Branches
Releases
|
Version
|
Focus
|
Date
|
|
1.1.11
|
Major security fixes |
16-Jul-2008 08:14 |
|
1.1.10
|
Major security fixes |
15-Jul-2008 13:14 |
|
1.1.9
|
Major security fixes |
26-Mar-2008 23:30 |
|
1.1.8
|
Major security fixes |
10-Mar-2008 14:32 |
|
1.7.13
|
N/A |
21-Apr-2006 12:00 |
|
1.7.5
|
Major feature enhancements |
20-Dec-2004 04:59 |
|
1.7.3
|
Major security fixes |
10-Oct-2004 20:19 |
|
1.4
|
Major feature enhancements |
01-Jul-2003 07:19 |
|
1.0.2
|
Major security fixes |
29-May-2003 21:14 |
|
1.0.1
|
Major security fixes |
11-Sep-2002 07:39 |
Articles referencing this project
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages fix a security issue
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Jul 6th 2008 11:47
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages fix a security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Apr 20th 2008 15:13
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages fix several security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Mar 30th 2008 14:21
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages that fix several security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Mon, Mar 24th 2008 06:23
- SuSE: New MozillaFirefox, seamonkey packages fix remote code execution
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Feb 17th 2008 06:44
|
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages fix several security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Dec 2nd 2007 03:27
- SuSE: New MozillaFirefox, mozilla, seamonkey packages fix remote code execution
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Oct 28th 2007 07:56
- Red Hat: Updated seamonkey packages fix several security bugs
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sat, Oct 20th 2007 13:23
- SuSE: New Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey packages fix remote code execution
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Aug 5th 2007 01:18
- [more articles]
|
Comments
[»]
Two years on and still some serious printing issues
by dgtlmoon - Jul 15th 2004 18:43:24
I tried using mozilla to replace an office I became an admin for who were
running InternetExplorer, however a lot of the desktops have gone back to
using InternetExplorer because most web-sites just do not print correctly.
Click
here to view the bug in bugzilla
I understand this bug has been open for just over two years, whats been
going on? How can we find the people to fix the serious bugs that are
stopping Mozilla from being "taken seriously", I tried posting this to
slashdot but it seems like the opensource geeks just dont want to know
about it and my article never made it to the site.
What does this say about the opensource community? they probably dont give
a sh*t ? Maybe they should stop touting mozilla as the best thing since
sliced bread.
dgtlmoon
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Just compiled Mozilla 1.5
by accurate - Oct 25th 2003 10:19:45
I'd just like to say I think Mozilla is the best. People should use it on
any system. I'm glad they added the Popup blocker in 1.4, and the spell
check in 1.5 for composer, also it seems that 1.5 may be a little faster
too. Great software!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
The Best Browser & Mail Client Ever!
by xbone - Sep 6th 2003 01:31:53
Mozilla is Best Browser & Mail Client Ever!. Other software can 't beat
it! Keep up working on it, because it rocks! ;-)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Mozilla mirror in Ukraine
by Michael Shigorin - Jul 1st 2003 04:59:43
Just in case -- we have mozilla-1.x release binaries built by mozilla.org and altlinux.org/mozilla.ru mirrored at ftp.altlinux.org.ua
(which is Ukraine-only, but very fast here), and Ukrainian lang pack from
mozilla.org.ua is mirrored when
available too.
--
Michael Shigorin
mike SOMEWHERE AT altlinux PLUS DOT org
[reply]
[top]
[»]
PDF Conversions
by Charles - May 6th 2003 14:44:04
Hi,
Why don't you add a webpage to pdf conversion into Mozilla? I have one
which I will donate to the project if the tesm wants it. To see an example
of how it works, look at www.2convert.com and convert a webpage.
Charles
--
Charles Barr
www.2convert.com
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Congrats
by Sven Neuhaus - Jun 7th 2002 07:36:09
Gratulations on the 1.0 release.
Now, if they just wouldn't have screwed up the RPMs.. they were nice with
1.0rc3, but at the moment they are unusable for galeon.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
can't open new windows
by axplo - May 28th 2002 05:02:03
I can 't open new windows when I'm logged in as a normal user (even can 't
open the about box).
As I start Mozilla as root, there's no problem
And if I quit mozilla, I can't restart it untill I execute the
"killall mozilla-bin" command.
Anyone knows the solution for this problem?
--
linux is like a wigwam, no windows, no gates and an apache inside
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Install Flash into Mozilla easily!
by Nicopa - Apr 22nd 2002 14:27:12
Mozilla doesn't include the Flash Viewer plugin by default.
I've created an automatic
Flash installation. It uses the xpinstall technology from Mozilla to
install Flash in Linux and Windows.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Install Flash into Mozilla easily!
by Ivan - May 11th 2002 12:26:49
> Mozilla doesn't include the Flash Viewer
> plugin by default.
> I've created an automatic Flash
> installation. It uses the xpinstall
> technology from Mozilla to install Flash
> in Linux and Windows.
Or you could just download the .tar.gz from the flash site and put the .so
in your plugin directory.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Install Flash into Mozilla easily!
by Nicopa - May 11th 2002 16:44:36
You are smart, aren't you. Of course it can be done manually, you genius.
But mine is a better way, you don't even need to restart Mozilla, nor know
about anything: just push a button.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Install Flash into Mozilla easily!
by Tommi Asiala - Apr 14th 2003 05:41:30
>
> Or you could just download the .tar.gz
> from the flash site and put the .so in
> your plugin directory.
>
What is a .tar.gz? .so? Where is the plugin directory? These are the
question which will newbie ask.
It will be a lot more easier to advice him to click this and click ok..
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Yes DOM
by dino - Mar 12th 2002 16:02:19
I will never use IE/NS4 because they are not fully compatible with DOM.
I will stick with Mozilla for Windows, Mac AND Unix/Linux.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
No DHTML
by Nehal - Nov 23rd 2001 14:18:29
I will never use mozilla until it is fully compatible with dhtml. Off
course it will be supported in future versions, but i doubt in version
1.0
Until then I would stick to internet explorer for windows users or
communicator for unix/linux users.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by greg - Dec 19th 2001 06:48:29
> I will never use mozilla until it is
> fully compatible with dhtml. Off course
> it will be supported in future versions,
> but i doubt in version 1.0
>
> Until then I would stick to internet
> explorer for windows users or
> communicator for unix/linux users.
DHTML or more exactly DOM(dynamic object model) is supported. its a w3c
standard. you can see examples for this on www.limewire.com and many other
sites..
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by Nehal - Feb 9th 2002 15:08:17
>
> % I will never use mozilla until it
> is
> % fully compatible with dhtml. Off
> course
> % it will be supported in future
> versions,
> % but i doubt in version 1.0
> %
> % Until then I would stick to
> internet
> % explorer for windows users or
> % communicator for unix/linux users.
>
>
> DHTML or more exactly DOM(dynamic
> object model) is supported. its a w3c
> standard. you can see examples for this
> on www.limewire.com and many other
> sites..
>
>
thats the problem, it supports standards, but what about the millions of
sites that use old non-standard language (prorietor to ie for example),
such as the following
http://www.deakin.edu.au/~agoodman/scc219/dhtml/Example9.html
works in ie and ns4, not in mozilla though...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by Nadir - Feb 13th 2002 10:08:58
>
> %
> % % I will never use mozilla until
> it
> % is
> % % fully compatible with dhtml. Off
> % course
> % % it will be supported in future
> % versions,
> % % but i doubt in version 1.0
> % %
> % % Until then I would stick to
> % internet
> % % explorer for windows users or
> % % communicator for unix/linux
> users.
> %
> %
> % DHTML or more exactly DOM(dynamic
> % object model) is supported. its a
> w3c
> % standard. you can see examples for
> this
> % on www.limewire.com and many other
> % sites..
> %
> %
>
>
> thats the problem, it supports
> standards, but what about the millions
> of sites that use old non-standard
> language (prorietor to ie for example),
> such as the following
>
> http://www.deakin.edu.au/~agoodman/scc219/dhtml/Example9.html
> works in ie and ns4, not in mozilla
> though...
What a silly thread.
Mozilla should NOT support the old DHTML (aka DOM0). Web pages should be
updated to be standards-compliant.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by Nehal - Feb 13th 2002 13:21:36
> What a silly thread.
> Mozilla should NOT support the old
> DHTML (aka DOM0). Web pages should be
> updated to be standards-compliant.
You need to think realistically, not ideally, we would want all the pages
to update to the new standard, that would be nice, but it won't happen.
What is silly is expecting ALL the webmasters to update their page so that
it is standards compliance and works with mozilla. I'm sure lots have done
so already, but there are still many who haven't (and may never do so as
long as it works with internet explorer).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by Nadir - Mar 13th 2002 04:13:11
> You need to think realistically, not
> ideally, we would want all the pages to
> update to the new standard, that would
> be nice, but it won't happen.
>
> What is silly is expecting ALL the
> webmasters to update their page so that
Webmasters MUST update their pages. Not supporting wrong implementations
is the RIGHT way to go. Backwards compatibility isn't always a good thing.
Look what DOS has done to Windows...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: No DHTML
by Ivan - Apr 20th 2002 22:20:37
> thats the problem, it supports
> standards, but what about the millions
> of sites that use old non-standard
> language (prorietor to ie for example),
> such as the following
>
> http://www.deakin.edu.au/~agoodman/scc219/dhtml/Example9.html
> works in ie and ns4, not in mozilla
> though...
Your example uses files from D:/tech/temp/docs.html. Perhaps this is why
it doesn't work in Mozilla?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
some issues persist in 0.9.4
by John Thompson - Sep 22nd 2001 10:34:28
I've been using 0.9.4 for a few days now and was
pleased to find that one problem I had with 0.9.2
and 0.9.3 has been fixed; namely I had been having
problems with password recall on secure sites
(such as the secure eBay login page). However,
another problem remains: like 0.9.2 and 0.9.3,
0.9.4 seems to have problems separating multiple
windows. If I have several Mozilla windows open
on separate desktops and type (or click) a new
site in one window, trying a new site in another
window sends the request to the new site in the
first window. For example, if I have slashdot and
freshmeat open in separate windows, and then
decide to go to linuxtoday from the freshmeat
window, then try to go to a link from the slashdot
page, Mozilla will send the request from the
slashdot page to linuxtoday, causing no end of
404's. Mozilla 0.9.1 doesn't do this and it
remains the most trouble-free version of Mozilla
I've used.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Mozilla 0.9.4 kicks ass
by tuxisuau - Sep 22nd 2001 09:57:11
I love it! I haven't seen any better browser in my life (yes! IE does suck
compared to mozilla). And with galeon 0.12.1 it have tabs and a nice &
fast GTK gui. Kicks ass!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
0.9.3's pretty good!
by Chuck Messenger - Aug 14th 2001 08:25:59
I've been using it (on Win32) as my main browser since it released. It's a
little slower than IE, but still fast enough to be pleasurable. It's
_much_ better than the previous release (which wasn't up-to-snuff for
regular use).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Mozilla Speed
by Darrell - Mar 27th 2001 19:35:08
Hmmm.. Seems many people are happy with Mozilla.
Am I the only one who notices how dog slow it is? I
wonder if there is any plan to speed the thing up. It's
slower than HotJava for god sakes!
It simply blows me away that Netscape 4.x is faster
than Mozilla on Windows, Linux, and Solaris.
It seems that with every release, there's new stuff
crammed in there, but the speed problem is never
even mentioned, much less addressed.
Konqueror & Netscape 4 continue to remain my
primary means of accessing HTTP, and that's really too
bad since both have major flaws.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by Nero - Mar 28th 2001 01:43:19
Speed/optimisation is constantly being worked on..
use Galeon[*nix] or K-Meleon[winblowz] for speed..
This is still early remember, the version number
is 0.8.1 - meaning they know they have a long way
to go. Though I agree.. they should stop adding
stuff, and just fix bugs and optimise (new cache
and libpr0n will help) ....
> Hmmm.. Seems many people are happy with
> Mozilla.
>
> Am I the only one who notices how dog
> slow it is? I
> wonder if there is any plan to speed
> the thing up. It's
> slower than HotJava for god sakes!
>
> It simply blows me away that Netscape
> 4.x is faster
> than Mozilla on Windows, Linux, and
> Solaris.
>
> It seems that with every release,
> there's new stuff
> crammed in there, but the speed
> problem is never
> even mentioned, much less addressed.
>
> Konqueror & Netscape 4 continue to
> remain my
> primary means of accessing HTTP, and
> that's really too
> bad since both have major flaws.
>
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by Wm. Josiah Erikson - Apr 3rd 2001 02:02:20
Mozilla may still be slow, but I must point out
that it is much much faster than earlier versions,
which were unuseable on my Duron 650/256MB of RAM.
It is now very useable, and in fact I have ditched
4.76 entirely in favor of M18. Very nice!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by Darrell - Apr 3rd 2001 02:33:21
Do a test.. I'm sure you'll see that 4.76 runs twice as fast as Mozilla
M18.. if not faster.
I'm not saying Mozilla isn't a great work-in-progress, it's just not
usable as a primary browser until that slugishness is fixed.
BTW.. I'm running from Linux/Athlon 700.
> Mozilla may still be slow, but I must
> point out
> that it is much much faster than
> earlier versions,
> which were unuseable on my Duron
> 650/256MB of RAM.
> It is now very useable, and in fact I
> have ditched
> 4.76 entirely in favor of M18. Very
> nice!
>
>
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by Nero - Apr 30th 2001 04:40:08
Try running a recent build, like 0.8.1 - or wait for 0.9 (coming out very
soon)
M18 is ancient, theres no denying M18 runs like shite.
> Do a test.. I'm sure you'll see that
> 4.76 runs twice as fast as Mozilla M18..
> if not faster.
>
> I'm not saying Mozilla isn't a great
> work-in-progress, it's just not usable
> as a primary browser until that
> slugishness is fixed.
>
> BTW.. I'm running from Linux/Athlon
> 700.
>
>
>
>
> % Mozilla may still be slow, but I
> must
> % point out
> % that it is much much faster than
> % earlier versions,
> % which were unuseable on my Duron
> % 650/256MB of RAM.
> % It is now very useable, and in fact
> I
> % have ditched
> % 4.76 entirely in favor of M18.
> Very
> % nice!
> %
> %
>
>
>
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by Darrell - Jun 13th 2001 13:35:41
Ok.. following up on my original post. I've
grabbed 0.9.1. It's gotten much
faster, and is quite usable for me now.
Kudos to the devel team!
(And that new modern theme is bitchin!)
-d
> Try running a recent build, like 0.8.1 -
> or wait for 0.9 (coming out very soon)
>
> M18 is ancient, theres no denying M18
> runs like shite.
>
>
> % Do a test.. I'm sure you'll see
> that
> % 4.76 runs twice as fast as Mozilla
> M18..
> % if not faster.
> %
> % I'm not saying Mozilla isn't a
> great
> % work-in-progress, it's just not
> usable
> % as a primary browser until that
> % slugishness is fixed.
> %
> % BTW.. I'm running from
> Linux/Athlon
> % 700.
> %
> %
> %
> %
> % % Mozilla may still be slow, but I
> % must
> % % point out
> % % that it is much much faster
> than
> % % earlier versions,
> % % which were unuseable on my
> Duron
> % % 650/256MB of RAM.
> % % It is now very useable, and in
> fact
> % I
> % % have ditched
> % % 4.76 entirely in favor of M18.
> % Very
> % % nice!
> % %
> % %
> %
> %
> %
>
>
>
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Mozilla Speed
by deuterium - Jun 30th 2001 06:22:48
mozilla 0.9.2 is pretty stable here..
still waiting for a non-bloated no-nonsense version..
[reply]
[top]
[»]
RPMs
by Oliver Schulze L. - Feb 17th 2001 02:19:36
Here are RPMs for RH7.0:
http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/software/RH7/RPMS/
PD: how can I add a rpm url in this proyect?
In freshmeat I could do it.
Oliver
[reply]
[top]
[»]
really good
by squisher - Oct 25th 2000 04:03:42
Wow, finally a mozilla version that seems to be stable. A lot has changed
since M17. Now there is a working theme/chrome support (ok maybe not
important but still cool somehow =) and mozilla has much more stable. M17
was IMHO still unuseable because it just kept crashing. I had to use galeon
so that I could surf the web without a crash every 5 minutes. Now I use
mozilla by itself again and it is really good! Try it out, it's really
worth it. This seems to be a major step towards 1.0!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
M18 rules
by Walles - Oct 14th 2000 11:34:54
I've been trying the MNN builds since M14 or something, and they
have so far all been rather broken (as could be expected since Mozilla
ain't at 1.0 yet). However, as of M18, as far as I'm concerned, it's
there. Bye-bye Netscape, consider yourself replaced. And to the Mozilla
team: "Awesome".
If you haven't tried M18 out, I suggest you do.
Cheers //Johan
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Using first alpha (M13)
by blue - Jan 28th 2000 04:29:38
I'm using Milestone 13 to post this. It's certainly progressed -- however,
it's still slow, the arrow keys don't work all the time, the preferences
isn't as functional as I'd like it to be, and it does something strange
with fonts. On the plus side, it renders nicely, is standards compliant,
and has its own cool widget set.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: It's getting there...
by naChoZ - Nov 23rd 1999 09:49:38
I agree. I download the dailies frequently to play with them. There's
still plenty of quirks, but I notice them getting fewer and fewer every
time. It actually performs very fast on my
machine (w/128mb), though. Some pages seem faster than NC4.7.
--
Andy Harrison
ICQ: 123472 AIM/Y!: AHinMaine
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Failed to compile on Solaris x86
by Shaman - Nov 22nd 1999 15:36:05
Got two internal library errors:
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
PR_StackPush ../../../../dist/bin/libnspr3.so
PR_StackPop ../../../../dist/bin/libnspr3.so
[reply]
[top]
[»]
hmm
by Xcs - Jul 16th 1999 22:17:02
mozilla m8 is a pretty nice web browser. has a cool look to it but just a
bit too buggy to use.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hmm
by error27 - Feb 16th 2001 00:46:36
> mozilla m8 is a pretty nice web browser.
> has a cool look to it but just a bit too
> buggy to use.
This is mozilla 0.8
The real M8 came out well over a year ago now.
It was the first Mozilla build I tried and I used
it for about 3 days as my primary browzer.
Those were the worst 3 days of my life. I still
shudder whenever I think about it...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hmm
by A. Koch - Jun 9th 2001 03:59:43
Awesome! You just made my day with that post. ;)))
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hmm
by Caleb Land - Jun 30th 2001 11:46:50
>
> % mozilla m8 is a pretty nice web
> browser.
> % has a cool look to it but just a bit
> too
> % buggy to use.
>
>
> This is mozilla 0.8
>
> The real M8 came out well over a year
> ago now.
> It was the first Mozilla build I
> tried and I used
> it for about 3 days as my primary
> browzer.
>
> Those were the worst 3 days of my
> life. I still
> shudder whenever I think about it...
>
>
>
Yeah, look at the date of his post, it's dated
1999 so I think he was talking about M8 (which I
never used thank G*d) ;) Mozilla .9.1 is awesome,
I'll try .9.2 when the .src.rpm is released.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hmm
by vkey4linux - Jun 30th 2001 14:37:37
You're right. Its rather buggy. In fact, although
SSL support has been added, it still cannot log
into hotmail....meaning that all pretty looking
browsers based on mozilla (galeon, skipstone,
aphrodite, etc) do not work too :(
--
Born Free!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
I've tried it (kinda)
by Variant - May 6th 1999 11:02:44
I'm not sure if I was running the latest build, but I ran the Mozilla that
comes with Debian. It was pretty slow and buggy compared to Communicator
4.51.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: I've tried it (kinda)
by Stefan Koopmanschap - Mar 13th 2002 06:21:17
> I'm not sure if I was running the latest
> build, but I ran the Mozilla that comes
> with Debian. It was pretty slow and
> buggy compared to Communicator 4.51.
early builds were indeed a bit hard on system resources and a bit buggy.
update to a more recent release and you'll be surprised at how it's
evolved.
[reply]
[top]
|
