Branches
Articles referencing this project
Comments
[»]
Version for glibc 2.0?
by Stefan Scholl - Aug 18th 2000 08:57:55
And where can I find the version for glibc 2.0?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Size, stability, and market share
by Reagen Ward - Aug 8th 2000 13:23:21
Netscape/Mozilla is one of the most critical applications to most of us
right now. There isn't another option for most UNIX users just yet, no
matter how much I love lynx. That means we're in trouble.
I find it terribly disturbing that Mozilla requires more disk space
and RAM to build than X11R5 did. How is that even possible? I thought a
primary objective of the Mozilla team was to clean up the code? Well, I'm
waiting.
Not only is mozilla less stable than netscape4 (which is a feat in and
of itself), the new PR2 release installer dies before installing anything.
Lotsa QA went into this product, let me tell you! When your team spends
more time working on an instant messager and a super-duper-ultra-deluxe
html editor instead of producing a stable browser, you get Mozilla, the
product that never was. Still waiting for a real release, folks! When
developers produce WindowMaker dock applets to kill netscape due to its
tendency to freeze everything, that should be an indicator that the product
needs HELP. When I have to kill a runaway netscape process AFTER I've
exited, just to get back a full 96MB of RAM from a useless process, that's
bad.
Market share for Netscape has slipped drastically lately, and it's not
just because IE is more stable than NS. Folks don't see a future in NS.
The 4.7x line is quite long in the tooth, and it wasn't very stable or
standards-based to begin with. The preview releases of 6 are worse than
Mozilla milestones in most ways, and that's a severe disappointment to
folks who really don't want to use a bad product.
Is there a solution? Yes. The Mozilla folks should start over. In
the time they've used to work on the existing Mozilla code, they could have
written a fully functional browser from scratch. I say get the browser
working, THEN focus on mail/editor/IRC/backscratcher/oil changer portions.
Of course, I'm not a master developer or project leader, just a guy with
some common sense. I'm getting the feeling that common sense has no place
in this project, though.
What's the alternative? It's called assimilation. IE5 for the Mac is
a joy to use. It's so much better than the IE releases for Win32 or UNIX,
and it's almost completely compliant with modern web standards. MS is
fully capable of producing a quality product, even if they don't want to do
so most of the time. Without a working and stable browser for UNIX, we'll
be stuck with Mac and Windows products for a while, so that's good to know.
Opera is excellent, but isn't ready for Linux yet, and it's not available
on as many UNIX platforms as Netscape. It's not free, but it's worth the
cost. Konqueror is on its way, but it's not done yet either. More
importantly, many banking sites and the like REQUIRE IE or NS to get in.
Period. Browser spoofing is not the answer.
It's time to pull the plug and start over. We're in big trouble.
Reagen
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Size, stability, and market share
by Matthew Bloch - Feb 9th 2001 10:59:38
Nah, they've done some good work, it's just not been
packaged very well. Look up Skipstone or Galeon
here on Freshmeat, two GTK-based web browserrs
which use Mozilla's HTML renderer and nothing else.
Very responsive, less bloat, more fun.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Size, stability, and market share
by Aris Basic - Feb 9th 2001 13:46:12
>
> Nah, they've done some good work, it's
> just not been
> packaged very well. Look up Skipstone
> or Galeon
> here on Freshmeat, two GTK-based web
> browserrs
> which use Mozilla's HTML renderer and
> nothing else.
> Very responsive, less bloat, more
> fun.
>
well maybe GUI part is responsive but the HTML rendere is too slow.
Netscape 4.7 its at least 50 times faster then famous gecko engine which
then does not even support standards.I dont like M$ and IE but I would like
to see IE on my Linux box then bother with slow 20 MB HTML rendere.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Size, stability, and market share
by Rob Cakebread - Feb 9th 2001 12:23:35
>
> I find it terribly disturbing that
> Mozilla requires more disk space and RAM
> to build than X11R5 did. How is that
> even possible? I thought a primary
> objective of the Mozilla team was to
> clean up the code? Well, I'm waiting.
>
Optimization is done at the end of a project. Look at the roadmap. They
aren't there yet. Keep waiting.
> Is there a solution? Yes. The
> Mozilla folks should start over. In the
> time they've used to work on the
> existing Mozilla code, they could have
> written a fully functional browser from
> scratch. I say get the browser working,
> THEN focus on
> mail/editor/IRC/backscratcher/oil
> changer portions. Of course, I'm not a
> master developer or project leader, just
> a guy with some common sense. I'm
> getting the feeling that common sense
> has no place in this project, though.
>
From the Projects section on mozilla.org:
"The primary mission of mozilla.org is to coordinate and integrate the
work of others."
Don't worry, the guys doing the rendering engine aren't taking time off
to work on the backscratcher. The backscratcher department isn't even in
the same building.
>
> Reagen
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Mozilla/Netscape is crap.
by SalsaDoom - Feb 9th 2001 13:28:12
This was hyped as much as any microsoft product, perhaps even more.
And, it is probably one of the worst pieces of crap OSS ever made. I wanted
this as much as the next guy, but its slow as hell, unstable, and bloated.
Netscape/Mozilla people might release an update that fixes a few bugs
and adds more useless features (IRC client anyone? Wtf!) but why don't they
learn from past mistakes and release a new version with what Netscape
REALLY needs: SPEED and then, STABILITY.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla/Netscape is crap.
by WesMo - Feb 9th 2001 14:20:02
Admittedly, I have to agree. Netscape 6.0, so far, has been a mistake. It
blatantly used the user base as alpha/beta testers for a product that was
not production-ready. Massively huge and unstable in comparison to
Netscape 4.76, it only succeeded in turning OFF people.
Sure, the interface looks nice and all, but, geeze, if it craps out half
the time, and the other half of the time it has trouble rendering GOOD
pages properly, then what use is it?
I do however, disagree with the ordering of SPEED and then STABILITY. It
should be the other way around: Stability, then speed. An application that
crashes faster doesn't do much for ya. :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Size, stability, and market share
by Graham Irvine - Feb 14th 2001 16:23:43
I sadly agree that Netscape is heading in completely
the wrong direction in almost all respects. Its more
bloated , its more buggy , although it does appear to
crash a bit less granted !, the unfriendliest interface
and at the moment probably has the WORST
rendering engine going . Any Web administrator will
vouch for the fact that NS is almost completely
disappeared from the Site Logs. In the Win32 World
its completely gone in favour or IE . The paradox is
that the Win32 version of netscape is actually quite
good ! The Linux version for sure is almost completely
unuseable (v6.01) and quite frankly an insult to the
linux community. v6 was a pretty poor effort but you
kinda let that by as an beta release ( even though it
wasn;t !) . Having the next release go even further in
the mire is quite unacceptable. Its maybe a sign of the
maturing Linux market that software of this quality is
no longer acceptable to us , many of us now require
good product for our day to day business. However
the death of Netscape as a force in the browser
market is maybe a good thing. Time for some new
blood and I personally find Konqueror to be already a
far superior product , even in it current "beta"
state.(1.9.8) It renders better pages, Has better core
features and useability. I dont need portal stuff and t
he likes forced down my throat. I want a browser and I
want it lean and mean and good at just that .
Konqueror wins hands down across the board. I
think that it is already better than IE in terms of
approach and speed and ease of use. Obviously IE is
more mature in many respects but I remember IE2 ,
even 3 .. utter pants !!!! We needn't be concerned
there . OK its maybe my personal preference (as a
user and an network administrator ) but I dont like
IE's (and indeed NS) desire to want us to use the
same big product for ALL net services . I just dont
see it . How many use Netscape for Email ?? exactly !
How many wish they didn't use Outlook .. plenty ! The
only thing I miss at the moment is the loss of some of
the all pervasive plug-in technology requirements e.g
Flash,Real etc. ( but even then its only because of the
annoying download page !!) But as we vote with our
feet that situation cannot last I am sure. Then you
look at how these products impliment features we
need on a regular basis . Take Print dialogues .. The
Netscape one is a poor unfriendly effort with no select
ability . IMO its a thrown together port of the windows
version where no effort has been made to make it
work in a native friendly way As a network
administrator i would NEVER give this to "users" . The
level of helpdesk support this would need would be
horrific !! Konqueror on the other hand is able to read
all the available printers .. including Network printers .
names . comments to lot. User friendly and ready for
the "user" desktop. If we want to see Linux move onto
the corporate desktop we have to reject NS and
embrace proper ported software. The King is dead ,
long live the King.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Netscape v6.0
by Bart Schelstraete - Aug 8th 2000 12:25:39
Don't forget my friends:
it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Netscape v6.0
by Brat Wizard - Feb 10th 2001 05:09:47
> Don't forget my friends:
>
> it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's
> pronounced "Mozilla."
>
Hmm- Don't you mean N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but its pronounced
"Slow-as-crap-overblown-bloatware-that-crashes-all-the-damn-time-for-no-apparent-reason"???
When will there be a worthwhile alternative???
[reply]
[top]
[»]
netscape-installer core dumps
by Marius Kjeldahl - Aug 8th 2000 12:25:08
After I run the installer and answers all the questions and press
install to start the install, it runs for a couple of seconds and then
stops. There are no obvious messages, but the program leaves a
core file in the current directory, so I guess it coredumpts.
My /usr/local/netscape directory gets created but is empty.
Is anybody having more success than me?
(oh, I run Mandrake 7.1 intel)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Netscape 6 PR 1: why so slow?
by Serge Winitzki - Apr 6th 2000 20:32:04
Tried to unpack the archive and run ./products/netscape and was amazed at
how slow this 50 MB application is running on my little Pentium 150 MHz
with 40 MB RAM (running Debian, kernel 2.2.14). It was very, very
unresponsive (20 seconds between mouseclick and menu appearance) --
although it was not swapping at all after it loaded. In short, it was
unusable compared to nafigator v4.7x. Am I doing anything wrong?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
IE for *unx
by Matthew Davis - Feb 23rd 2000 12:40:37
Chances of an IE being developed for Linux are less than slim to none.
What would be fratanizing with the enemy.
If you want another option, there are quite a few.. Probably the one that
has the most promise is Opera
Its still beta, but it is good.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Bloatware
by justman - Feb 23rd 2000 11:20:26
Quite frankly, and I realize the will cause an increase in the load of my
mail server, I'd rather use IE then netscape if it was available for linux.
IE has better CSS support than netscape and a far superior ftp interface.
FYI for those of you who never used IE 5.0 the ftp interface is almost
exactly like that of windows explorer. I've never seen IE for other Unices
so I cannot comment on performance. However I have a lot of experience
with netscape in Linux and Free BSD. In BSD it would crash whenever I tried
to load up my home page which
I admit was designed for IE does not make use of standards delevoped by
microsoft. In linux it froze X and I had to kill X from a virtual terminal
while it was running a java app. Not surprisingly this java app was VNC and
the operating system of the host PC was a product of the boys from redmond.
I'm not saying IE would be the final answer. However it would be nice to
have another choice. It would definatly keep netscape on their toes. It
might inspire a few KDE developers to turn KFM into a more serious web
browser. It also might be a step in the right direction towards getting
some Redmond sourcecode. Whatever the results, it would give us another
choice, and choice is what linux is all about.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Bad transfer or...what?
by Lex - Jun 13th 1999 15:07:29
Ok, using RH Mandrake 5.3. Download 4.6 Prof from ftp.netscape.com and
install it using it's cute install prog. Nothing installed works. It gives
me an error about mmap not being able to map /dev/zero. Moved zero out of
there and hardlinked null to that spot (both basically the same, right?)
Still the same. Has anyone had this problem? Or was it just a bad
transmition? (I think the latter...)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Asynchronous DNS lookup
by Claudio Matsuoka - May 21st 1999 15:01:40
Yes, enabling or disabling asynchronous DNS host lookups does not affect
this problem. Even with MOZILLA_NO_ASYNC_DNS set to false (that should be
the default behaviour) it gets catatonic at startup. This behaviour only
happens when I'm offline. Any easy way to discover what names it is trying
to resolve?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Problems with 4.6
by Alan Liu - May 19th 1999 16:28:36
I'm running Navigator 4.6 on a Debian potato box with no problems right now
(possibly bus errors, but I don't recall one with 4.6 yet). The DNS lookup
trouble can sometimes be fixed by changing your MOZILLA_NO_ASYNC_DNS
environmental variable (from either true to false or vice versa). Have you
tried that?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Non-functionality of 4.6
by Robert Sanderson - May 19th 1999 07:16:26
I haven't experienced the lockup effect, but whenever I hit a page with
Java it crashes and burns with the output to stderr of:
Bus Error
System: Redhat 6.0, glibc2.1, kernel 2.2.7 (yes, 2.1 is unsupported)
And I thought MS Exploder was bad... At least MSIE5 does XML/XSL!
Come on netscape, get it together!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Problems with 4.6
by Claudio Matsuoka - May 17th 1999 16:57:18
Communicator 4.6 has reached a level of ridiculous nonfunctionality.
Version 4.5 used to get catatonic from time to time, apparently waiting for
a timeout from the name resolver, and 4.6 (for linux 2.0-glibc, running in
a Debian 2.0 box) just starts up in such state. The positive change is that
now the system load is 0 instead of 100%. Is anyone else experiencing
similar problems?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Netscape 4.51 glibc2 version out
by happy303 - Apr 11th 1999 17:35:59
The glibc2 version of Netscape communicator 4.51 is out and easy to get
from their ftp site. It fixed several problems for me, a RedHat 5.2 user.
Now it doesn't crash everytime i visit freshmeat and my keyboard works like
a charm in it (dead keys used to not be recognized). Feels more stable for
me.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Is communicator 4.51 stable for you?
by happy303 - Mar 13th 1999 13:09:23
I upgraded communicator yesterday, and since then it looks like it crashes
a lot more, I use the basic redhat 5.2 system, i'm not an expert in
configuring linux yet so if you have any tips to make it communicator more
stable (new shared libs?) i'd like to know. Also i'm interested in knowing
how stable communicator is for other people. Thanx a lot!
[reply]
[top]
|
