Talk:Mozilla 2/Old Moz2
Planning for 2.0? Why don't you fix --enable-boehm in configure. Right now, it doesn't build without manuall adjustment to half a dozen Makefiles and then coredumps during startup. Mozilla leaks like a seive, losing track of about 60 megs of RAM a day under heavy usage. Having tabs, it's easy to leave it open continiously and painful to close all the tabs, restart the sucker, and reopen the tabs every day. I know it takes a long time to scan a 300 meg heap but when you have a 300 heap on a system with 128 megs of RAM it's much, much (much) faster to garbage collect than to leak. Or perhaps Unix is becoming more like Windows where you're expected to restart daily. I don't know.
Generally speaking, most configuration option permutations don't result in a working binary. Even more generally, Mozilla doesn't build under NetBSD and most other systems and it's hard to get a working binary on Linux. If thething is mature and stable, shouldn't the build system be passable? And everyone thought Ultrix was going to be around forever, then they thought SunOS was going to be around forever. Now writing "portable" code seems to mean "we targeted Linux but there are some #ifdefs in there for other systems". Bah! Trying to build this thing on NetBSD is a nightmare. pkgsrc updates it once a blue moon (they're still trying to get Mozilla 1.3 going) and it never builds anyway, even with the pkgsrc patches. What if the next big OS is far more different than NetBSD is from Linux? Most of the problems are activations of dead code and overly complex autoconf crud. This goop is entirely unnecessary.
(I don't mean to troll here - there are serious nits to me as someone who has been on the 'Net since 1990 and dealing with browsers since gopher and CERN linemode. Year after year I download sources at release announcements and am disappointed by stability, configurability, and general brokenness. After 14 years, I'm entitled to be a grumpy old man who is more than a little cynical. So, in a nutshell, for 2.0, I suggest making the things that are supposed to work already actually work. The nicest features are the ones people keep pretending like they have when they don't - the ones we thought we had a long time ago. It's hard to get excited about "new features" while dealing with this crud.)
- Scott Walters firstname.lastname@example.org
After years using NS 4.x and several versions of Moz suite, we are on the verge of sanitizing IE and making it our everyday browser (won't be easy, I know!).
Time and again flashy features are added to Mozilla while really annoying bugs survive like cockroaches through nuclear armageddon.
We posted this a while ago and most of it still applies: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=266177#266177 You can see from the replies that the situation ain't likely to improve.
In fact, later versions seem to be getting worse, they crash more and still don't render our list of NFG pages. Email is a joke and Thunderbird is the final insult: no HTML compose at all!
BTW if you try using IE in XP, when you turn off ActiveX: A resource editor such as 'Restorator' or 'Resource Hacker' can remove the "Your current security settings prohibit running ActiveX" text from \system32\shdoclc.dll and hence the obscene popup on many pages.
If anyone has a tested scheme for positively eliminating ActiveX and VBScripting from Bill Gates' crap (prefferably the Reg keys), please email me: email@example.com