Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com)
News.com reports on
a bug in Mozilla 1.2 that cripples dynamic HTML coding on some sites.
"The bug surfaced on Mozilla 1.2, the latest version of the
AOL-supported browser that was released Nov. 26. The notice on Mozilla.org
was brief, noting developers would release Mozilla 1.2.1 with a software
fix "shortly.""
(Log in to post comments)
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 2, 2002 20:43 UTC (Mon) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] The 1.2 release is still available on their ftp server, though; and generally, I also wonder just why they are pulling the whole release for a bug that can cause DHTML on "some sites" to fail - it does not sound like that big a deal.
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 3, 2002 0:32 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > it does not sound like that big a dealMaybe us techs don't care too much if <buzzword>DHTML</buzzword> doesn't Today in work, one of the CAD engineers was giving out because part of Mozilla keeps my boxes more secure and opens the possibility of promoting Ciaran O'Riordan
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 3, 2002 14:38 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] Maybe us techs don't care too much if DHTML doesn't work sometimes. But non-techs do. They don't understand what's happening.Of course the developers' commitment to delivering a browser without any serious bugs is laudable, and I don't mean to say that this is not a serious issue, either; however, I definitely do not think that it justifies pulling the whole release. This, in my eyes, would've been justified in a case where loss / corruption of user data and/or remotely exploitable security holes would've been involved, but that is not the case. Quiet frankly, I think that if every release that does have serious bugs in it would be pulled back again, there would be no release left at all to download.
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 3, 2002 23:27 UTC (Tue) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link] > however, I definitely do not think that it justifies pulling the whole> release. Actually, they just took the links from the mozilla.org front page, and removed the download page. they left the files on ftp, and they won't remove them from there, even now that the bugfix release 1.2.1 is out.
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 2, 2002 21:02 UTC (Mon) by freelsjd (guest, #250) [Link] Well, I'm reading/writing this with 1.2, and I'm not in a panic mode. We'll upgrade when it arrives.
Mozilla 1.2 is still a decent mail program Posted Dec 2, 2002 21:15 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The mail program in Mozilla 1.2 is much better compared to 1.1, especially when it comes to quoting. I don't think it was a good idea to pull the whole release just because of one component (web browser). Just a notice on the website would be sufficient.I'm using Phoenix 0.4 for web and Mozilla 1.2 for mail.
Mozilla 1.2 is still a decent mail program Posted Dec 3, 2002 17:31 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] I'm using Phoenix 0.4 for web and Mozilla 1.2 for mail.I've been using Phoenix (or whatever they have renamed it) for a week or so, and it's really excellent. If it had a top-level settings menu similar to Galeon's, and a convenient way to bypass proxy serves and the disk/memory cache when reloading documents it would be close to perfect, IMO.
Mozilla pulls latest browser downloads (News.com) Posted Dec 2, 2002 22:32 UTC (Mon) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link] If you want to know more about the problem on DHTML sites, take a look at the bugzilla tracking bug 182500 and its big number of dependencies...There was an additional thing as well, the release was missing some other fixes it should have included because they set the cvs tag on a wrong tree. This is documented in bug 182506 - it's not sure though if all the release builds were missing all those fixes... Anyway, in another bug report, bug 182812, the release engineer Daniel "leaf" Nunes told that the 1.2.1 release tag is made, the builds are ready and undergoing some QA currently. That should mean the 1.2.1 release should be within the next 24 hours...
Bit of a disaster, really Posted Dec 2, 2002 22:36 UTC (Mon) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] This has been a bit of a disaster, really. Perhaps the DHTML bug cropped up unexpectedly, but then again Mozilla's claim to fame is W3C compliance. However, the mis-build and the loss of bug fixes from the release is a lot harder to explain.I am surprised that the elements of the trade press that tend to, um, favor the Microsoft line haven't hit this pretty hard. sPh
Bit of a disaster, really Posted Dec 2, 2002 22:51 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Microsoft almost certainly suffers from the same problems; the difference is that Mozilla is a public project, whereas Microsoft's efforts are contained behind closed doors. Considering the magnitude of errors in some stuff that's managed to get released, I have to wonder what kinds of whoppers have never made it to public view. In all likelihood, this is a legitimate mistake, and I personally find it more reassuring that the project is owning up to the mistake and taking steps to fix it. At least we know; Microsoft would probably hush something like this up until they can get the next Service Pack ready, no doubt claiming that it was "No big deal" Sorry. Microsoft might be trying to clean up their record, but the established record is pretty bad, to be honest.
Bit of a disaster, really Posted Dec 3, 2002 14:05 UTC (Tue) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] I really like both the idea of the Mozilla project, and the browser itself (I am posting this from 1.01; I have been using Mozilla almost exclusively since 1.00 was released). But the angry, defensive attitude of the Mozilla team toward anything that even hints of criticism is not helping their case. This is particularly true in the attitude towards bugs.sPh
Give them a break Posted Dec 3, 2002 14:44 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Can you show any examples of such attitude from the team members? Can you show any examples when this is detrimental to their cause?I can understand that people working with bugs many hours a day are tired of critisism that lacks sufficient technical details. I think they can ask the critics to use Bugzilla or shut up. They don't have enough time to argue. Nobody will do the hard work for them. If you want to discuss Mozilla vs. IE, talk to people who don't work on Mozilla bugs full time.
1.2.1 available already Posted Dec 3, 2002 5:01 UTC (Tue) by Strike (guest, #861) [Link] 1.2.1 is now available, for everyone anxiously awaiting it. It is exactly the same as 1.2 plus the DHTML fix.
1.2.1 available already Posted Dec 3, 2002 13:39 UTC (Tue) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] Yes, very prompt fix availability.In any case, not being able to browse (some) sites/pages is small beer compared with the multiple serious vulnerabilities still present in MSIE.
|
|
||||||||||||