essentially being worked on by most Mozilla developers, even if indirectly. So it's not like the *birds are missing out on much development effort.
"From what I've been reading, more people are interested in the suite over the *birds than originally anticipated, so they'll be keeping it around for a while."
Grrrr. This is a pet peeve of mine. Why do so many people find the word "suite" to be synonymous with "monolithic app"? There's absolutely no reason. The suite can consist of the *birds where each component runs in its own process space. There are plenty of other tightly coupled suites out there that do this very well. Why would anybody want to run it all in one process space? It was a fundamental architectural mistake made by Netscape a decade ago, and just pure foolishness when the open source Mozilla team copied it!
As far as most users are concerned, they click an icon on their desktop (or in the app) for whatever they want to do, be it browsing, mail, IRC, calendaring, etc. A window appears and they do their thing. Why does it matter if that window comes from the same process or not? It doesn't. In fact, it's preferable if it doesn't. Crashes, or blocking actions won't tie up or interfere with the other process(es) (which is a major problem with the current suite).
Once the *birds implement the same functionality from a UI and extensions perspective, and the same integration with each of the other components as the current suite, there is no reason to continue with this monolithic monstrousity. I like the Mozilla products. I use the components (mostly mail/news and browser), I want the suite. I don't want a monolithic single process app.
"Once the *birds implement the same functionality from a UI and extensions perspective, and the same integration with each of the other components as the current suite, there is no reason to continue with this monolithic monstrousity."
Yes, I happen to agree with you... being a Firebird/Thunderbird user myself. I don't think whether the current suite is a monolithic monstrousity or a multi-process paradise matters to some. There are - apparently - those who desire the integration between components tha
Some of us wish that Firebird had multiple processes so that a crash in one window wouldn't wipe out the other 4 windows with half a dozen tabs each....
(A habit that you form once you have a tabbed browser...)
Thunderbird 0.4 has worked well for me for the last month (replaced Moz 1.4). It's finished enough that it's useable for me at least.
Try this:
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/webdevel.ht ml#generated_source [squarefree.com]
It's a bookmarklet that takes the current page, and shows you it's source in a new window, without reloading. It's not the EXACT source from the server though, it's the cleaned up onebeing displayer. It's as close as we get, currently.
I just read yesterday in the firebird documentation that it has a 250 millisecond pause built in before rendering so as to not have to reflow the page as much as bytes stream in. It can be deactivated as in the instructions here [texturizer.net] So that'll make it a little faster I think
I have a win2k machine at work with Moz 1.4 and IE6. I think it is a P3 700mhz 512mb RAM.
Trying the parent's mailing list- Moz -9 secs to load. IE- 15secs. We have a caching web proxy on a fast pipe. I tried Moz first.
Click a message then go back- Moz 2secs, IE 2secs.
IE does start displaying content faster but the complete load is from cache takes nearly identical amount of time. Seems to me that performance is adequate.
The name takes on new meaning when you realize that "moji" is a Japanese word for a character or ideograph. So "Mojira" could theoretically be the Japanese name of a "text-monster", which is somehow fitting for the Mozilla browser.
Well, to be really pedantic, there isn't a sound that maps directly to either the English R or L, there's a single sound that's about halfway in between the two. Hence the tendency of Japanese speakers to swap them in both directions; to someone who has spoken only Japanese, it seems like an arcane distinction between two tiny variants of the same sound.
Romanji tends to transcribe the sound as R, but they're both equally accurate.
There's also no "zi" sound; that's pronounced as "ji" even though it is occasionally written "zi."
Actually there's no "ji" sound either. Again, the Japanese pronunciation doesn't map to any English syllable. In English, we say "ji" with our tongue at the roof of our mouth. In Japanese they say it with their tongue at the very front of their mouth, right behind their front teeth gums. It sounds more like a mix of the English sounds "zi" and "ji". The Hepburn romanization uses the letters "ji" to denote this mora (one beat, roughly equivalent to a syllable), but because of that, every English speaker who learned Japanese under that system is speaking with a gaizin accent.
Newer systems such as the Jordan romanization (Eleanor Harz Jordan) attempt to correct this problem by using the letters "zi" to represent the mora, but with the disclaimer that "zi" is not the correct sound either and is only used to remind learners not to say "ji". The correct sound is actually a combination of "zi" and "ji" pronounced with the tongue at the front of the mouth.
Once you understand that, then it doesn't really matter how you romanize "Mozilla", whether it's "mojira" or "mozira", since you know that in this case neither mora "zi" nor "ji" is a phonetic spelling, but rather a symbolic representation of a sound that doesn't exist in English. The spelling only matters as a reminder for learners who have not yet mastered the new sound.
FireBird has beaten IE and we are just waiting for the inertia to bury the old stalwart.
Are you telling me that you aren't waiting with baited breath for tonights nightly 0.8 build that really says 0.7+ in it?
The fact that there are nightly builds and every week a couple of builds optimised for Athlon/P4 or older processors should entice you to at least try it, free of charge, and see if it actually works for you.
Most people that have tried it are still trying it, and a fair number of us have it as default browser.
Firebird has won the browser wars? That's quite the statement to say, since it seems IE still has a good ~85% chunk of the market [upsdell.com]. I think it still needs to carve quite a big piece out of Microsoft's share before we can start claiming any victories.
Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.
To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the
story (George Eliot).
See Usage Note at bait [reference.com]1.
Another release of Mozilla is a great thing, but I've been personally more interested in Firebird / Thunderbird. As we all know Mozilla will eventually fully break up into the seperate projects, and my interest is completely oriented on the progress of Firebird / Thunderbird.
Firebird is a great browser about to hit 0.8 and stepping closer towards the great 1.0 release that took Mozilla years to obtain. Thunderbird is still in need of lots of work, but the progress is fantastic and I exclusively use it even in its immature state.
For the Mozilla devs who browse/., thanks for all your hard work in making free software that suits my wants and needs. Keep up the great work!
Firebird is a great browser about to hit 0.8 and stepping closer towards the great 1.0 release that took Mozilla years to obtain.
Well, yeah, but you have to consider Firebird uses the Gecko rendering engine, the same as Mozilla. Having a pre-written rendering engine wasn't an advantage enjoyed by Mozilla.
Thunderbird is still in need of lots of work, but the progress is fantastic and I exclusively use it even in its immature state.
I've been using it across Linux, Windows, and MacOS X, and I haven't had a single problem with it. I'm not really sure how much more work it needs, since it seems pretty clean of bugs, unless they're planning on adding some more features.
I hope not. Creeping featuritis has been the death of too many fine pieces of software that were fine just the way they were.
All slashdot readers know about the benefits of Mozilla but I am happy to see some more mainstream magazines giving props to the browser. I noticed it won some magazines comparo of browsers for the end of 2003. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we keep seeing improvements in Mozilla while it seems like IE has been a stagnant product for some time.
ya, most ppl out there that I met don't know what's 'Mozilla' nor its relation with Netscape the browser. Most companies still build IE only websites, some better ones build IE+Netscape, but Mozilla still remains to be the 'underground'.
More promotions, either by the press or by us/. readers are important.
Most companies still build IE only websites, some better ones build IE+Netscape
It's rare for me to visit a web site that doesn't work perfectly or near perfectly in Mozilla. Today I ran across one for the first time in about a year. It uses document.all for navigation, which means that users must be running IE or Opera and also must have JavaScript enabled for links to work. When the developers finally realize that over 20% of visitors can't navigate their site, I think they'll quickly fix it.
As listed in the Release notes mozilla's greatest feature yet:
One step closer to the kitchen sink, about:about has been implemented. Typing about:about in the address field will give the user a nice list of available about:s.
By the way, if you haven't yet, if you use mozilla, you need to check out about:mozilla [about]
It was just recently updated. Here are two prior quotations from The Book of Mozilla:
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble. from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31 (Red Letter Edition)
And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth.
I'm currently running the Windows version of Mozilla 1.5 over IE. I recently downloaded the SVG-enabled version of Mozilla, and it's pretty neat. Any ideas when SVG support will be officially merged into the Mozilla stable tree?
Just curious, who uses the suite instead of Firebird/Thunderbird... and why?
I prefer the individual applications, primarily due to launch speed, but also due to what I think is a superior interface of components in the components-as-apps approach vs. the components-in-suite approach.
It does everything I want, the way I want. I have the all the prefs set just how I like 'em. For example turning off the icons on the toolbar and showing only text buttons. I don't really need firebird's pretty icons. =)
I run mozilla for weeks at a time, launch speed is irrelevant. The only thing firebird offers me is less features and more bugs. No thanks.
I've been waiting for years for mozilla to be finished, and I'm not going back to another half finished browser and mail ever again. Call me up
I was using Mozilla (the whole package) for a while. Then sometime last summer I switched to using Firebird/Thunderbird, and then about a month ago I switched back to plain Mozilla. Here's why:
Most of the time I have a browser and e-mail open anyway, so why have 2 applications open when you can have one? Also, Mozilla, as it is, is far less buggy than Firebird/Thunderbird. I've encountered some really annoying bugs that just annoyed the hell out of me. Also, does anyone really notice the startup speed? (I haven't. I compile Mozilla with all the optimizations, etc., and I really don't see any `speed' difference between this and Firebird).
Now, on my Windows machine, I do use Firebird, but that's simply because I have no need for e-mail there.
(also, the occasional need for ChatZilla makes one more useful than the other).
So as far as I'm concerned, I hope they still keep the intergrated package alive later.
I like the Mozilla user interface better, and the preferences section too. In Firebird many things are being dumbed down, and to get the same functionality as in Mozilla you need to download and install several extensions, that may or may not work. And then do the same thing with each update:-/ Mozilla gives me one single archive to download, extract, copy plugins over, (make backup of profile directory just in case) and run.
I like the idea of breaking things up from a technical/development/organizational standpoint but I don't like firebird UI.
I like the way the middle click opens a new window in Mozilla, and I don't like tabs. Currently I have 8 browser windows open, my xchat window is open, I have 4 eterm windows open and 4 random windows minimized. That's because I was shutting down for the day and exited a bunch of applications.
My window manager is set up so that I can take advantage of Fitt's Law [asktog.com] to switch between win
The roadmap has implied for some time that 1.4 was the last unified (XPFE) Mozilla-based release. 1.5-1.6 was supposed to be the Firebird transition period, during which Mozilla-the-unified-browser was supplanted by Thunderbird and Firebird. Perhaps that was too ambitious, and they've changed their mind, but the roadmap still indicates otherwise.
What's the deal? It really looks like the new roadmap is "build in all the features people REALLY bitch about into XPFE Mozilla, then once Firebird/Thunderbird is more stable, we'll transition to those". I'm fine with that, but shouldn't they just come out and say it?
On 2003-06-01 I submitted a bug report [mozilla.org] (see my mirror [bigpond.net.au] if bugzilla doesn't let you follow a link from slashdot). I read the bug reporting guidelines and did all the right things. I created a stripped-down test case and attached it, adding the keyword "testcase". I set the Severity to Major since I think it's somewhat serious (see for yourself). The bug got confirmed by a QA person... and then ignored. There have been several releases since then (final, non-beta releases), and my bug has remained.
What I'd like to know is: why are releases made with known Major bugs, and what does it take for a bug to get seen to and not sit in Bugzilla, ignored? It has certainly made me feel that there is little point in reporting any further bugs.
Could someone explain Mozilla's QA process to me?
why are releases made with known Major bugs, and what does it take for a bug to get seen to and not sit in Bugzilla, ignored
If the next release of Mozilla had to wait until all known major bugs were fixed, it might be years until that next release. The chances are that almost no one experiences or notices that particular bug, or even if someone else does notice it there are more serious bugs they experience. As you can see, no one has voted for the bug to be fixed and no one else has complained that it'
Because Firebird plays nicely "out of the box" so to speak with MS Outlook, and my customers want that. I know it's a horrible notion to some the overall goal is to convert folks on using these pieces of OSS has to be gentle and user friendly. Business users get Firebird suggested to them and home users Mozilla. I haven't touched IE for daily browsing in a couple years now thanks to these awesome browsers.
If you're running Internet Explorer, you can upgrade to Mozilla 1.6 here [wired.net.nz]
(If you're not running IE, you won't see anything. My redirect exploits the ^A bug and uses IE conditional comments to make it look like an official MS page for downloading Mozilla)
I got the idea after seeing (in my inbox) a phishing email for "http://westpack.com.au^A@{some.ip}"
Took me about an hour to edit the microsoft page for Mozilla-1.5 and get it working, and then hack the redirect so my homepage still validates. It took me 2 minutes from noticing Moz1.6 was out, editing the page with the new information, and posting the link here.
If Microsoft sends me a C&D, I'm not sure what I'll do. I don't really have any assets or income worth sueing for but I guess that's never stopped them before.
If you have Microsoft Proxy Server or some other NTLM proxy at work or wherever, take a good hard look at 1.6. It's the first Mozilla version to have a built-in NTLM solution.
For the first time, Mozilla will work on many corporate networks.
If you have Microsoft Proxy Server or some other NTLM proxy at work or wherever, take a good hard look at 1.6. It's the first Mozilla version to have a built-in NTLM solution.
It's been available in Windows builds for quite a while (since at least 1.4). The key difference is that the new method is cross-platform.
Saying "top posting is bad" is like saying "EMACS is better than vi." A matter of opinion ONLY.
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply. However, top-posting is more convenient for those enagaging in the discussion, since they presumably already know who's saying what, and therefore it's better to have the most up-to-date information at the TOP. They can scroll down to get context if necessary.
Please, don't turn top-posting into yet ANOTHER religious issue... We don't need more of them.
Any sort of "quote the entire freaking message I'm replying to" is wrong, be it "Microsoft spits on your pathetic standards" top-posting, or "AOL Me-Tooer" bottom-posting. Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Only quote the bare minimum necessary to maintain context. If someone needs the entire prior conversation, forward them the entire conversation, ideally using "bounce" or similar feature so that they have access to individual messages and can have their email client do intelligent things like threading wit
Saying "top posting is bad" is like saying "EMACS is better than vi." A matter of opinion ONLY.
Yeah, but how many users do you think actually has an opinion on this? 99.99 % of the bottom-quoted email I get is there because their email program encourages it, not because they think it is convenient.
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply.
I don't think bottom-quoting help with the temporal flow at all! You have to start
A truly useful extension would be one that would work on the receiver's end and move top-posts to the bottom, or bottom-posts to the top (whichever way the receiver prefers to see it). So regardless of how the poster did it, you'd see it in your preferred method.
I know... technically difficult, but even if it only handled the simple cases...
>> Another frequently requested MailNews feature, a preference for placing >>the user's signature above the quoted text, has been added. > >Nooooo! Argh, this will only encourage top-posting.
Not all people think alike, and I came to realize my reasonable, rational arguments mostly just served to control the way other people expressed themselves -- i.e., so that they would express themselves more like myself.
I trust you're equally as accepting of those people who choose to WRITE IN ALL CAPS, or abbrvt lik u r txt mssging, or 3N463 1N 4 B17 0F 1337? (and I've seen all three by email, the first two in business email). Some forms of expression are irritating to receive and just stupid. Where you put quoted text isn't even some deep expression of your personality and life choices. It's just a freaking quotation.
Quoting text for context is an old idea with well understood techniques. Most people were taught how to do it in high school You block quote things inline, much like I've done your text.
You trim to the bare minimum so readers don't waste their time with useless junk.
Ultimately it's a matter of being polite to your recipient. You value their time, don't you? So send them a bare minimum. And for those cases where they need lots of context in the form of previous messages, top posting is an amazingly crude and rude solution. I have a powerful, modern email client for a reason. I thread my messages to keep track of context and have powerful searching and filtering capabilities. Putting the entire conversation in a single message throws that entire system away and leaves me with a stupid giant list of text, sorted in reverse historical order with signatures, Yahoo ads, and headers all intermingled. It's a mess. If I need those messages as context, forward the lot of them to me with as little mangling as possible (often called something like "bounce"). Now my powerful email client can do smart things to help keep me sane.
Ultimately not top-posting is about not being rude to your recipients. Top posting says, "I'm lazy, and this is easiest way for me to provide context you may or may not need. I don't care that it's less convient to you, my time is more valuable than yours."
For better or worse, most people don't work the way you describe. I like to spend time writing clear and concise emails, but most people don't. What's more, my effort is completely lost on them, and sometimes it even strikes them as pedantic/weird/irrelevant.
Ultimately not top-posting is about not being rude to your recipients. Top posting says, "I'm lazy, and this is easiest way for me to provide context you may or may not need. I don't care that it's less convient to you, my time is more valuable than yours."
This just underscores my point. You have an elaborate system, and you want people to conform. What you need to understand is that they are under no obligation to do so whatsoever.
I submitted this story [eweek.com] today, but as usual, since I am not a friend of the/. Editors, they shot it down big time (within minutes of when I submitted it), but I'm not bitter (that's a joke, OK?)! The guy from Eolas who brought the action against Microsoft about his browser patent, is in talks with "major Linux players." In fact, according to the eWeek story (rejected by/.), he's an Open Source contributor. Read between the lines, because this bodes VERY well for Mozilla. While W3 and Microsoft are hemming and hawing about what this kind of patent meant to them, and it means something very bad for Internet Explorer, I suspect Mozilla will not be a target. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but "what if" this guy is into Open Source, and saw a nice way to screw MS? I know, "so what, he still has a patent for something that is obvious and should not be patented." Well, my position is just the same as with SCO / IMB. Lessor of two evils, and my enemies' enemy is my friend (for now).
Read between the lines, because this bodes VERY well for Mozilla. While W3 and Microsoft are hemming and hawing about what this kind of patent meant to them, and it means something very bad for Internet Explorer, I suspect Mozilla will not be a target.
A dumb patent is a dumb patent, and should be overturned as a matter of principle, no matter who it advantages tactically. Dumb patents in general are a threat to open source. Actually, they are a threat to anyone wanting to make good software.
As outlined in the Mozilla project roadmap , the Mozilla Firebird browser will eventually replace the Seamonkey browser as the premiere end-user browser from mozilla.org. As part of the journey towards that goal, from milestone 0.7 onward Firebird 0.x releases will occur at the same time (or approximately the same time).Firebird Roadmap [mozilla.org]
Yes, you heard it right. This release of Mozilla is significant ALSO in that it heralds an impending release of FireBird.
Of course, Firebird 0.8 was due out December 2003, so we're overdue for that anyways.
I see that vCard support has been added, but there doesn't seem to be any UI for it. Can anyone tell me how to open a vCard that is sent to me from Outlook?
"Remove from server after x days" has been implemented for POP3 mail accounts.
I have been yearning for this feature that I loved in Eudora in KMail. This is the first Linux mail client that I've seen that supports it.
Anyone know if Thunderbird has this option yet?
I'm now very tempted to install Mozilla and switch mail clients but I'd rather just have a stand-alone mail client like Thunderbird, and only have to transition mail clients once to get this feature.
From the 0.4 release notes [mozilla.org]: "POP Accounts now support aging on the server." At least I'm assuming that's what that refers to. I do know from experience that it is in TB though. Super handy for keeping the mailbox tidy.
NOT want to have to install 3-4 seperate programs for all the stuff mozilla has? I occaisionally use mozilla composer for quick stuff, I use mozilla mail for my email, and I use mozilla for my browser.
I like the mozilla preferences digalog, and i like the tools menu that has all the image, popup, and cookie controlls right there in a quick easy to use place.
Also, its quickstart is very nice and its interface has some subtle differences from firebird..most of which I like better.
I'm not saying discontinue firebird, since sometimes you just want a nice browser, and this is great.. But why discontinue the suite?
Kind of like MS office, I dont wanna have to install all the programs seperate..its nice to just have them all together, and select what I want.
Slam me if you wish for being superficial, but Mozilla lacks the nifty drop-shadows and subtle visual cues that IE (and
OSX?) features.
I'm an "old skool" transformed-to-CAD draftsman originally trained with actual pencils, paper and a bit of artistic flair for focusing the eye on what's important, and I dislike Mozilla's lack of visual enhancements.
I would switch to Moz immediately and permanently if it could do this (not because of the "cool factor" but because it is a better presentation).
Have a look at www.milonic.com and see what they have been doing regarding DHTML.
Most people stick with what they are used to. Even when pop-up blocking is given as a feature of Mozilla to users that suffer from excessive pop-up ads, most still seem to prefer using the IE (or Windows?) add-ons that stop them.
Side-thought: I have no experience with IE pop-up blockers, but it would seem like a very effective method for spreading malware. Maybe that's just the old tin-foil hat I'm feeling.
that's an option in "preferences". It doesn't come enabled by default, but it's there.
Also, a very nice thing about tabs (aside from being able to collect tabs in a window by topic) is bookmarking tab groups; all the documentation you want at your fingertips and at the click of a button.
FWIW, I have 3 monitors, and still use tabs; they're just so danged useful.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday January 16, 2004 @12:14AM (#7994828)
I've been toying with XUL for a while now and am cozing up with 'Rapid Application Development with Mozilla'. Fantasic read, but the one thing that really sticks in my craw is the total lack of organized documentation.
The *only* way a 'platform'/language will be widely adopted is by making it accessible to Joe Coder. Just take a look at PHP, it's not always the best language, but has a *huge* user base, primarily because it's well documented.
Yes, there are now thousands of 'developers' writing crappy code, but dammit, at least they're pushing it to their clients, friends, family the neighbour's dog. Evangelism (sic) is the root of success.
If you plan to install 1.6 to the same subdirectory in which you have 1.2, yes, you should uninstall 1.2 before installing 1.6.
If you plan to install 1.6 to a brand spanking new subdirectory, you need not uninstall 1.2. You should always use different profiles for different versions of Mozilla.
BTW, you should uninstall 1.2 anyway. It has major bugs. In terms of stability, version 1.4.1, for instance, is to 1.2 as a granite rock is to gray goo.
Although the main site was completely unresponsive, and the primary mirrors as well, quite a few of the secondary mirrors [mozilla.org] were pretty good. The progeny [progeny.com] link worked for me.
if you,re on linux, tip:
delete your ~/.mozilla, make sure you backup your bookmarks and all your other profile stuff, since it's all stored there. that should convince 1.6 to work.
You know how in Internet Explorer and Firebird you can type a word (like 'google') and hit Control+Enter, it will convert 'google' to 'http://www.google.com'. I like that feature. Sure, you can just type 'google' and hit enter while it tries to figure out what you mean, but Control+Enter shaves precious seconds off of the load time. In Firebird, there's also Shift+Enter and Ctrl+Shift+Enter too, but I don't use those. IE only has the Control+Enter feature. But Mozilla lacks all of them!
Should be prepackaged with various popular plugins like Flash and Shockwave.
I've reccomended firebird to all of my windows-using, non tech-savvy friends and they love it, but they wouldn't have done it without my encouragement because it was such a pain to redownload so many plugins.
People are lazy. Lazy people buy(in the loose sense of the word, since the software's free) convenience.
"Kill Flash" is the most sexy, beautiful button ever made. Thank you, PrefBar guys. You rock.
For those who don't know: this little button removes the last annoying traces of advertising from the web, and IMHO is a necessary addition to the wonderful standard Mozilla capabilities "Block unrequested pop-ups" and "Block Images from this server"
Firebird has a number of thigns that are good but the last time i tried it out (.6 iirc) it was still.. lacking in certain areas.
Note: Firebird is meant to be a stripped down browser, but extensible for those who want additional functionality. Thus, I will refer you to many extensions you need to install.
1.) When a link has a target=_blank it opens a new browser instead of a new tab. Cannot express how much this annoys me.
Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Great! Now it's so much easier to read slashdot the Hardcore Way
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, Anybody know when Moz will officially be branched off into firebird/thunderbird components? I thought this was supposed to happen around 1.6 apparently I was wrong.
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Informative)
However, most developers working on the suite are focused primarily on the Gecko engine, with very little work being done on the front-end of things. Since the *birds are obviously Gecko-based as well, they are essentially being worked on by most Mozilla developers, even if indirectly. So it's not like the *birds are missing out on much development effort.
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grrrr. This is a pet peeve of mine. Why do so many people find the word "suite" to be synonymous with "monolithic app"? There's absolutely no reason. The suite can consist of the *birds where each component runs in its own process space. There are plenty of other tightly coupled suites out there that do this very well. Why would anybody want to run it all in one process space? It was a fundamental architectural mistake made by Netscape a decade ago, and just pure foolishness when the open source Mozilla team copied it!
As far as most users are concerned, they click an icon on their desktop (or in the app) for whatever they want to do, be it browsing, mail, IRC, calendaring, etc. A window appears and they do their thing. Why does it matter if that window comes from the same process or not? It doesn't. In fact, it's preferable if it doesn't. Crashes, or blocking actions won't tie up or interfere with the other process(es) (which is a major problem with the current suite).
Once the *birds implement the same functionality from a UI and extensions perspective, and the same integration with each of the other components as the current suite, there is no reason to continue with this monolithic monstrousity. I like the Mozilla products. I use the components (mostly mail/news and browser), I want the suite. I don't want a monolithic single process app.
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I happen to agree with you... being a Firebird/Thunderbird user myself. I don't think whether the current suite is a monolithic monstrousity or a multi-process paradise matters to some. There are - apparently - those who desire the integration between components tha
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
(A habit that you form once you have a tabbed browser...)
Thunderbird 0.4 has worked well for me for the last month (replaced Moz 1.4). It's finished enough that it's useable for me at least.
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Not really. I have a nice old lady read it to me, 'cause I'm scared of the Metal Ones.
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Offtopic... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:5, Informative)
So that'll make it a little faster I think
Re:Keep 'em coming... (Score:4, Informative)
Trying the parent's mailing list- Moz -9 secs to load. IE- 15secs. We have a caching web proxy on a fast pipe. I tried Moz first.
Click a message then go back- Moz 2secs, IE 2secs.
IE does start displaying content faster but the complete load is from cache takes nearly identical amount of time. Seems to me that performance is adequate.
Any news on AmiZilla? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Any news on AmiZilla? (Score:5, Funny)
Where is 2.0?? (Score:4, Funny)
Am I the only one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Funny)
MOJIRA!!!
"Mojira" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Informative)
Romanji tends to transcribe the sound as R, but they're both equally accurate.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually there's no "ji" sound either. Again, the Japanese pronunciation doesn't map to any English syllable. In English, we say "ji" with our tongue at the roof of our mouth. In Japanese they say it with their tongue at the very front of their mouth, right behind their front teeth gums. It sounds more like a mix of the English sounds "zi" and "ji". The Hepburn romanization uses the letters "ji" to denote this mora (one beat, roughly equivalent to a syllable), but because of that, every English speaker who learned Japanese under that system is speaking with a gaizin accent.
Newer systems such as the Jordan romanization (Eleanor Harz Jordan) attempt to correct this problem by using the letters "zi" to represent the mora, but with the disclaimer that "zi" is not the correct sound either and is only used to remind learners not to say "ji". The correct sound is actually a combination of "zi" and "ji" pronounced with the tongue at the front of the mouth.
Once you understand that, then it doesn't really matter how you romanize "Mozilla", whether it's "mojira" or "mozira", since you know that in this case neither mora "zi" nor "ji" is a phonetic spelling, but rather a symbolic representation of a sound that doesn't exist in English. The spelling only matters as a reminder for learners who have not yet mastered the new sound.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the courage and wisdom of AC.
awesome (Score:4, Funny)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
FireBird has beaten IE and we are just waiting for the inertia to bury the old stalwart.
Are you telling me that you aren't waiting with baited breath for tonights nightly 0.8 build that really says 0.7+ in it?
The fact that there are nightly builds and every week a couple of builds optimised for Athlon/P4 or older processors should entice you to at least try it, free of charge, and see if it actually works for you.
Most people that have tried it are still trying it, and a fair number of us have it as default browser.
Re:awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:awesome (Score:3, Funny)
"PReDiToR"
Re:awesome (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.
bate1 [reference.com] (P) Pronunciation Key [reference.com](bt)
tr.v. bated, bating, bates
[Middle English baten, short for abaten. Se
Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)
Firebird is a great browser about to hit 0.8 and stepping closer towards the great 1.0 release that took Mozilla years to obtain. Thunderbird is still in need of lots of work, but the progress is fantastic and I exclusively use it even in its immature state.
For the Mozilla devs who browse
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah, but you have to consider Firebird uses the Gecko rendering engine, the same as Mozilla. Having a pre-written rendering engine wasn't an advantage enjoyed by Mozilla.
Thunderbird is still in need of lots of work, but the progress is fantastic and I exclusively use it even in its immature state.
I've been using it across Linux, Windows, and MacOS X, and I haven't had a single problem with it. I'm not really sure how much more work it needs, since it seems pretty clean of bugs, unless they're planning on adding some more features.
I hope not. Creeping featuritis has been the death of too many fine pieces of software that were fine just the way they were.
Re:Fantastic! (Score:3, Interesting)
*ahem* Netscape ring any bells?
Posting from Firebird/Win2K... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Firebird crashes about twice a week, and I have to kill the process before I can relaunch.
2. Sometimes my Bookmarks Toolbar icons mysteriously disappear, only to be regenerated when I revisit the sites.
3. Handling of unknown character sets is a Bad Joke.
4. Plug-in loading is pretty spotty.
5. There is no obvious indicator of Javascript errors on sites; I have to open the JS console when I suspect an error.
6. It's kinda slow to start on my slower computer (TransMeta 800Mhz), though it's snappy on my faster one (Duron 1.2Ghz).
7. It's still the best browser I've ever used, and I would tear out my hair if I had to live without it.
Go Firebird!!
Mozilla Growing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla Growing (Score:4, Insightful)
More promotions, either by the press or by us
Re:Mozilla Growing (Score:4, Informative)
But No One's mentioned the most important feature (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, if you haven't yet, if you use mozilla, you need to check out about:mozilla [about]
Oh great... (Score:3, Funny)
By the way, if you haven't yet, if you use mozilla, you need to check out about:mozilla
Now it'll be slashdotted in no time...
Re:But No One's mentioned the most important featu (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But No One's mentioned the most important featu (Score:4, Informative)
Cool.. what about SVG? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cool.. what about SVG? (Score:5, Informative)
use the mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html [mozilla.org]
Who uses the suite? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just curious, who uses the suite instead of Firebird/Thunderbird... and why?
I prefer the individual applications, primarily due to launch speed, but also due to what I think is a superior interface of components in the components-as-apps approach vs. the components-in-suite approach.
Re:Who uses the suite? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Prefbar [mozdev.org] only seems to work with Mozilla.
Re:Who uses the suite? (Score:3)
It does everything I want, the way I want. I have the all the prefs set just how I like 'em. For example turning off the icons on the toolbar and showing only text buttons. I don't really need firebird's pretty icons. =)
I run mozilla for weeks at a time, launch speed is irrelevant. The only thing firebird offers me is less features and more bugs. No thanks.
I've been waiting for years for mozilla to be finished, and I'm not going back to another half finished browser and mail ever again. Call me up
Re:Who uses the suite? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the time I have a browser and e-mail open anyway, so why have 2 applications open when you can have one? Also, Mozilla, as it is, is far less buggy than Firebird/Thunderbird. I've encountered some really annoying bugs that just annoyed the hell out of me. Also, does anyone really notice the startup speed? (I haven't. I compile Mozilla with all the optimizations, etc., and I really don't see any `speed' difference between this and Firebird).
Now, on my Windows machine, I do use Firebird, but that's simply because I have no need for e-mail there.
(also, the occasional need for ChatZilla makes one more useful than the other).
So as far as I'm concerned, I hope they still keep the intergrated package alive later.
Re:Who uses the suite? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who uses the suite? (Score:3)
I like the way the middle click opens a new window in Mozilla, and I don't like tabs. Currently I have 8 browser windows open, my xchat window is open, I have 4 eterm windows open and 4 random windows minimized. That's because I was shutting down for the day and exited a bunch of applications.
My window manager is set up so that I can take advantage of Fitt's Law [asktog.com] to switch between win
Mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
The Mozilla Roadmap? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the deal? It really looks like the new roadmap is "build in all the features people REALLY bitch about into XPFE Mozilla, then once Firebird/Thunderbird is more stable, we'll transition to those". I'm fine with that, but shouldn't they just come out and say it?
MOD DOWN parent - he's a copy troll (Score:3, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88726&cid=7678 053 [slashdot.org]
I don't understand their QA process (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to know is: why are releases made with known Major bugs, and what does it take for a bug to get seen to and not sit in Bugzilla, ignored? It has certainly made me feel that there is little point in reporting any further bugs. Could someone explain Mozilla's QA process to me?
Re:I don't understand their QA process (Score:3, Insightful)
If the next release of Mozilla had to wait until all known major bugs were fixed, it might be years until that next release. The chances are that almost no one experiences or notices that particular bug, or even if someone else does notice it there are more serious bugs they experience. As you can see, no one has voted for the bug to be fixed and no one else has complained that it'
Mozilla is great, but I stopped using it today... (Score:5, Informative)
IE6 users.. (Score:5, Funny)
(If you're not running IE, you won't see anything. My redirect exploits the ^A bug and uses IE conditional comments to make it look like an official MS page for downloading Mozilla)
Re:IE6 users.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Took me about an hour to edit the microsoft page for Mozilla-1.5 and get it working, and then hack the redirect so my homepage still validates. It took me 2 minutes from noticing Moz1.6 was out, editing the page with the new information, and posting the link here.
If Microsoft sends me a C&D, I'm not sure what I'll do. I don't really have any assets or income worth sueing for but I guess that's never stopped them before.
NTLM and Proxy Server (Score:5, Informative)
For the first time, Mozilla will work on many corporate networks.
Re:NTLM and Proxy Server (Score:5, Informative)
It's been available in Windows builds for quite a while (since at least 1.4). The key difference is that the new method is cross-platform.
Top posting is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad for YOU, maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply. However, top-posting is more convenient for those enagaging in the discussion, since they presumably already know who's saying what, and therefore it's better to have the most up-to-date information at the TOP. They can scroll down to get context if necessary.
Please, don't turn top-posting into yet ANOTHER religious issue... We don't need more of them.
Re:Bad for YOU, maybe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any sort of "quote the entire freaking message I'm replying to" is wrong, be it "Microsoft spits on your pathetic standards" top-posting, or "AOL Me-Tooer" bottom-posting. Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Only quote the bare minimum necessary to maintain context. If someone needs the entire prior conversation, forward them the entire conversation, ideally using "bounce" or similar feature so that they have access to individual messages and can have their email client do intelligent things like threading wit
Re:Bad for YOU, maybe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but how many users do you think actually has an opinion on this? 99.99 % of the bottom-quoted email I get is there because their email program encourages it, not because they think it is convenient.
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply.
I don't think bottom-quoting help with the temporal flow at all! You have to start
Re:Top posting is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
I know... technically difficult, but even if it only handled the simple cases...
Re:Top posting is bad (Score:3, Funny)
>> Another frequently requested MailNews feature, a preference for placing
>>the user's signature above the quoted text, has been added.
>
>Nooooo! Argh, this will only encourage top-posting.
Re:Top posting is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I trust you're equally as accepting of those people who choose to WRITE IN ALL CAPS, or abbrvt lik u r txt mssging, or 3N463 1N 4 B17 0F 1337? (and I've seen all three by email, the first two in business email). Some forms of expression are irritating to receive and just stupid. Where you put quoted text isn't even some deep expression of your personality and life choices. It's just a freaking quotation.
Quoting text for context is an old idea with well understood techniques. Most people were taught how to do it in high school You block quote things inline, much like I've done your text. You trim to the bare minimum so readers don't waste their time with useless junk.
Ultimately it's a matter of being polite to your recipient. You value their time, don't you? So send them a bare minimum. And for those cases where they need lots of context in the form of previous messages, top posting is an amazingly crude and rude solution. I have a powerful, modern email client for a reason. I thread my messages to keep track of context and have powerful searching and filtering capabilities. Putting the entire conversation in a single message throws that entire system away and leaves me with a stupid giant list of text, sorted in reverse historical order with signatures, Yahoo ads, and headers all intermingled. It's a mess. If I need those messages as context, forward the lot of them to me with as little mangling as possible (often called something like "bounce"). Now my powerful email client can do smart things to help keep me sane.
Ultimately not top-posting is about not being rude to your recipients. Top posting says, "I'm lazy, and this is easiest way for me to provide context you may or may not need. I don't care that it's less convient to you, my time is more valuable than yours."
Re:Top posting is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Eolas and Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eolas and Mozilla? (Score:3, Insightful)
A dumb patent is a dumb patent, and should be overturned as a matter of principle, no matter who it advantages tactically. Dumb patents in general are a threat to open source. Actually, they are a threat to anyone wanting to make good software.
And any moment now.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you heard it right. This release of Mozilla is significant ALSO in that it heralds an impending release of FireBird.
Of course, Firebird 0.8 was due out December 2003, so we're overdue for that anyways.
Courier IMAP mailbox view finally fixed (Score:4, Informative)
IMAP servers like Courier that store everything under INBOX (INBOX. namespace) FINALLY get displayed as a flat tree structure!
Thank you, Mozilla Team!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Ask Jeeves? (Score:5, Funny)
* Ask Jeeves searching has been added to Mozilla 1.6.
WHY? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY??
Re:Ask Jeeves? (Score:5, Funny)
* Ask Jeeves searching has been added to Mozilla 1.6.
WHY? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY??
Uh, ask Jeeves?
vCard Support (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite new feature (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone know if Thunderbird has this option yet?
I'm now very tempted to install Mozilla and switch mail clients but I'd rather just have a stand-alone mail client like Thunderbird, and only have to transition mail clients once to get this feature.
Thanks Mozilla team!
Re:My favorite new feature (Score:3, Informative)
From the 0.4 release notes [mozilla.org]: "POP Accounts now support aging on the server."
At least I'm assuming that's what that refers to. I do know from experience that it is in TB though. Super handy for keeping the mailbox tidy.
Does anyone else... (Score:4, Interesting)
I like the mozilla preferences digalog, and i like the tools menu that has all the image, popup, and cookie controlls right there in a quick easy to use place.
Also, its quickstart is very nice and its interface has some subtle differences from firebird..most of which I like better.
I'm not saying discontinue firebird, since sometimes you just want a nice browser, and this is great.. But why discontinue the suite?
Kind of like MS office, I dont wanna have to install all the programs seperate..its nice to just have them all together, and select what I want.
Any thoughts?
Mozilla Visual Appeal (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an "old skool" transformed-to-CAD draftsman originally trained with actual pencils, paper and a bit of artistic flair for focusing the eye on what's important, and I dislike Mozilla's lack of visual enhancements.
I would switch to Moz immediately and permanently if it could do this (not because of the "cool factor" but because it is a better presentation).
Have a look at www.milonic.com and see what they have been doing regarding DHTML.
Please comment.
Re:Must... restrain... (Score:4, Insightful)
your email program doesn't crash when your browser does.
Moz itself doesn't crash that often, but plugins brought it down several times per day for me. A serious flaw in the design IMHO.
Re:Mozilla and popups (Score:5, Informative)
Side-thought: I have no experience with IE pop-up blockers, but it would seem like a very effective method for spreading malware. Maybe that's just the old tin-foil hat I'm feeling.
Re:Mozilla and popups (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, a very nice thing about tabs (aside from being able to collect tabs in a window by topic) is bookmarking tab groups; all the documentation you want at your fingertips and at the click of a button.
FWIW, I have 3 monitors, and still use tabs; they're just so danged useful.
Re:200l 700 (Score:4, Insightful)
The *only* way a 'platform'/language will be widely adopted is by making it accessible to Joe Coder. Just take a look at PHP, it's not always the best language, but has a *huge* user base, primarily because it's well documented.
Yes, there are now thousands of 'developers' writing crappy code, but dammit, at least they're pushing it to their clients, friends, family the neighbour's dog. Evangelism (sic) is the root of success.
Leo
Re:Why the need to uninstall onld versions to upgr (Score:4, Informative)
If you plan to install 1.6 to the same subdirectory in which you have 1.2, yes, you should uninstall 1.2 before installing 1.6.
If you plan to install 1.6 to a brand spanking new subdirectory, you need not uninstall 1.2. You should always use different profiles for different versions of Mozilla.
BTW, you should uninstall 1.2 anyway. It has major bugs. In terms of stability, version 1.4.1, for instance, is to 1.2 as a granite rock is to gray goo.
Re:Anybody have torrent links? (Score:3, Informative)
Torrent link for linux installer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anybody have torrent links? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You don't need TORRENT links (Score:3, Informative)
Read the intro to Bittorrent [bitconjurer.org] and then understand why torrent links were requested.
BitTorrent does not always equal warez/moviez/gamez/etc. This would be a prime example of a legitimate use for the software.
Re:It doesn't work for me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Firebird.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've reccomended firebird to all of my windows-using, non tech-savvy friends and they love it, but they wouldn't have done it without my encouragement because it was such a pain to redownload so many plugins.
People are lazy. Lazy people buy(in the loose sense of the word, since the software's free) convenience.
Kill Flash Ads (Score:3, Informative)
"Kill Flash" is the most sexy, beautiful button ever made. Thank you, PrefBar guys. You rock.
For those who don't know: this little button removes the last annoying traces of advertising from the web, and IMHO is a necessary addition to the wonderful standard Mozilla capabilities "Block unrequested pop-ups" and "Block Images from this server"
Re:Firebird.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why are people still using IE? Firebird rocks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note: Firebird is meant to be a stripped down browser, but extensible for those who want additional functionality. Thus, I will refer you to many extensions you need to install.
1.) When a link has a target=_blank it opens a new browser instead of a new tab. Cannot express how much this annoys me.
Get Tabbrowswer Extensions [mozdev.org]
2.) You cannot save a series of tabs to always open e
Re:Man, isn't my timing great? (Score:3, Funny)
Gentoo: But I don't mind waiting for tomorrow..
(Not meant to be a flame, I use Gentoo too and love it and the tradeoff is worth it, but it just had to be said).