SillyDog701

[Ramona]

Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.2 Release Candidates

Asa Dotzler has announced the availability of Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 and Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 release candidate builds. Testers have been asked to focus on a few areas in particular, including drag and drop, iframes in XUL windows, the state of the lock icon when navigating to named anchors on secure pages and bookmarked pages in the sidebar. If no significant problems are found, Firefox 1.0.2, Thunderbird 1.0.2 and Mozilla 1.7.6 will likely be released next week.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Andrew T.]

Thanks for the announcement, Ramona. I'm trying out the Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 release candidate now, and all is well so far. It will be nice for maintenance updates to be released, especially for Thunderbird and the Mozilla suite, which haven't been updated since December.

I notice that these releases are available from the "nightly" folder, rather than the "releases" folder, of Mozilla's FTP server. I presume these release candidates are in fact nightly builds selected for this very purpose.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Fulvio]

I don't like the fact that they are available only in the Installer form. I don't mind trying them, I know how to deal with separate installations.
Do they need separate profiles. The main page gives no hint. And, everything is working too smoothly to mess things up.

UserAgent: Opera/8.0 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)

[Fulvio]

I should have waited. I installed 1.02 in a separate folder, and used another profile. First, 1.02 wanted to become default. So, it is not p[ossible to keep things the way they were. When I said no, Mozilla1.7.5 became default.
Other than losing the use of half my extentions, I am back to square one.
I am not even goping to bother with TB.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1 (ax)

[Ramona]

I uninstalled existing versions of both browsers, and installed the test versions. I imagine that they aren't too different than what the final version will be like.

Andrew, have you tested the drag 'n drop, and other issues Asa is intersted in?

Ramona

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Andrew T.]

Andrew, have you tested the drag 'n drop, and other issues Asa is intersted in?

Yes, and I haven't yet noticed any major problems.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Fulvio]

It was too late at night for me to think, but, I had a new profile waiting to be used by 1.02. It worked ok, but I started getting all sort of requests to make it default. I did not attempt to get any extention in, for 1.02, but what happened to the profile used by 1.01 beats me. I did not expect that it would be almost completely messed up. I had a prefbar and useragent switcher.
My other extentions, including the Calendar, Spoofstick, Biobar, and the weather thing were nowhere to be seen. I was using the external applications extention to add shortcuts to my menu bar. The shortcuts were working, but once again the extention did not work. And, after the 1.02 fiasco, all my shortcuts were gone.
That was the end of my test. I never even tried Thunderbird, because who knows what it would do to my present set up.
I think that firefox will have a problem catching on, if even maintenance updates can cause such havoc. Or just forget about extentions.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1 (ax)

[akbash]

Fulvio you have a talent for testing

I wouldn't have expected 1.02 to trash your older user profile if you told it to use a new profile. Are you certain you never let it at your 1.01 profile? 'Cause stepping into other random profiles and raising cain would be a bad bug.

I started getting all sort of requests to make [1.0.2] default.

It's keying off the full path to the executable. So if you have the program in a different directory than the one containing your default browser (of course you do!) then it'll whine about not being the default every time you run it. But it should happen just once, immediately after each launch, and you should be able to make it stop by unchecking the "ask me every time" checkbox, or by setting the [tt]browser.shell.checkDefaultBrowser[/tt] pref in your test profile to [tt]false[/tt].

I think that firefox will have a problem catching on, if even maintenance updates can cause such havoc.

I too think this is a terrible weakness in Mozilla products. Extensions, twitchy things inserted into the application after it's built and tested, written by a constellation of developers only distantly attached to the core development effort, I mean that's just begging for trouble. An extended Firefox is going to stumble when you start swapping out parts like a Borg drone.

Yeah, like you're not a geek, too.

Remember when updating your Windows OS was strictly for emergencies, something as likely to trash your computer as make it better? Gotta say, whatever you think of Microsoft they've poured a lot of effort into making their update story accessible to the bumblingest of fools, and their products are much much better for it. The thing about open source development, most work is done by volunteers, and installers aren't sexy.

I agree, Mozilla's update process appears to be very fragile, and it's a problem.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050313 Firefox/1.0+

[James]

Your argument makes a great deal of sense. I fear that unless greater control can be exerted over the admission of extensions to a final version, we're going to grow to expect problems. And if this is the case, in all likelihood the greater majority of users (particularly business users) will leave Mozilla for an new and improved IE/OE.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Ramona]

James,

Bite your tongue!


Ramona

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Fulvio]

Akbash,
I confess that 1.02 did open with my 1.01 profile. I had forgotten which one it was. I never let the entire set of Tabs load. I closed it, and then, I modified the Target with -p, so I was able to select the correct profile.
Yes, I know how to make it stop asking which one is the default profile.
That's when Moz1.7.5 became default, automatically.
Including the extentions, it took about one hour to restore order.
As for the extentions, Calendar could never be made to work. I care little for it, so I did not pay attention to the bugzilla instructions.
I always do these things after 1 AM, and it is not a good idea. I am going to try as soon as I exit.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217

[Fulvio]

I got 1.02, and although it tried its darnest to supplant 1.01, I was successful.

1. No choice of installation location was given with a standard install.
I had to select a Custom install to be given a choice of location. I doubt that I would have been given an opportunity later. So, I think that one does a standard install, 1.01 would be overwritten. But, I did not try that.

2.I added the <space>-p to the target of 1.01, and I, then added the profilename. Similarly, I did that for 1.02. So, each browser opens independently. so hanky panky this time. And 1.01 remains default, while 1.02 is not.

3. There is only one extention, of no interest to me for 1.02. I did Auto-detect, so 1.02 is rather bare. It did give me read memory error, when I first installed it. I have no idea what is the meaning of it, because everything proceeded normally after that.

4. Spyware Blaster adds all cookies of tracking sites, and prevent access. I had to allow excite.com to sign in.
Note that Spyware Blaster does a yeoman's job protecting IE and Firefox.
There is no protection for Netscape or Mozilla.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Fulvio]

James,

Bite your tongue!


Ramona

He should. There is no reason to surrender just because some things don't look right today. 1.02 was a disaster, for me, last night, but it works fine today. I hope that some extentions will be incorporated in the programs, and I don't see why they should not. I think that the entire operation should be placed under one roof.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Fulvio]

One addition. I was able to install some extentions, using the .xpi files.
They include the Prefbar, UserAgent Switcher, MinitT bar and Launchy.
The Active X and the spoofstick extentions did not work.
Now, I am in business.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[James]

Guys...and Gals.... don't misunderstand me... please!

I'm not against Mozilla by a country mile. I'll always be a loyal Mozilla fan. I'm just afraid that it needs to tighten up controls of those who write extensions and of the manner in which patches are made. I've always found it awkward that when a patch to a vulnerability is made ready we have to download an entire new version rather than the patch. But I admit to not fully understanding the whys and wherefores. I think that ahkbash and made a very perceptive comment... one with insight. I'm sure you've grown frustrated that having downloaded a new version your extensions and themes suddenly no longer work and we sit around and await the writers to play catch-up. How will businesses respond to this sort of thing when IE 7 makes an appearance with all the latest bells and whistles, tighter control over the entire suite and greater security built into the package? It's more a question than a criticism but I don't think I'm expressing myself very well.

Okay.. .I'll bite my tongue, Ramona.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1