Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla Software The Internet

Mozilla 1.8 Alpha Released 336

AllMightyPaul writes "Last Friday, the Mozilla Organization announced Mozilla 1.8a. You can download Mozilla 1.8 alpha (with torrents available) from the Mozilla public FTP server. Features include a basic upload FTP UI, improved junk mail filtering, and the number of cookies that Mozilla can hold has also increased 'dramatically.' What's amazing is that they haven't even released Mozilla 1.7 yet. Here I thought that Mozilla was going to standardize on 1.7."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.8 Alpha Released

Comments Filter:
  • Old news (Score:5, Informative)

    by enodev ( 692876 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:13AM (#9245430) Homepage
    But despite standardising 1.7, development of mozilla continues.
    1.7 is about third party developers and products which rely on a fixed api.
    1.8 is where new features will be found.
    New features are for example ftp upload capability, use of 4. and 5. mouse button.
    see http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.8a1/READM E.html for details.
    But this news is already 8 days old. I wonder why this is picked up only now.
  • Happy :-) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:19AM (#9245454)
    I'm just glad that they will develop the Mozilla package next to the firefox/etc packages.

    I use the Mozilla package at home and Firefox at work (since I have to use Outlook here).

    They haven't let me down yet.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:35AM (#9245514)
      You can configure Mozilla to play nice with Outlook, check out the cool tip:

      http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.4/faq/mail-news.h tm l#other-default
  • by GreatDrok ( 684119 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:23AM (#9245466) Journal
    It doesn't mention whether the middle mouse button can be made to open a tab as it does under Safari. That really is the one thing that keeps me coming back to Safari for my general browsing. Some sites work best with Mozilla and I have 1.7rc2 installed for that (they just fixed a problem with large images that wouldn't display on previous versions) but still no middle mouse click. I have to do left + CMD combination. Yuk.
    • Just use your preferences for your mouse (i.e. LogiTech control center for me) to set your middle mouse button to be "command-click" and it then set your mozilla tab preferences to accept command click as open in new tab...

      HTH...

    • My mac mouse only has one button you insensitive clod!
    • Erm... can do? (Score:3, Informative)

      by MachDelta ( 704883 )
      Ok, im no 'zilla expert here, but ever since I can remember Mozilla (or at least Firefox) has supported opening tabs on middle click. I know thats how I have my Firefox set up right now anyways. And maybe its some weird extension or something I have installed, but i'd be willing to bet money on this little sumwhathin' I found being key:

      Install Firefox (or Zilla, whatever)
      Type "About:Config" into the URL bar
      Type "middleclick" into the filter bar and hit enter
      Find the entry that says "browser.tabs.openta
      • It always works for me, too, in both Firefox and Bloatzilla. In fact, unlike Opera, there doesn't seem to be a way to make a middle button click on a link do anything else, from the Options menu (Preferences in Opera).
      • Re:Erm... can do? (Score:5, Informative)

        by thesolo ( 131008 ) * <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @07:07AM (#9246100) Homepage
        Ok, im no 'zilla expert here, but ever since I can remember Mozilla (or at least Firefox) has supported opening tabs on middle click.

        Well, you're mostly right. Tabs were added prior to the 1.0 release, and middle-click to open the tabs was turned on then...except on OS X.

        Kindly see Bug 151249 -- Middle click on links does nothing in OS X [mozilla.org] (You'll have to copy that link, bugzilla has a referrer check to block links from slashdot.)

        Unfortunately, Carbon doesn't have the ability to recognize a middle mouse click, so Mozilla (Seamonkey) and Firefox can't do anything on a middle click. Camino, on the other hand, is built with Cocoa, so middle-clicking works on a default build.

        Combine this with the lack of Ctrl+Enter URL autocomplete, and I don't enjoy my Mozilla experience on OS X. I use Firefox on a daily basis on both Windows & Linux; the second I go over to my Powerbook, Firefox doesn't behave even close to the same way, and it drives me crazy. I still use it, because I really dislike Safari's interface, and it's still missing too many features, but Mozilla on OS X needs a chunk of work before it will act like it does on other OSes.
    • Only slightly related is this:

      What I never understood, though, is why with the X version of Mozilla (Linux in my case) clicking the middle mouse button on a tab by default tries to load the current selection as an URL.

      Why? First thing with all Mozilla installs on Linux I do is to disable middlemouse.ContentLoadURL. Why on earth do they set it to true on Linux? Just to make life harder for people whop use both Win32 and Linux? Or do they track this silently somehow, trying to figure out how many people

  • yet more bloat (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CountBrass ( 590228 )

    One of the reasons I stopped using Mozilla was the bloat. I do not need one tool that does: web browsing, email, usenet, html editing and, now, ftp upload.

    One of the perennial criticisms of MS software is the bloat. Is bloatware some how ok if it's open source? Of course it isn't.

    Adding yet another piece of unnecessary functionality to Mozilla makes it less, not more, attractive.

    • Re:yet more bloat (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:29AM (#9245495) Homepage
      What you call as "bloat" are useful features for other users. If you dont like/use these features, use firefox.
    • by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:47AM (#9245549)
      Mozilla is a browser for web developers.

      Firefox, Camino, and Thunderbird are the browsers and email clients for those who don't need JS debuggers, consoles, ftp clients, text editors, whosits, and whatsits.

      • by WARM3CH ( 662028 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:09AM (#9245607)
        Mozilla is a browser for web developers.
        Actually, it is normal people who like swiss knifes more: They download/buy one package to do all things. A developer on the other hand usually tries to get the best tool to do a specific job. For a developer, no one software is the best answer for all questions. Don't we already have lots of advanced (and open source) tools for things like FTP and editing text files that are much better than Mozilla for those tasks?
      • Wouldn't a better architecture have been to go for a plug-in model? That way I could choose what extras I wanted, and either uninstall, or never install, the crud I don't care about.

        The problems with the Mozilla monolith are:

        • You get everything or nothing: I can't decide just to have the web browser and html editor: but I'd rather use my existing email app so I don't want that taking up resources on my machine.
        • Regression testing. This is more an issue for the Mozilla developers, but a change in one compo
        • On Linux I just choose the "Navigator only" install option...

          Bob
        • by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot@ s p a d . co.uk> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:52AM (#9246023) Homepage
          You get everything or nothing: I can't decide just to have the web browser and html editor: but I'd rather use my existing email app so I don't want that taking up resources on my machine.

          Yes you can - you just select "Browser" during the install process and deselect the other components. It's really not that challenging.
        • The problems with the Mozilla monolith are:
          • You get everything or nothing: I can't decide just to have the web browser and html editor: but I'd rather use my existing email app so I don't want that taking up resources on my machine.

          The good thing about the mozilla browser is you -can- do this, all you need to do is pull down the source and compile your own version of mozilla with the various features that you do/dont want. Pretty much everything can be disabled/turned on and off in the main build by

    • hey look features are features but a few are missing

      I would like a IM client (IRC does not rock my world) a Jabber client would be good

      I would like a iCal clone... (in process)

      I would like OpenPGP intergrated (only 128bit to save the export legal stuff) just basic crypto would be great (make it easy to setup as well)

      regards

      John Jones
      • Re:Jabber ? (Score:4, Informative)

        by cyborch ( 524661 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:06AM (#9245780) Homepage Journal

        hey look features are features but a few are missing

        I would like a IM client (IRC does not rock my world) a Jabber client would be good

        jabber support [mozdev.org]

        I would like a iCal clone... (in process)

        Indeed it is :) [mozilla.org]

        I would like OpenPGP intergrated (only 128bit to save the export legal stuff) just basic crypto would be great (make it easy to setup as well)

        There's a gpg [freshmeat.net] extension, will that do?

    • by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:59AM (#9246056)
      Mozilla isn't bloaty though, I've been using it since 'milestone 18' back in the mid-nineties when it was a bit pokey and broken.

      Have you done a quantitative ascessment of this feeling that Moz is big or slow? I think Mozilla is quite fast, certainly faster than IE. Also, I think that if you could un-marry windows and IE and get a full grasp of how much RAM IE was using (even when it's not loaded, mshtml.dll and friends are in RAM) you'd change your story.

      Every web browser is going to use a fair amount of RAM because it needs at least a window-sized buffer to composite on. Safari and IE are tricky because they use the OS libraries for that, so it's not as easy to see the footprint, but Moz does it inside itself, so the footprint looks somewhat massive.
      • Have you done a quantitative ascessment of this feeling that Moz is big or slow?

        Yes. I've implemented a web grid-view component that runs solely using DHTML orchestrated by a JavaScript object. The component is capable of showing a grid with literally millions of lines of data, since the display algorithms I use are O(1) with respect to the data set size and O(xy) with respect to the visible size of the grid on the page. This is done by dynamically creating/modifying/repopulating a table which is absolute
  • by Adolph_Hitler ( 713286 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:25AM (#9245474)
    Mozilla needs more speed and less power.

    Currently Mozilla is the most powerful browing suite on earth. Problem is people don't care about all those features, we just want speed. So developers what do you plan to do to make XUL faster? How do you plan to reduce the memory footprint? How about reducing CPU load? What about actually speeding up the rendering of websites ?

    And if you are going to add new features, try intergrating bit torrent into mozilla since it seems to be the new default download format why the hell are you upgrading FTP?

    • Personally, I'd love some decent FTP support in Mozilla.

      gftp does an *okay* job, but there's not a lot else out there.
    • Because they are implementing FTP upload. Read the darn post. And it may be the new "default download format" for people trading warez, moviez, anime and possibly linux distros, but I certainly use FTP way more than I do BT, because I actually upload stuff to a site where people see it, not leech off others. :-)
    • So what, guys ? He didn't say he wanted his browser to be stable too.
    • Bittorrent does not cover the same needs as ftp. Bittorrent is good for serving to many users simeltaneously, but needs a seperate client (and the client would not be able to use the same download interface as the rest of mozilla, due to seeding mode). FTP is good for uploading to a web site, or downloading without a seperate client which people might not be familiar with. Also, it does not require a seeder at all times to maintain the swarm.
    • "Mozilla needs more speed and less power."

      Opinions and assholes, everybody has one. I disagree with yours.

      "Currently Mozilla is the most powerful browing suite on earth. Problem is people don't care about all those features, we just want speed"

      While you're right about Mozilla, your second sentence is straight from CrackLand. If everyone is clammering for few-feature, speedy-browsing, why isn't Lynx the #1 browser? It dusts *everything*. I happen to love the fact that Moz comes with so many tools. So d
    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @09:45AM (#9247666) Homepage Journal
      What I want to know is, why the hell is Mozilla married to its own slow-ass widget set? I know there are assorted versions of the browser which use native OS widgets, and are as such much much faster in some ways than normal netscape, especially on lower-end (P2, P3, Celeron) systems. I know that using your own widget sets makes things a lot easier, and gives you skinning support, but I'd rather have speed - but I still want the whole browser suite.

      There are numerous cross-platform applications out there which support multiple native widget sets, at least Windows, and "everything else". Tivoli's TME10 system (I haven't seen it since they renamed it) had a management console application using a common codebase, built with gcc on Unix and with VS on Windows, which used I believe Motif on Unix systems and used the Windows widgets. All Tivoli GUIs are drawn based on a description file which instructs the system on which components to use where.

      Now granted you'd have to end up having some library which was replaced system by system, but this is something I think Mozilla could really use. You could argue that faster machines run it smoothly (my XP 2500+ rarely slows down because of the mozilla gui, but it certainly does draw visibly slower under load) but there are many of Pentium 2 and 3 systems out there in the 333 to 733 MHz range under which Mozilla performs like an absolute dog but Microsoft Orifice 2000 is not only usable, but also prompt.

      I don't think including new features necessarily must make Mozilla consume more memory or operate more slowly, as long as they either A> are built on top of the framework like everything else and thus not loaded when not needed, or B> are dynamically loaded at the time of use, which probably isn't happening today.

      As for bt > FTP, this is nonsense. Integrating BT would be neat but is unnecessary and the bt code available today is very much in its infancy. Besides, all you have to do is associate torrent files with your bt client and you're in like flynn. That wasn't so hard, was it? FTP is here to stay. It is used heavily by many websites and ftp support is just considered to be part of the system. FTP upload support in a web browser is often really handy for those who use Mozilla to edit and maintain their websites for whatever reason - Maybe they can't afford Dreamweaver, or maybe it's just not available for their platform, or maybe they don't think it's worth whatever the hell Macromedia charges for it these days. Regardless, FTP upload support is not unreasonable. Integrating the moving target of bittorrent (even the main branch of bt is horrendously unstable) at this point would be maintenance suicide.

      • by Gerv ( 15179 ) <gerv AT gerv DOT net> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @10:20AM (#9248183) Homepage
        why the hell is Mozilla married to its own slow-ass widget set?

        a) Justify "slow-ass" with figures.
        b) Let's see you render an animated GIF background on a button using the Motif widget set.

        Any browser which wants to support a decent part of CSS needs its own widgets, because OS widgets just don't cut it. IE does it too - and they have access to the underlying platform development team, _and_ only have to support one platform!

        Gerv
  • by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:25AM (#9245477) Homepage
    Some interesting new features in Mozilla Mail
    • Mozilla 1.8 Alpha1 has UI for multiple identity support.
    • Users now have an option to mark incoming junk mail as read.
    • Preferred mail format (plain text or HTML) is collected and remembered in the Personal Address Book.
    • The Mail window menus have been adjusted to improve usability and resizing the mail window no longer resizes the folderpane.
    • Addressbook auto-completion has been improved.
    • 1.8a1 fixes an issue with listboxes that caused mail to display multiple attachments incorrectly. Additionally, mail sorting scrolls to keep the currently selected message in view.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:25AM (#9245478)
    I have been running the new alpha of Mozilla for a little time now and I can definitely say that this is the best browser I have ever used.
    It's faster, more responsive, uses less memory and overall is just one great piece of code.

    I'm looking forward to the final release, but to those who are sceptical to running an alpha release I recommend that you give it a try anyway - it's that great!

    Internet Explorer will have a hard time keeping up with the great folks at Mozilla. In my book, the browser war has already been won.
    • Internet Explorer will have a hard time keeping up with the great folks at Mozilla. In my book, the browser war has already been won.

      Ah, yes... the war has been won! Could you remind me again which side occupies 95% of the land? :)
  • Spam filter (Score:5, Informative)

    by darien ( 180561 ) <{darien} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:26AM (#9245482)
    improved junk mail filtering

    I really don't understand why this is still a live issue. When I used to use Outlook I used SpamBayes [sourceforge.net] to filter my spam and within a few days it was catching 99.99% of my spam. That's obviously a made-up figure, but that's how it felt. I never missed a single real mail, and after a few weeks I don't think a single spam ended up in my inbox.

    Then I moved to Thunderbird, and suddenly obvious spam is regularly ending up in my inbox, despite several weeks' training. Don't get me wrong, it's a great mail client, but I don't see why it's so hard to implement something that's already been done perfectly in more than one open-source project?
    • Re:Spam filter (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:38AM (#9245521)
      Precisely the Spambayes filtering are among the updates. See bug 181534 on bugzilla.
    • Re:Spam filter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:49AM (#9245557)
      Then I moved to Thunderbird, and suddenly obvious spam is regularly ending up in my inbox, despite several weeks' training.

      I wonder if this could be timing. I use Mozilla Mail as my client at home, and I turned on spam filtering for my wife's email account (because she was silly and gave her email address to Publisher's Clearinghouse). After a couple weeks of training, it was catching almost all the spam, but in the last few months the spammers have been intentionally misspelling words in random ways, which reduces the effectiveness considerably. Does anybody know if SpamBayes addresses this issue?

      • Re:Spam filter (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Xrikcus ( 207545 )
        That and much of the spam I've been getting recently is very simple. Say, two links in an e-mail and that's all (plain text). They're not being picked up as spam by spamassassin any more, it has about 50% accuracy at the moment.
      • Re:Spam filter (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tbmaddux ( 145207 ) *

        in the last few months the spammers have been intentionally misspelling words in random ways, which reduces the effectiveness considerably. Does anybody know if SpamBayes addresses this issue?

        Paul Graham (inventor of Bayesian spam filters) assessed this a few months ago. [paulgraham.com] He concludes that these sorts of tricks won't work. For misspellings in particular, he states "Misspellings end up having higher spam probabilities than the words they're intended to conceal."

        I realize this doesn't quite answer yo

    • Re:Spam filter (Score:2, Interesting)

      by eatenn ( 572604 )
      "...within a few days it was catching 99.99% of my spam. That's obviously a made-up figure, but that's how it felt. I never missed a single real mail..."

      If SpamBayes filtered a legit message in with the spam, how would you know about it?

      • Maybe because if you really paranoic about filters you double-check the spam before deleting ? (yes, it really sucks, like sifting through feces, but the only way to be sure). For me Thunderbird's spam filter has drastically improved with 0.6, with 0.5 it was just a joke, especially compared to SpamBayes. But SpamBayes is very slow for me in comparison (have running the Outlook plugin at work) while Thunderbird's filter is blazingly fast. What really is missing from T-Bird IMO is a separate folder for "Unce
      • Re:Spam filter (Score:2, Interesting)

        by darien ( 180561 )
        If SpamBayes filtered a legit message in with the spam, how would you know about it?

        Short answer: because I am very distrustful of technology, and I do actually skim through my spam-box every so often just in case. :)

        However, one reason it never came up is that SpamBayes has a very graceful response to email it's not quite sure of. It puts emails below a certain (user-adjustable) confidence threshold in a "suspected spam" bin, for you to review at your convenience. After the first few days actual spam al
    • by Dog and Pony ( 521538 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:56AM (#9245739)
      Thunderbird used to have the same results - when I used 0.1 and 0.2, I never saw a spam outside my spam box, and no real mails got marked wrong either - after just some minor training. Then, after a while, spams started to look differently, and what do you know? TB started to fail.

      Spammers simply learned how to (partly) defeat Bayesian. I'd be very interested to see your results if you tried SpamBayes now. I bet it wouldn't do better.

      Or did you think the spammers would just give up and go home?
  • Torrents (Score:5, Informative)

    by onco_p53 ( 231322 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:32AM (#9245501) Homepage Journal
    For their poor servers ...
    Win32 exe [mozilla.org]
    Win32 Zip [mozilla.org]
    Linux [mozilla.org]
    Linux (installer) [mozilla.org]
  • Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)

    by muzza ( 64255 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:40AM (#9245524) Homepage

    I thought Firefox was scheduled to be *the* browser in the suite (with Thunderbird the equivalent in the mail space). How does that work if Firefox is on a branch and the suite ploughs ahead?

    I hope bugfixes (217527 [mozilla.org] for example which affects Slashdot) are consistantly and promptly backported to 1.7 (and thus to Firefox) or the impetus could be there to reverse the flow back to the suite- up until now I have tended to think of Firefox as "the best of Mozilla"...

    • Re:Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stiggle ( 649614 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:48AM (#9245554)
      Thunderbird and Firefox are the standalone programs for mail and browsing.
      The Mozilla Suite is a platform that does everything (except the laundry - but they're probably working on that too) which the other standalone programs use as their base.

      I always thought of Mozilla as the technology demontrator platform and the other programs as the bits that are useful.
    • Re:Firefox (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonasj ( 538692 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:16AM (#9245817)
      I thought Firefox was scheduled to be *the* browser in the suite [...] How does that work if Firefox is on a branch and the suite ploughs ahead?

      Firefox is only on a branch for 0.9 and 1.0. That's no different from how Mozilla 1.7 is on a branch. Future versions of Firefox will be built from the trunk (or, more likely, from a more recent branch from the trunk), and thus will contain all the backend work that's been going on since 1.7 branched.

      Of course, you're welcome to download the trunk builds of Firefox (which are being made available daily) -- you'll get the same backend fixes that 1.8 Alpha1 has, but it won't be anywhere near as stable as the branch builds.

      I hope bugfixes [...] are consistantly and promptly backported to 1.7 (and thus to Firefox)

      Actually Firefox is on its own branch now, based off the 1.7 branch. And no, not all fixes will be backported, that's the whole point of having a branch. And the bug you mentioned isn't even fixed yet.

      or the impetus could be there to reverse the flow back to the suite

      That doesn't make sense. If you wanted the bug fixes that 1.8 had, you could just get a 1.8 build of Firefox instead of the one from Firefox' 1.0 branch. No reason to switch back to the suite.
  • Xft version (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AirLace ( 86148 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @04:52AM (#9245564)
    There doesn't seem to be a version compiled against Xft or Gtk+2.0. Is this a regression?
  • This build sucks (Score:2, Informative)

    by Celt ( 125318 )
    I've been using Mozilla 1.7rc1 for some time so I decided to install 1.8 Alpha, it short it sucks
    Installed without a issue but tried to start it and it just consumed 15MB ram and wouldn't start so rebooted XP and started it again, this time it loaded a webpage but wouldn't do anytiung else (m,enu's would not work etc)
    So I'm back to 1.7RC1 now :-(
    • Re:This build sucks (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sounds like you have some extension installed which doesn't work with 1.8alpha. The extension management is crappy (it's being improved in Firefox), but the build works ok. There are bugs though - it's an alpha after all.
  • I have a trouble, I can't make them co-exist!
    Firefox is using the pref files that Mozilla uses BUT the new Mozilla hangs at the older version's pref.

    Can someone tell me how to move Firefox preferences so I can make them both work.
  • I'd rather have seen that they add some much needed functionality to the download manager so everyone can get rid of those third-party download managers.
  • by bwalling ( 195998 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @05:47AM (#9245719) Homepage
    the number of cookies that Mozilla can hold has also increased 'dramatically.'

    I have submitted this as a bug!
  • by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @06:19AM (#9245839)
    Why is Mozilla adding new features like the FTP client if they plan to go to a firefox based browser that uses a system of extensions?

    Why wasn't the FTP client written as an extension?

    Steve
  • All that's left now is to merge EMACS and Mozilla. Then we'll have everything in one application.
  • Still no SVG? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @07:45AM (#9246368)
    Really, after so many years in development, the fact that SVG is still not in the main branch by default is really dissapointing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @08:43AM (#9246863)
    Hi, I install cable modems for a local cable internet service provider. Before I go any futher, let me just say this:

    Geeks don't get to see how the other half lives (fixing mom's computer doens't count).

    I am required to configured the customer's computer and setup their e-mail. Part of the install process requires me to hit the cable company's web page to allow the customer to chose their e-mail. Every day I get to see 20 or more fscked up customer computers that have so many spyware programs, viruses, trojans and other assorted crap gumming up their desktops. It's not uncommon to see 15+ instances of IE load up with ads before I can get a usable browser. More often than not, the browser's spyware add-ins have the customer's computer so fscked, that I have to ftp to mozilla and pull down an clean, standards compliant browser that blocks pop-ups. Only when I load the same web page back to back between IE and mozilla does the customer begin to understand just how fscked microsoft software is.

    So, even though I don't have the money to contribute to the Mozilla project, I would just like to thank the hard working folks who put that fine browser alternative togeter.

    Thank you so very much. Without Mozilla, my install time would increase from an average of 20-25 minutes to well over an hour.

    And to Microsoft: Shame on you, your shoddy code and your market share. If there's anybody headed for a fall, it's you.
  • by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spam@BALDWINpbp.net minus author> on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @12:20PM (#9249798)
    And no, "Sunbird" isn't even close to a suitable answer. Neither is "Thunderbird" or "Firefox."

    Corporate users can barely grok "Mozilla" but they certainly understand "Oh, no functional calendar? I'll just stay on Outlook..."

  • by Koguma ( 608998 ) on Tuesday May 25, 2004 @10:17PM (#9255665)
    developers run screaming from the Mozilla framework. I mean, what's the point of developing for it when what you code will be out-of-date within a month or so. Who will run your app on an 'old' version of Mozilla? I've written some stuff using XUL and JXPCOM and having it work in later browsers is a mixed bag. And as has been said, 1.7 isn't even out yet. Why not focus resources on getting all the bugs quashed in 1.7 to make it the standard for developing. And they have the gall to wonder why developers don't use their framework. Doesn't look like M$ has any competition after all...

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Working...