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


Forgot your password?
Mozilla The Internet Software

Mozilla 1.7, Firefox 0.9 Release Candidates Out 642

An anonymous reader writes " have released what are expected to be the final release candidates for their next versions: Mozilla 1.7RC3 (MozillaZine article; download) should iron out any final bugs in what will replace 1.4 as the new stable branch and Firefox 0.9RC (MozillaZine article; download) features the new default theme ported from Mac OS on Windows (though please bear in mind that the theme is nowhere near finished yet). The final releases of these versions are due very soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.7, Firefox 0.9 Release Candidates Out

Comments Filter:
  • A Firefox mirror... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tcopeland ( 32225 ) * <tom@thomaslee[ ] ['cop' in gap]> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @01:58PM (#9379423) Homepage here [].

    FWIW, CVS 1.11.17 - the security release that happened this morning - is up there too.
  • Very clean! (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @01:59PM (#9379435)
    I downloaded and installed Firefox .9 and I am quite impressed. All of my settings, bookmarks, popup exceptions, etc. ported over perfectly and automatically. The "look and feel" of .9 is very clean. I don't know how these folks manage to make each iteration better than the previous but they sure do. It loads fast as did .8 and it loads web pages quite fast. All-in-all, this is well worth the download. And, as always, Firefox is, for me, far superior to Internet Explorer or any other browser on the market.

    Happy Trails!


    • Re:Very clean! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by chromaphobic ( 764362 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:08PM (#9379554)

      Yeah, Firefox did a great job of importing my bookmarks, from frickin' Internet Explorer, which I don't even use, but not the bookmarks from the previous Firefox (0.8) install. Real helpful.

      Ah well, at least it's not IE.

      • Re:Very clean! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Halvard ( 102061 )
        No shit. And the prior theme was better.
      • Re:Very clean! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Misch ( 158807 )
        Okay. They moved the profile folder for 0.9 to %APPDATA%/Mozilla/Firefox (windows)

        If you used the Windows installer, then it looks like the installer makes a file that tells Mozilla to use the old profile location. (I'm not certain of this, it's just what I see.)

        If you want to copy your bookamrks and such, you'll find them in the old Firefox folder. Just copy the file bookmarks.html to the new profile location.
    • by headkase ( 533448 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:17PM (#9379679)
      I keep coming back to Konqueror simply because the font rendering is simple the best looking. I really hope Firefox's font rendering get's addressed before 1.0.
    • Re:Very clean! (Score:3, Informative)

      by jimand ( 517224 ) *
      I installed it this morning before the /.ing and lost all my 0.8 firefox bookmarks (bug 246018) when Firefox auto-imported (no prompt; bug 170869) all the IE bookmarks on my PC. I now have all my son's bookmarks. aargh!
  • Debian (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:00PM (#9379451)
    Debian is still shipping Netscape 4.7...
    • Re:Debian (Score:3, Informative)

      by reynaert ( 264437 )
      Debian has never shipped Netscape 4, it being non-free and all...
    • Re:Debian (Score:5, Insightful)

      by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:53PM (#9380151) Homepage
      I know it's a joke, but sheesh.

      Debian has all the free browsers, including Firefox, and keeps them up to date.

      The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7, although in the future the Debian project may distance itself from both contrib and nonfree.

      And while Debian's "stable" branch is legendary for being a bit behind the times, most people run "unstable" on their desktops, or at least "testing", and those are very up to date.

      I'm running Debian unstable on my desktop and I expect to have Firefox 0.9 within a few days.

      • Re:Debian (Score:3, Informative)

        by steveha ( 103154 )
        The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7

        Actually, I just checked and it's "contrib", not "nonfree". Sorry about that.

    • err... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @04:09PM (#9381083) Homepage Journal
      Man, I don't want to know how many people think that Debian _reall_ still ships Netscape 4.7... Here's the truth:

      1. Debian has never, nor ever will include Netscape 4.7 in the default branch, because it doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines [].

      2. Debian is actually one of the more up to date distros I've used. Just run unstable and you get almost everything just a few days after release, virtually always working.

      I am sick of tired about people bashing Debian because they make every conceivable effort to guarantee that their stable distribution Just Works, even avoiding incompatibilities between versions of the same package.

      At the same time, their unstable distribution gives you the latest software as soon as is feasible while still maintaining unmatched quality, and has (to my knowledge) the largest collection of packages of any distro, compiled for several architectures.

      Combine all that with package management that is so good that other distros have eventually given up trying to match it and are now adopting apt one by one, and you have a distro that can turn intelligent people into zealots like me. Get on your knees and apologize! ;-)
    • Gentoo (Score:5, Funny)

      by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @06:32PM (#9382368) Homepage
      Haha, silly debian users...I run Gentoo. I'll let you guys know what 0.9 is like next week, when it finishes compiling. ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:01PM (#9379462)
    THe linux gtk installer version of this RC tells me to exit all Windows programs before running Setup.

  • by Zanek ( 546281 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:01PM (#9379463) Homepage
    My main gripe with Mozilla is that when you leave it alone for about 30 minutes or so and come back, it takes like 15-50 seconds to be active again, which is extremely annoying (loading it from virtual mem ?). They really need to fix that
    Also, some pages like have a problem where it is constantly reloading itself (perhaps a JS error).
    • by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:05PM (#9379518)

      My main gripe with Mozilla is that when you leave it alone for about 30 minutes or so and come back, it takes like 15-50 seconds to be active again, which is extremely annoying (loading it from virtual mem ?)

      Saw this on mozillazine a few weeks ago:
      Users experiencing bug 76831, a very long delay restoring Mozilla after it has been minimized for several hours (Windows machines only), may find relief by setting the config.trim_on_minimize preference to false. See comment 0 and comment 303 in the bug for details.
      (Back to Mike: I think you need to go to about:config and create a new boolean pref for this; I have not tried it myself.)
    • by Pionar ( 620916 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:24PM (#9380533)
      Also, some pages like have a problem where it is constantly reloading itself (perhaps a JS error).

      Um, that's not a bug. It's standard HTML. go to and view it's source. see in the first line the meta tag with the http-equiv="refresh" and the content="900;url= AD_PAGE&reload=true"? that's what's refreshing the page. It's the page, not firefox.
  • by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:01PM (#9379464)
    Had I known that installing both these packages would cause a new version release the next day, I would have done it much sooner.

    Time to go wash my car.
  • by MissTuxie ( 722948 ) <> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:01PM (#9379468) Homepage Journal
    So, what will be the name of Firefox's new version? (I vote for Powercthüllu. Got to love Firesomething :)

  • Torrents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:02PM (#9379472) Homepage Journal
    Anyone wanna seed the firefox d/l?

    Anyone notice that there are editor holy wars (vi emacs), distro holy wars, but no 'browser' holy wars (yeah, ie vs mozilla, but that windows vs linux... I'm talking all in linux). Stuff like 'theme isn't finished' would be jumped on by the 'other browser' elitists. So linux needs a second open source free browser project so we can have a browser holywar.
  • by commo1 ( 709770 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:02PM (#9379477)
    Has anyone noticed differences between the HTML engines in Mozilla? Using Mozilla/Firefox on a Linux distro, there are certain style sheets that do not display correctly (mostly hidden behind a graphic or otherwise), but seem to work fine under Mozilla/Firefox in Windows. An example is
    • a) Are you sure it's the same HTML/stylesheet/etc? Some broken sites try to alter their content for the user agent.

      b) It could be that the stylesheet is broken and ASSumes the fonts and sizes being used are the Windows defaults, and not the Linux values you're using.

      c) Blame it on Canada.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:02PM (#9379480)
    I'm very disappointed. I was under the impression that open source and the ingenuity of a team of dedicated, enthusiastic developers could finally push Rapid NameChange(TM) technology into the mainstream.
    • by jared_hanson ( 514797 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:27PM (#9379811) Homepage Journal
      I'm very disappointed. I was under the impression that open source and the ingenuity of a team of dedicated, enthusiastic developers could finally push Rapid NameChange(TM) technology into the mainstream.

      Well, that was the plan for this release, but unfortunately the initials RNC were already being used by an altogether much more slow moving organization. They took issue with our tendencies towards rapid progress.

      As such, we are working out naming issues right now and you can expect to see this in a future release.
  • Just do it (Score:5, Informative)

    by stecoop ( 759508 ) * on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:03PM (#9379489) Journal
    It was just discussed earlier today that some users cant install Mozilla [] on restricted systems but you can download the zip files on run from any directory. So there is no need to patch IE []. Just start with mozilla.
    Some option you will want to use are under edit -> preferences -> Navigator:
    + Tabbed browsing - turn on Load Links in background, Add, Tabs, Middle click and ctrl-enter
    + Smart browsing - Enable Internet Keywords, Auto complete, Domain Guessing

    The key for someone new is to try it. Don't listen to everyone one trying to shove Mozilla at you, but simply check it out for say 3 days. If you don't like it then that is ok but I bet you will start saying that it's a great browser.
    • Re:Just do it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Issue9mm ( 97360 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:12PM (#9379602)
      And the easiest way to try it is to assign mozilla the big blue "E" icon for Internet Explorer.

      The hardest part (in my experience) for people to make the switch is that they're so used to loading IE, and don't think to look for the little dragon-head icon. Point the "E" to Mozilla and you'll be up to speed in no time.

      • Gotta love the whole "Internet Explorer = The Internet" mindset.

        My sister: "What's this Firefox thing?"

        Me: "That's the browser I use."

        My sister: "Oh, so you use that instead of Internet?"

        Me: "Internet explorer."

        My sister: "Same thing!"

    • Re:Just do it (Score:3, Insightful)

      So there is no need to patch IE.

      Unless you're also removing the IE code from your Windows system (which, as Microsoft alleges, is impossible), you still really do need to keep IE well-patched, even if you make Firefox the default browser.

      While most applications that hook into the Windows API for web stuff respect the preferred browser settings, there are still many that don't. Click on a link in the wrong IRC client or mailreader, and IE might pop up regardless of your browser preference. Or maybe you
  • by ChowyChow ( 149961 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:03PM (#9379490) Homepage
    Since spyware has gone cross-platform thanks to the XPI extensions, they've now implemented a whitelist (see What's New []) in retaliation.

    This really is open source at its best. Microsoft has not responded to the same problems involving ActiveX.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Users who find themselves locked out of their favorite extension because it's not offered on one of the whitelisted sites (,, can
      • turn off the whitelist requirement (BAD CHOICE) by setting xpinstall.whitelist.required to false in about:config.
      • add the site to the whitelist in xpinstall.whitelist.add (also on the about:config page)
      • download the extension xpi and drop it onto an open Mozilla window.
    • by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:46PM (#9380797)

      A new option to prevent sites from using JavaScript to block the browser's context menu.

      Sweet. Few things piss me off more when surfing, than those 2-bit scripts that try to control my alternate mouse buttons. Note to webmasters: if you're worried about people stealing your images, don't put them on the web. Lame Javascript tricks like capturing mousedown events just make me never want to visit your site again (and maybe I'll just disable Javascript and steal your images out of spite).

      • by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @04:33PM (#9381335) Journal

        The best way to make images more theft-resistant is to put them in a lightweight Flash movie that loads them up. I have a whole website designed in Flash which loads content dynamically, and it uses 116k for the whole site. It's true someone could score the URL and just load it directly. If you put the images in the SWF, the size will increase and someone could save and "decompile" the SWF.

        If you don't want to go the Flash route and stick to straight HTML, cut your images into smaller squares and use CSS or tables to assemble them in the browser. That's more of a pain but casual image theft is less likely when someone has to paste together 16 thumbnail-sized images.

        Don't take features away from our broswer. Remember: no matter what you do, someone can always take a screen shot. Your content will never be secure on a computer, so don't try to make it.
      • hehe (Score:4, Funny)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <`dadinportland' `at' `'> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @05:05PM (#9381670) Homepage Journal
        I like to grab there inages and email them ack to them..
        "Are these the images you don't want me to get?"

        heh... I got a lot of angry responses. I like the ones where they call me stupid.
      • by rabidcow ( 209019 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @05:13PM (#9381726) Homepage
        and maybe I'll just disable Javascript and steal your images out of spite

        No need to disable JavaScript:
        - "Tools" menu
        - "Page Info" (Ctrl+J)
        - "Media" tab
        - "Save As..." button
        Also works for flash and other weird things that you usually can't right click on to save.
  • Camino 0.8b (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:04PM (#9379505)
    Is Camino still being worked on at all? It's been 0.8b since like early 2003.
    • Re:Camino 0.8b (Score:3, Informative)

      Well according to a lead developer's blog [] and the Camino 0.8 roadmap []
      • Camino .8 only reached beta status on May 17, 2004.
      • Camino's release numbering is independent. Camino 0.8 doesn't correspond to Firefox 0.8
      • They made a fork of the Mozilla 1.7 final code only on April 19, 2004

      There's also a great quote from Mike Pinkerton back on September 2, 2003 [] about just how Camino got to a point where its own success was one of its biggest problems.

      Initially, Camino (then Chimera) did release early and often and

  • by OblongPlatypus ( 233746 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:05PM (#9379520)
    Why do they put a default theme that is "nowhere near finished" in a product that's "due very soon"?

    Yes, I know Firefox is "for those on the cutting edge", and I guess we shouldn't expect cutting-edge products to be completely finished in every respect, but Firefox is the only open source product most of my Windows-using friends are willing to even try. It would be a shame to hamper its continued spread by making the default theme an unfinished one.
    • by Slack3r78 ( 596506 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:25PM (#9379786) Homepage
      Because rather than communicate clearly with the theme author or the community, the core devs made a decision and kept it secret from everyone until release was imminent, to the detriment of the project IMO. The crappy part is that, at this point, the chances of this poor decision being reversed are slim to none as it'd mean the core devs losing face.

      I'm all for change and improvement, but this is a step back for Firefox as far as acceptance by the average user goes. The old theme was excellent in that it was close enough to IE to be familiar, yet different enough to be unique in its own right. In the end, it doesn't matter how good your software is, if the average user is turned off by the default interface, they're not going to use it.
      • I think that about hits the nail on the head.

        From Ben Goodger's weblog: []

        The transition from the Qute theme has caused quite a stir, and pleas for constructive responses have been widely ignored. All I can say to those upset with how this was negotiated is that in a perfect world, things might have been done better, this isn't that world, it is a more complex and interesting dynamic than has been made public, there is no use in crying over spilled milk, so get over it.

        Those of you who have attacked Kevi
        • by gunfinger ( 729227 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:42PM (#9380740) Homepage
          Yes, he may eventually be "vindicated", but what I see here is a worrisome attitude towards the user and developer communities. "We (I) know what's best, no matter how many people in the community present reasoned arguments to the contrary. If you complain about our decisions you're just a whiner, and we're going to censor you to the extent we can. Oh, and we have hidden secret information we're not telling you, so you can't possibly know what we're talking about." It's walking on thin ice at best, juvenile and egotistical at worst.

          this strikes me as an inexperienced attitude. have you never run a large website before? can you imagine trying to poll the community on every decision? or ANY decision, for that matter, it doesn't work. people's opinions change with the breeze and rarely have anything to do with logic nor necessarily infer that they'll be best for the project.

          i've donated a chunk of change to mozilla for their great browser long ago and i trust that they have our best interests at mind then and now, and thus am looking forward to seeing 0.9.

          i've always found the qute theme to be ugly from the get go and have been using this theme [] for many months, it's easy on the eyes and functions well.
      • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:52PM (#9380131)

        Not even mentioning which, there's no good reason for the default interface of a Windows application to try and emulate the look/feel of an OS X application.

        The primary design consideration should be consistency. On Windows, the interface should be Windows-like; on Mac, Mac-like; in KDE or Gnome, KDE- or Gnome-like. If users want to use a different model, that's what themes are for. Provide an OS X theme for WinFirefox, sure, but don't make it the DEFAULT theme.
  • Release Candidate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:10PM (#9379574)
    Am I the only one confused by a "release candidate" for version 0.9?
    It's not even 1.0 yet, you can't rely on it to be stable (although I have found 0.8 to work better than IE, which is supposedly stable).
    Why not call it 0.85 if it's not 0.9?
  • by buttahead ( 266220 ) <> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:16PM (#9379666) Homepage
    what are the benefits of using firefox and thunderbird over using the normal mozilla?

    I've been using mozilla for a long time, and haven't had a reason to try the new offsprings, so I'm mainly looking for an overview.
    • by FlashBac ( 720033 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:27PM (#9379808)
      Mozilla is more than just a Web browser. It has a mailer, chatzilla, some class of editor and a browser... firefox is essentially nothing more than the browser refactored and cleaned up. If you only use Mozilla as a browser, you would be as well moving to Firefox. If you want all the stuff that comes bundled with Mozilla, go about your business same as ever :)
      Hope that's useful.
  • by kryptkpr ( 180196 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:19PM (#9379700) Homepage
    I just happened to swing by the mozilla page today before the story broke, and happily downloaded and installed the release candidate.. It was on my system for about 5 minutes, and now I'm back to 0.8

    The new default theme looks UGLY... so I figure ok, I can change it. Every theme I tried from the themes site didn't work (wouldn't install) .. so I figure they just haven't been updated, so I went to the bugzilla entry about themes and found some 0.9-upgraded themes.. downloaded just fine, but I was unable to switch to the new theme even after a browser restart ... the hideous new theme just wouldn't go away! (but I kinda like the new theme selector)

    As an extra irrotation, someone decided it's a good idea to change the hotkey that opens the downloads window.. that was the last straw for me.

  • 4.7 mb (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dk.r*nger ( 460754 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:25PM (#9379776)
    I've been using Fire[bird|fox] for about a year - and I just can't get over the fact that the installer is so tiny: 4.7 mb ..
  • by Rayban ( 13436 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:27PM (#9379807) Homepage
    Change the following items in classic.jar/skin/classic/browser/browser.css and the default theme looks WAY better:

    .toolbarbutton-1, .toolbarbutton-menubutton-button { padding: 3px; }

    .toolbarbutton-1[checked="true"], .toolbarbutton-1[open="true"], .toolbarbutton-menubutton-button[checked="true"], .toolbarbutton-menubutton-button[open="true"] { padding: 4px 2px 2px 4px !important; }

    The spacing is less annoying and the icons look a lot better.
    • MOD PARENT UP! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Luscious868 ( 679143 )
      I installed 0.9 and went "Ahhh! Ugly!". I thought the 0.8 theme was way better. I followed this guys tip now I'm really digging the 0.9 theme. I hope the developers follow suite and make the spacing smaller in the release version.
  • by egarland ( 120202 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @02:39PM (#9379959)
    If you liked the theme from 0.8 (qute) better you can download it [] for 0.9. The author completely revamped qute for 0.9 and it's better than ever.

    I don't know about the rest of you but this new theme doesn't look as nice to me. The icon's aren't as detailed or polished and it feels a little clunky compared to the old one.

    Also, shame on the Mozilla folks for not letting the Qute author know all his hard work to support their project wouldn't be included.
  • The new thme sucks! (Score:3, Informative)

    by popular ( 301484 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:03PM (#9380288) Homepage
    I don't care how far along the new theme is, there's no redeeming value or promise in it for me. The old theme, designed to work with 0.9, is right here [].
  • Windows 95 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:09PM (#9380348)
    A company that I consult for still uses *a lot* of Win 95 Machines. Of course, like everyone in the win32 world, they are begining to have lots of problems with spyware, adware and various other sorts of crapware that seem to do little more than destablize their computers.

    Long story short: I did a fresh install of Win 95 C (the latest and greatest version of 95) and proceeded to download Mozilla 1.6 stable and 1.7rc3 and Firefox. However, none of these browsers would work... just a brief start-up splash-screen and then... nothing.

    I know 95 is old, but Mozilla is a must these days. I'm no bug-hunting, bug-reporting expert, but could anyone on /. confirm that this is a known issue that'll be fixed or there exists a work-around for?

    • Re:Windows 95 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Andrew_T366 ( 759304 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:18PM (#9380458)
      Mozilla 1.4 and later require version 2.30.4265 or later of the system file oleaut32.dll to run properly beyond the splash screen. If you have problems running this software under Windows 95, it is probably due to this or another missing or obsolete system file. I have flawlessly run Mozilla 1.6, 1.7 RC3, and Firefox 0.8 myself under Windows 95C (although I'll still need to check to see if Mozilla Firefox 0.9 RC works under this OS).
  • by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <(oliverthered) (at) (> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @03:57PM (#9380952) Journal
    Firefox has great standards compatability, but has piss poor HCI.

    URL fails to load -> url blanked

    Switch from one tab to another while url loading -> old url displayed.

    Page fails to load because of DNS lookup -> stored in the menu bar cache!.

    Download -> gets sent somewhere whithout asking, doesn't tell the user that anythings happended.

    Download again -> creates a new file blar+1 no continue/overwrite prompt or anything.

    Close browser while downloading -> canceles all your downloads.

    Download more than one extension -> get anoying prompts that are incorrect!

    etc... etc.... etc.... etc.....

    Firefox has to be one of the most anoying pieces of software I have ever used.

    I only use it because it's more standards complient and faster than the alternitives.
  • CSS3 Opacity added (Score:3, Informative)

    by pi8you ( 710993 ) <> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @04:30PM (#9381301) Homepage
    Looking at the release notes on the Mozilla side of the browers, I see they've added support for CSS opacity, very cool. Not something I'd incorporate into the core design of my pages yet, but I might toss it in as a bonus to Moz users.
    • by cookiepus ( 154655 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @09:58PM (#9383533) Homepage
      Looking at the release notes on the Mozilla side of the browers, I see they've added support for CSS opacity, very cool. Not something I'd incorporate into the core design of my pages yet, but I might toss it in as a bonus to Moz users.

      Eh? I am not sure if the CSS opacity they're refering to is different from what I am thinking of, but CSS Opacity won't be a "bonus" to Moz users. Take a look at the (never finished) page in my sig. Click on the image. You see those yellow "sticky notes" that show up? Do they look transparent to you?

      If they do, you're using MSIE (or maybe the new Mozilla?)

      So it's not like it's something new Mozilla has as an advantage over other browsers. It's something Moz is catching up to. The page in my sig was done at least a year and a half ago and the transparency has been a "bonus" for MSIE users. Mozilla didn't barf on the code (It's standard IIRC) but it just showed the yellow as Opaque.

      If these guys mean something else by CSS opacity, I am sorry to rant.
  • by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @04:44PM (#9381465) Homepage
    For anyone who's interested, Firefox 0.9 now supports the ability to run from a USB key without any major changes AND be able to take your entire profile with you. I've repackaged the Firefox 0.9 Release Candidate as a ZIP that will create an 8.1Mb install of Firefox on your USB key, complete with a built-in profile. Full details of the changes (if you're curious, or so you can try it yourself) as well as a ZIP are available here: []

    Any commentary or questions on this new feature can be addresses in this thread on mozillaZine [].

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall