One browser, many names
Now that the world has been enriched by both Netscape 7 Preview Release and Mozilla 1.0 Final, many people have lost track of all Netzilla/Moscape releases. The naming and versioning system (if any) is completely incomprehensible and becomes stranger with each new name and release. Personally I feel that this confusion is a deliberate policy of both the Mozilla project and Netscape Communications Corporation, since both are very consistent in their inconsistency.
So it's time for an overview. What are the names of the various tries to produce a viable Netscape browser? Do these names mean anything?
Netscape 5
In 1998, Netscape released the source code of its (then still popular) Netscape 4 browser. The goal was to make the production of the new Netscape 5 browser an open source project, involving thousands of programmers from all over the world.
Pretty soon, the project decided to start all over again: the old Netscape 4 code engine was too complex and couldn't form a stable basis for a new Netscape release (in fact, it didn't form a stable basis for Netscape 4 either).
So a new browser would be written. Eventually this brave new browser would become Netscape 5. So far so good.
Mozilla
From the earliest days of the Netscape browser, the code engine that actually took care of interpreting HTML, (later) JavaScript and (still later) CSS was called Mozilla. This strange name started out as a combination of Mosaic and Godzilla. The message was supposed to be that this new code engine would sweep goold old Mosaic away, as Godzilla swept away King Kong. Something like that, anyway.
Netscape 1 ran Mozilla 1, 2 ran 2, 3 ran 3 and Netscape 4 ran Mozilla 4. Remember that back in those days a new version number actually meant something: each new Netscape version could do far more than its predecessor.
Almost every browser identification string still starts with the name Mozilla, even those of non-Netscape browsers. The reasons behind this are another story.
When the project to write a new Netscape code engine started, it was named The Mozilla Project. One would expect the goal of this project was to produce Mozilla 5, being the fifth version of the Netscape code engine.
Gecko
Not so. In the beginning each code engine release was named Gecko for reasons I've forgotten. (Well, a gecko is a lizard and a godzilla is, too, so there might be some obscure point in giving it this name.) To this name was added an M for Milestone and a version number. So the Mozilla project delivered Gecko M1, then Gecko M2 and so on.
From the very earliest releases, the browser identification string started with Mozilla/5.0, indicating that the browser would eventually become Netscape 5.
So eventually Mozilla 5 would form the core of Netscape 5, and until that time web developers would be entertained by the various Gecko releases, numbering their Milestones from 1 onwards until the Nirvana of standards-compatible browsing would be reached. So far so good (well, OK-ish).
Netscape 6
Not so. The project took too bloody long. Microsoft had had a working Version 5 browser almost since the start of the Mozilla project, which would mean that the new Netscape 5 would be seen as a laggard, appearing on the scene while Microsoft already prepared its Version 6 browser.
So, unbeknownst to us web developers, marketing geniuses inside Netscape (or its corporate owner AOL) decided the new Netscape would be Version 6. So when, on 14 November 2000, a preview based on Gecko M18 was released, it was proudly named Netscape 6.0 Preview Release. So Netscape has altogether skipped Version 5.
Nonetheless the browser identification string still proclaimed it to be Mozilla/5.0, in keeping with the old Netscape tradition. So technically it was a Version 5 browser, marketing-wise it was a Version 6 browser.
Keeping track of the names started to get confusing, but it could be managed.
Mozilla 1.0
Therefore the Mozilla Project decided the situation wasn't vague enough. When Netscape 6.0, based on Gecko M18, had been released, the Gecko name was altogether dropped. Instead, the new goal of the project became the production of Mozilla 1.0.
One wonders why the new code engine wasn't named Mozilla 5.0, the only name that actually makes sense: the fifth version of the Mozilla code engine.
But the Mozilla Project was not to be denied. In quick succession Mozilla 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.8.1, 0.9, 0.9.1, 0.9.7, 0.9.8, and 0.9.9 were released. The Project was working towards 1.0, no doubt about it.
Then, when everyone expected Mozilla 1.0, the Project came with a new subtlety: Release Candidates. Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 1, Mozilla 1.0 RC 2 and Mozilla 1.0 RC 3 were released. Personally I'd expected even more confusion, culminating in something like Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 2.1 beta 3, but the Project has unexpectedly become sensible and given us Mozilla 1.0 Final.
Mozilla 1.0.3 Preliminary Review 3.5a ?
This latest release in fact seems to be a pretty good browser (though I've only done some preliminary tests). So the Mozilla Project has done what it has promised so many years ago. Cause for celebration, certainly, but personally I don't feel like it at all: I'm too confused.
The Project has already announced Mozilla 1.1, which makes sense, but I'm afraid we'll have to deal with Mozilla 1.0.3 Preliminary Review 3.5a and such arcana first. Then again, I might be wrong (in fact, I hope I'm wrong).
Of course the browser identification string still starts with Mozilla/5.0, and not Mozilla/1.0, which would cause people to confuse it with ancient Netscape 1. To make it even more complex, Gecko is also mentioned in the string. I don't know what all this means. Just nod wisely and pretend it's completely logical.
Netscape 7
So from Mozilla 0.6 onwards it was clear where the Mozilla Project was heading. Therefore fresh confusion initiatives had to come from Netscape, or rather from its corporate owner AOL.
It succeeded admirably. The latest Netscape release is not Netscape 6.3 but Netscape 7.0 Preview Release. So the browser version number has once again been raised. Why?
Rumour has it that AOL is considering the use of the Netscape browser in its newest AOL 7. This rumour may be true, it may also be another ritual move in the eternal dance of Microsoft and AOL, a threat that might cause Microsoft to make some concessions. No way to tell. Fact is that AOL subsidiary Compuserve does use a modern Netscape as its browser (I forgot which version exactly).
In any case, to make sure its users understand what's going on, AOL has decided on the combination AOL 7-Netscape 7. Not the worst of ideas, from a corporate point of view. The suffering of web developers trying to keep track of the various versions is less important, of course.
What's next?
I have no idea what will come next. I'm reasonably sure a browser named Netscape 7, based on the Mozilla 1.0 code engine will be released fairly soon. This will be a Version 5 browser (hence Mozilla/5.0 in its identification string). It might even be that AOL will start using this browser in its own setup.
As you see version numbers have become completely void of all meaning. Where, up until Explorer 5, you could be reasonably sure a new version number meant the support of exciting new technologies, nowadays it means no such thing.
The past cause of events has shown both Netscape and the Mozilla project are completely unreliable and unpredictable in the assignment of names and version numbers. So the situation will continue to be confusing and I suppose I'll write an addendum to this article in half a year.
Comments
what about IE7?
Ideally, I'd like to see them really push the bar on CSS rendering, give us "static" absolute positioning. Oooh, and how about alpha-blending PNG support???
Nah, they'll probably just make the built-in media player more obtrusive, or bring back "Channels." Yay.
This isn't really that confusing.
To make it even more complex, Gecko is also mentioned in the string. I don't know what all this means.
Gecko is in the string because it is the name of the rendering engine. Mozilla is in the string because it's the name of the browser. Other browsers may use the rendering engine but have a completely different name, so their agent string would contain gecko, but not mozilla. Mozilla.org has provided a spec that describes the user-agent rationale.
Has anyone heard any rumors at all regarding MSIE7?
Yes. There will be no IE7. IE6 is supposedly the end of the line for IE, and will continue to be targeted at the corporate market, but MS will be pushing new versions of MSN Explorer for everyone else. I believe a new rendering engine and everything is in development for it. Of course, this is third-hand inside info, so feel free to take it as such.
IE
Mozilla HTTP USER AGENT string
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530Identifying Gecko browsers
Not only do they explain about the browsers, they also show how to deconstruct a Gecko-based browsers user agent string.
IE7 lives
This is simply wrong. IE7 has already been announced as part of Windows XP SE due 2003 (and maybe SP1 due out this year too). I cannot imagine Microsoft chucking away the most-used browser, or scrapping it for a new engine.
This must surely be the reason Netscape have announced version 7 of their browser as well. To keep up with Microsoft. I believe that was the reason they also missed a version and came out with 6 instead of 5 (as IE6 was out.) Hence also Opera 6! (Look out for Opera 7 soon, no doubt.)
Mozilla in non-Moz browser user agents
Yep - version 1.1 alpha is out
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.1a/
What's unclear again?
Mozilla's plans seem pretty straightforward to me. I have no idea what Netscapes plans are, but who really cares? I don't see any Netscape branded browser being recognized as anything more than Galeon or Beonex or any of the other Mozilla offshoots. As anyone who hasn't lived under a rock knows, the Netscape product and the Mozilla product are two different projects. Why should they have the same version numbers again? What "technically" defines a "Version 5 browser" again? The USER_AGENT string?
Oh wait, i get it, you're just trolling.
Why is evolt posting this crap as the first article after they ask for money? Doesn't exactly make me wanna pony up.
Re: What's unclear again?
Mozilla's plans seem pretty straightforward to me. I have no idea what Netscapes plans are, but who really cares?
I do, because the new Netscape will probably be integrated into the next AOL version, and will thus become by far the biggest implementation of Mozilla/Gecko.
Why should they have the same version numbers again? What "technically" defines a "Version 5 browser" again? The USER_AGENT string?
Originally Mozilla was Netscape's code engine, so it's reasonable to assume the new versions of both have the same version number. Of course, at the moment they don't.
I define a Version 5 browser as a browser that implements the W3C DOM to such an extent that adding and removing HTML elements to or from the page is possible. Explorer 5 and Netscape 5/Gecko/etc. could both do this, hence they're version 5. Nothing radically new has been added to any browser since then, so there are, technically speaking, no browsers higher than Version 5.
This is my own versioning system, it looked pretty good when I invented it a year ago, but it becomes more and more obsolete because of the strange versioning policies of the various browser vendors.
Gecko is in the string because it is the name of the rendering engine. Mozilla is in the string because it's the name of the browser. Other browsers may use the rendering engine but have a completely different name, so their agent string would contain gecko, but not mozilla. Mozilla.org has provided a spec that describes the user-agent rationale.
Clear descriptions, I never quite thought of it that way. But it's confusing nonetheless: for ages Mozilla has been the name of the code engine, now suddenly it's a browser name (Mozilla 1.0) but the browser string still treats it the old way (Mozilla/5.0). So is it Mozilla 1 or 5? Once again proof for my point that the naming of the various releases/versions is confusing.
ppk
Poor article - poor research
Re: What's unclear again?
Let me get this straight ... you've been an evolt member since ... earlier today. You've contributed no articles of your own, no tips, and from what I can tell, you've never made a post to thelist. Where's your credentials to make such statements?
Oh wait, I get it, you're just trolling. Badly.
The Mozilla Name
Mozilla actually comes from "Mosaic Killer" and was the original codename for Netscape Navigator since Nav was designed to totally replace Mosaic as the most popular web browser of it's time (and did). It has nothing to do with Godzilla, the Godzilla-alike mascot of the Mozilla project comes from the fact Mozilla sounds like Godzilla, but this likeness is has nothing to do with the actual naming of the browser.
Source: Mozilla FAQ
Re: The Mozilla Name
OK, that's quite another story. Now that I think of it, I came across my explanation for the name on the Microsoft site, which hardly seems an objective source for such stories.
Thanks for the information.
Gimme a break!
Mozilla's plans seem pretty straightforward to me. I have no idea what Netscapes plans are, but who really cares?
I do, because the new Netscape will probably be integrated into the next AOL version, and will thus become by far the biggest implementation of Mozilla/Gecko.
Are you naive enough to think that AOL will use Netscape Navigator, rather than incorperating Gecko into their product?
Why should they have the same version numbers again? What "technically" defines a "Version 5 browser" again? The USER_AGENT string?
Originally Mozilla was Netscape's code engine, so it's reasonable to assume the new versions of both have the same version number. Of course, at the moment they don't.
I define a Version 5 browser as a browser that implements the W3C DOM to such an extent that adding and removing HTML elements to or from the page is possible. Explorer 5 and Netscape 5/Gecko/etc. could both do this, hence they're version 5. Nothing radically new has been added to any browser since then, so there are, technically speaking, no browsers higher than Version 5.
This is my own versioning system, it looked pretty good when I invented it a year ago, but it becomes more and more obsolete because of the strange versioning policies of the various browser vendors.
So why even bring it up? If *no* vendors follow your system (and WHY should they??) why point it out about Mozilla specifically? Like I said... trolling.
Let me get this straight ... you've been an evolt member since ... earlier today. You've contributed no articles of your own, no tips, and from what I can tell, you've never made a post to thelist. Where's your credentials to make such statements? Oh wait, I get it, you're just trolling. Badly.
I've been a reader for a long time. I saw the request for funds and would have been happy to support this site monitarily despite not being a member. Just how long does someone have to be a member before they can call a troll a troll?
Re: Gimme a break!
Perhaps the more pertinent part of your message to quote was:
Learn to critique before you insult.
Re: Poor article - poor research
I'm not trying to flame here, that's not my intention at all.
You're not flaming, you raise some good questions.
It seems to me that this article raises either unanswerable questions - Why Netscape 7.0
Actually I did answer this question: because of marketing reasons.
or raises baseless questions - Mozilla 1.0.3 Preliminary Review 3.5a? The Mozilla project has a very clearly defined release structure. Anyone familiar with Open Source development or large project development should find it very familiar.
But how many web developers are familiar with open source projects? I don't doubt there is some system in the versioning, but I was surprised by the Release Candidates.
For a time we will have two Mozilla "releases", the 1.0 branch, which will include 1.0.1, etc - and the 1.1 branch, which is currently in an early alpha. This is rather clearly stated on the Mozilla.org website. Why question if there will be a Moz 1.0.3 PR 3.5a?
Since I don't have any experience in software development, this confuses me mightily. And what confuses me will probably confuse other web developers, too. That's why I wrote this article, from the point of view of someone who just wants to make websites.
No doubt there is logic in the system, but it's hard to understand. And I intensely disliked the Gecko-to-Mozilla name switch.
And the 1.0.3 PR 3.5a stuff was more like a joke than like anything else. I just get bloody confused by the names, and the Mozilla project documentation is not written for people who just want to use the browser. (Bugzilla, too, I find it a completely incomprehensible system and thus don't report the Mozilla bugs I find).
Sadly, this is full of errors...
> From the earliest days of the Netscape browser, the code engine that actually
> took care of interpreting HTML, (later) JavaScript and (still later) CSS was
> called Mozilla.
This is not really correct. As documented in several books, Mozilla was the internal code name for the first release of the Netscape browser - the whole thing, not just the rendering engine.
> When the project to write a new Netscape code engine started, it was named The
> Mozilla Project.
This is not really correct. The Mozilla Project was the name of the project from the beginning - nine months before the decision to write a new rendering engine. The Wayback Machine's archive of www.mozilla.org web pages, as well as the name of the domain, will confirm this.
> Not so. In the beginning each code engine release was named Gecko for reasons
> I've forgotten.
This is not correct. Gecko (a.k.a. NGLayout) is the code name for the new Mozilla rendering engine, which was begun nine months into the project. For confirmation, see CVS records for its website - http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/
> To this name was added an M for Milestone and a version number. So the Mozilla
> project delivered Gecko M1, then Gecko M2 and so on.
This is not correct. As can be seen from the web pages, the milestones were known simply as Milestone 1, Milestone 2 etc. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/release-notes/
> From the very earliest releases, the browser identification string started with
> Mozilla/5.0, indicating that the browser would eventually become Netscape 5.
It indicates nothing of the sort. IE 6 has Mozilla/4.0 in its browser identification string. There is not necessarily a 1:1 mapping. The first release of Mozilla was always going to be Mozilla 1.0.
> Therefore the Mozilla Project decided the situation wasn't vague enough. When
> Netscape 6.0, based on Gecko M18, had been released, the Gecko name was
> altogether dropped.
The Gecko name has not been dropped - it continues to be used daily, both by mozilla.org and Netscape, to refer to the rendering engine at the core of Mozilla. http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/
> The Project has already announced Mozilla 1.1, which makes sense, but I'm
> afraid we'll have to deal with Mozilla 1.0.3 Preliminary Review 3.5a and such
> arcana first. Then again, I might be wrong (in fact, I hope I'm wrong).
If you check the roadmap (http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html), the plans for the future, including numbering plans, will become crystal clear :-)
> To make it even more complex, Gecko is also mentioned in the string. I don't
> know what all this means. Just nod wisely and pretend it's completely logical.
This is so that derivative browsers (Galeon/K-Meleon/Chimera/Netscape 6/7) can all have a common token to indicate they are based on the Gecko rendering engine. This allows sites to know what renderer the browser that is accessing them is using, and makes sniffing easier.
> The past cause of events has shown both Netscape and the Mozilla project are
> completely unreliable and unpredictable in the assignment of names and version
> numbers.
Microsoft, on the other hand, are completely consistent. IE 4 identifies as Mozilla/3.0, IE 5.0 as Mozilla/4.0, and IE 5 and 6 are basically the same browser. :-)
Gerv
Ignore this one too
But how many web developers are familiar with open source projects?
What exactly is your point here? Web Developers need to stay abreast of technologies, including browsers, that affect their environment. Your argument is akin to a mechanic saying "You mean I have to learn another car??!"
That's why I wrote this article, from the point of view of someone who just wants to make websites.
If you just want to make websites, you should go to w3c and read the specs. Mozilla supports them as well or better than any browser out there. Write to the standard, not to a browser.
No doubt there is logic in the system, but it's hard to understand. And I intensely disliked the Gecko-to-Mozilla name switch.
The rendering engine is called Gecko. The browser product was always called Mozilla.
This article is filled to the brim with baseless comments that attack a specific browser. Why are you not so utterly confused by the presence of "Mozilla" in IE's USER_AGENT string? Why are you not bothered by IE6 being what you define as a "Version 5 Browser" ? Why didn't you spend 10 whole minutes reading www.mozilla.org in order to clear up all of your supposed confusion? It seems like a lot less work to do some reasearch than to write this article, unless you have some ulterior motive, of course. It's clear to me that you did no research for this article and that makes me pretty suspicious as to why you wrote it.
Re: Ignore this one too
>But how many web developers are familiar with open source projects?
What exactly is your point here? Web Developers need to stay abreast of technologies, including browsers, that affect their environment.
True.
Your argument is akin to a mechanic saying "You mean I have to learn another car??!"
I disagree. A mechanic would say "You mean I have to understand the production process of another car?".
>That's why I wrote this article, from the point of view of someone who just wants to make websites.
If you just want to make websites, you should go to w3c and read the specs. Mozilla supports them as well or better than any browser out there. Write to the standard, not to a browser.
I've always written to browsers, not to standards (unless they happen to be supported by all browsers). But that's an old discussion that doesn't need rehashing now.
>No doubt there is logic in the system, but it's hard to understand. And I intensely disliked the Gecko-to-Mozilla name switch.
The rendering engine is called Gecko. The browser product was always called Mozilla.
Yep, that has been made clear.
This article is filled to the brim with baseless comments that attack a specific browser.
I don't attack the browser, merely the naming system. But if you mean I have to rewrite this article, you are certainly right.
Why are you not so utterly confused by the presence of "Mozilla" in IE's USER_AGENT string?
Becasue I understand it. See the explanation on my site.
Why are you not bothered by IE6 being what you define as a "Version 5 Browser" ?
I am, but it's not the subject of this article.
Why didn't you spend 10 whole minutes reading www.mozilla.org in order to clear up all of your supposed confusion? It seems like a lot less work to do some reasearch than to write this article, unless you have some ulterior motive, of course. It's clear to me that you did no research for this article and that makes me pretty suspicious as to why you wrote it.
There's some truth in what you say, though my only motive is understanding the naming system. As I noted before, I'll have to rewrite this article. In any case I now understand the naming system much more. Now I just have to find the time for a rewrite.
Links
However... A while ago I found this amazing site based around JavaScript, comparing browsers as well, with several great scripts. I didn't realize until later that it's ppk's site! So no need to check that out myself, but everyone else should - it's a superb find, and one that solved a long-standing problem I had with Netscape 4 and a form. It just wouldn't work, but ppk had the answer - sometimes forms don't work in divs in NS4. I swapped the div for a table, and the form worked! I must thank you ppk for that!
Back to the topic here. If anyone would like to see a list of CSS2 failures between IE6 and Mozilla 1.0, I have today published the results. These are based on the CSS2 Test Suite that Eric Meyer has come up with. OK, so Mozilla wins this time, but it's not perfect either. Take a look:
CSS2 - IE6 vs Mozilla1.0
IE --> MSN Explorer
Consistency with new standards
The thing with all these version numbers regarding Netscape6/7/Mozilla is that the main version number within both is 5. If Mozilla/1.0 (Netscape 1) and any newer major incarnation of it supported new standards, then Mozilla/5.0 reflects exactly that. So, the UserAgent version number reflects standards supported when it comes to both Netscape and Mozilla.
Since Mozilla is anyways a separate project now, it has to have the 1.0 version to signify the version number of its browser and not that of Netscape, because it's a young four-year-old project and a spin-off from Netscape, and mozilla.org is not the owner of the Netscape brand (AOL is), but the developer of our favourite browser, on which Netscape is based. When it comes to Netscape's version numbers, then I agree with others to see 6 and 7 as marketing tricks. The latter just having a little more features and being more stable, too.
Mozilla/6.0 will come when there's an overhaul of the rendering engine, whereby support is added for standards that currently just don't exist and added then are lots of new features most people can't even think of. The use of the Mozilla/6.0 useragent could be hopefully seen when the Mozilla 2 browser will be released. Although lots of other projects have spun off from Mozilla since its inception and there is no foreseeable date as to when that (the release of Moz/2) happens. The version of Mozilla the useragent is 5.0 and is consistent with earlier versions of Netscape and its useragents, where as the version number of Mozilla the browser is 1.0 and the version number of Netscape may now float.
About 1.0.x and 1.1
If we look at what's new in release notes of Mozilla 1.1Alpha, then one can see that there are only stability and feature improvements and feature additions. Since 1.0.x releases will by and large have just improved stability, then 1.1 will contain new features. Note that hardware demands so far are same for both. IMHO, the idea behind 1.1 is more features, but they can't be incorporated into 1.0.x, because it would substantially change 1.0.x itself and compromise Mozilla's general premise for stability. Features and improvements for 1.1 may change substantially, as it has been witnessed when comparing releases between 0.9, 0.9.6 and 1.0. By the time there have been improvements for 1.0.x and it would be considered as stable, 1.1 will be released and offered a download as safe as 1.0 now as a whole browser product is. It will be different enough so that 1 and 1.1 could be distinguished. People who crave for new features because of better productivity/interoperability/more standards, etc. will surely download 1.1 as soon as it will be available. I would have 1.1 in a new computer only.
IE also skipped a full version number
Yes, it seems ridiculous for Netscape to skip version 5 completely, and for them to go to 7.0 for a relatively minor upgrade that should have been version 6.3 or maybe 6.5. I agree wholeheartedly with that thinking. Marketing is the only explanation, and marketing is not logical -- I'd call it pernicious but that's just my feeling about it.
One detail that seems to have been forgotten in all this is that Microsoft did the same thing a very long time ago (at least in Internet time). IE skipped a whole version number. If I recall correctly (and I'm not certain) they went from 1.x directly to 3.0. So there is precidence for it, altho I dislike the practice.
Re: IE also skipped a full version number
I'm afraid that's not so. IE 2.0 was released in November 1995, just a few months after 1.0. You can find the 2.0 installer in the browser archive.
It is NGLayout, not Gecko
2.0 installer for W9x
OK, I guess IE didn't skip a version number
Re: OK, I guess IE didn't skip a version number
IE 1 and 2 had very close dates. Version 1 was August 95, version 2 in November 1995. (source)
I agree that browser numbering is more and more irrelevant these days, driven by marketing instead of actual improvements to the browser. IE on the PC should probably still be a 5.x thing like Netscape should be. Opera should be a 4 or 5.
Rebuttals to previous comments . . .
"I've always written to browsers, not to standards . . ."
Then, IMO, you should stop writing webpages forthwith, and
learn web standards before you continue writing webpages.
brantgurganus2001 wrote:
"The rendering engine is NGLayout, not Gecko.
'Gecko' is more Netscape marketing hoopla."
Wrong . . . the Mozilla redering engine IS Gecko, and is nothing to
do with Netscape marketing. NGLayout was Gecko's original name.
Good article
I, for one, thought the article was excellent. Despite some errors, ppk was courageous enough to critisise Mozilla rather than cling to it like the crowd.
Opera should be a 4 or 5.
Why? Opera 1 was never released. Opera 2 was released, but pretty unusable. Opera 3 was where people started coming. Opera 3.5 supported CSS1 exceptionally well. Opera 4 had a mail client and CSS2 support. Opera 5 had the ad banner. Opera 5.1 had skins, mouse gestures and Panels. Opera 6 had a new UI and some other stuff. Opera 7 has a new UI, new mail client and DOM2 support.
Re: Good article
Why, IMHO:
Other than improved CSS in Opera 4, there is no substantial improvement in what the browser primarily does -- render web pages -- in the span from 3.5 to 6. So with CSS2 and mail we go to version 4. Ads, skins, mouse gestures, panels, and a new UI is maybe one more version number, at best. Now with a better DOM in Opera 7, that would be Opera 6 in my world. Or maybe 5.5.
But to each their HO.
No rewrite
Although months ago I promised to rewrite this article, in the mean time I've decided not to. Sure, the article contained some factual errors, as the comments show, but if I'd have to describe all this stuff the article would become twice as long and thrice as complicated.
I don't particularly care that I haven't described 'NGLayout' or didn't know that Gecko M1 doesn't exist. As long as you understand the naming system of this year's releases you've got enough information.
My conclusion is that Mozilla's naming system is too bloody complicated and that a full knowledge of it is not necessary for the average web developer.
Mozilla hits new heights in browser name confusion
Having been quite predictable in its naming conventions for many months now, Mozilla decided it was high time for a fresh confusion initiative. Moving with speed and alacrity, the open source software organization completely changed all names of all browsers derived from the Mozilla code engine.
We thus see a shift from recognizable, though inappropriate, names from classical mythology to completely incomprehensible names having no discernible relation to anything at all. This strategy is to be lauded for its determination to infuse confusion into the hearts of even the staunchest Mozilla supporter.
A renaming of Mozilla itself, to, for instance, Morris Mini, is to be expected any day now.
The facts
Re: The facts
ppk, the reason for the name changes are due to legal problems with using the existing names. So they were forced.
Sorry, forgot that bit.
"Not content with discarding the ancient and revered name of Mozilla for no good reason, the organization cunningly forgot to check whether the new names it coveted were copyrighted."
As for Mozilla, if you read the latest roadmap on the Mozilla homepage, you'll see that it's soon to be phased out! Phoenix will be their main browser of the future. Or should I say Firebird.
I predicted it, didn't I!? Here we go again:
"In a stunning new marketing offensive, Mozilla courageously decided to scrap all those names of its browsing software that were known to the general public. From now on, Mozilla official policy states, no one will be allowed to know the correct name of TCEFKAM."
"This strategy is confidently expected to lead to steadily falling support in the web development community due to a distinct increase in misunderstanding. Communication specialists from all over the world are extatic in their support for Mozilla's unparalleled use of the power of names."
I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously any more.
Re: The facts
I agree that it's gotten a bit ridiculous, particularly with the flap that the name Firebird has caused. But let's not add to the confusion. The project is still and will still be called Mozilla. The product names are Mozilla Firebird browser (or just Mozilla Browser) and Mozilla Thunderbird email client.
It's just trolling to say "full knowledge of [Mozilla's naming history] is not necessary for the average web developer" and then go on about it, anyway.
"...completely incomprehensible names having no discernible relation to anything at all." Not a car enthusiast? (Me either.)
Is it really that very hard?
I might be strange when it comes to this, but I don't find anything to complain about when it comes to the Mozillian naming conventions. They used milestones for a time under the heavy development phase, but got rid of those when they came closer to a finished product. Then they started using the normal majorVersion.minorVersion most software uses. It's just natural they made some release candidates before the 1.0 release - they aren't alone using that system either. (a local linux distro made by some comp. sci. students at my uni is on it's ninth release candidate for the moment...) The naming system they use today (a-alpha, b-beta, no letter-final) is even more wide-spread. The name Gecko is the name of the rendering engine and nothing else. As for Netscape versions (6.0PR1, 6.2.3, 7.0 etc.) they are separate from mozilla entirely and just there for differentiating. The browser revision number stays the same, as does the rendering engine version (in most cases).
As for the change to Phoenix/Thunderbird from Mozilla browser suite, that is nothing that will impact the browser name. Mozilla versions < 1.5 will be using the XPFE Mozilla suite, while Mozilla 1.5 and above will use the GRE toolkit instead, with the browser and mail components being those currently existing in Phoenix and Thunderbird applications. Note that the name Mozilla will still remain on the suite. The rendering engine, the scripting engine etc. will still remain the same as today - so will their numbering.
Re: Is it really that very hard?
I might be strange when it comes to this, but I don't find anything to complain about when it comes to the Mozillian naming conventions. They used milestones for a time under the heavy development phase, but got rid of those when they came closer to a finished product. Then they started using the normal majorVersion.minorVersion most software uses.
Yes, the names for Mozilla itself have stabilized by now. The only general remark I have is that a versioning system that is completely normal in software development does not need to be logical for people having no experience in software development (like me). I learned to understand it, though, and now it's clear to me. Besides, the versioning is logical now, where just before the 1.0 release it was anything but.
As for the change to Phoenix/Thunderbird from Mozilla browser suite, that is nothing that will impact the browser name.
I'm not so sure. Now that the browser actually works, people must be made to download and use it. As long as there are so many names for the same piece of software (the average user doesn't know about the differences, and doesn't need to know either), people will get confused. "Oh, is Firebird the same as Mozilla?". And why a different name for each OS? Why not simply [name] for Windows, [name] for Mac, [name] for Linux? Much easier to remember, much easier to market.
Besides, the name "Mozilla" has been widely known for many years now. I think that discarding it in favour of a lot of new, unclear names, is bad for marketing, and marketing is what Mozilla needs most right now.
And the copyright stuff remains stupid, no matter how you look at it.
Mozilla versions < 1.5 will be using the XPFE Mozilla suite, while Mozilla 1.5 and above will use the GRE toolkit instead, with the browser and mail components being those currently existing in Phoenix and Thunderbird applications. Note that the name Mozilla will still remain on the suite. The rendering engine, the scripting engine etc. will still remain the same as today - so will their numbering.
Since I have no idea what XPFE or GRE are, nor what the exact difference between an 'application' and a 'suite' is, I'm not sure if I understand. I know I could look it up on the Mozilla site, but I strictly confine myself to the viewpoint of someone who wants to download a good browser and doesn't want to know the technical details.
The Mozilla naming system, while completely comprehensible to fellow-geeks, is not targeted at the average user, and that's what I object to.
No other browser vendor uses several names for its product, with the exception of Konqueror/Safari. In that case, though, the marketing targets of the two builds are quite different, since Konqueror remains somewhat geeky while Safari will eventually become the standard browser for Mac. This is not the case for Mozilla, all OS builds should be marketed in the same way.
Re2: Is it really that very hard?
I'm not so sure. Now that the browser actually works, people must be made to download and use it. As long as there are so many names for the same piece of software (the average user doesn't know about the differences, and doesn't need to know either), people will get confused. "Oh, is Firebird the same as Mozilla?". And why a different name for each OS? Why not simply [name] for Windows, [name] for Mac, [name] for Linux? Much easier to remember, much easier to market.
Besides, the name "Mozilla" has been widely known for many years now. I think that discarding it in favour of a lot of new, unclear names, is bad for marketing, and marketing is what Mozilla needs most right now.
Well, first, I think we should agree on one thing: The name "Mozilla" henceforth means the entire suite, browser, mail/news, composer and all. Also: Netscape, K-melon, Galeon, Firebird and Camino (among others) are not Mozilla, but browsers/suites based on Mozilla (with the possible exception of Netscape, since it uses XPFE). The Mozilla suite of today consists of one application (or program, if you wish) - XPFE - which contains everything in the form of components: browser, mail/new etc.The Firebird and Camino browsers are applications of their own, using a common ground of among others the rendering and scripting engines, but not using the XPFE components of Mozilla. The Mozilla suite that will be from 1.5 and forth, will not be using XPFE. Instead it will have the scripting and rendering engines as base, and add separate applications (or programs, if you wish) of browser (based on current Firebird), mail/news (based on current Thunderbird) etc. The suite will be Mozilla, but the components of the earlier Mozilla versions will be replaced by the applications mentioned. The change will be visible to the user, but it will not mean that very much will have changed - the rending engine and the scripting engine will still be the same, the UI will be somewhat different, the bloatedness will if not go away at least be substantially less.
As for the Mozilla name, as I said it's going to remain on the suite. It's the parts that make up the suite that will change, not the suite. So, there should be little in the way of confusion when it comes to that.
The Mozilla naming system, while completely comprehensible to fellow-geeks, is not targeted at the average user, and that's what I object to.
Well, there's only one Mozilla for the moment, and the numbering is pretty straight forward - I don't think that will change for the moment.
No other browser vendor uses several names for its product, with the exception of Konqueror/Safari. In that case, though, the marketing targets of the two builds are quite different, since Konqueror remains somewhat geeky while Safari will eventually become the standard browser for Mac. This is not the case for Mozilla, all OS builds should be marketed in the same way.
You have s different concept of browser than I have - Mozilla is one browser, Firebird is another. Same goes for Safari and Konqueror. The rendering engine might be the same, but the rendering engine is only interesting to web developers anyway. If you consider those the browsers, you could as well use the names of the rendering engines for all browsers - Tasman (Mac IE), Gecko (Mozilla, Firebird etc.), KHTML (Safari, Konqueror), Mozilla (Yep, NN<5 rendering engine - this might be confusing), Opera (Don't know any name for their engine, so I guess we can use the name of the browser there), Triton (Not sure about the name, but Win IE has a rendering engine code named Tri___ something). As for different OSes, Mozilla to my knowledge exists on nearly all platforms and is named the same on all of them.There are several other browsers using the same rendering engine on various platforms, but Mozilla is pretty well differentiated. I have a bigger problem with different rendering engines being in different browsers named the same: Internet Explorer (Win/Sol, Mac versions).
Re: Re2: Is it really that very hard?
>Besides, the name "Mozilla" has been widely known for many years now. I think that discarding it in favour of a lot of new, unclear names, is bad for marketing, and marketing is what Mozilla needs most right now.
Well, first, I think we should agree on one thing: The name "Mozilla" henceforth means the entire suite, browser, mail/news, composer and all. Also: Netscape, K-melon, Galeon, Firebird and Camino (among others) are not Mozilla, but browsers/suites based on Mozilla (with the possible exception of Netscape, since it uses XPFE).
Again an argumentum ex geeko. This may be technically completely true, but the average user doesn't know and doesn't care. He wants that new browser he's heard of, named Mozilla, and if he doesn't find that name he'll download another browser.
As for the Mozilla name, as I said it's going to remain on the suite. It's the parts that make up the suite that will change, not the suite. So, there should be little in the way of confusion when it comes to that.
Hm. I'm already confused. Above you said the other browsers like Netscape, Galeon etc. will also be suites. No doubt you'll be right and there will be some point to all this, but it's once again tech-speak that's incomprehensible to the average user.
You have s different concept of browser than I have - Mozilla is one browser, Firebird is another. Same goes for Safari and Konqueror. The rendering engine might be the same, but the rendering engine is only interesting to web developers anyway. If you consider those the browsers, you could as well use the names of the rendering engines for all browsers - Tasman (Mac IE), Gecko (Mozilla, Firebird etc.), KHTML (Safari, Konqueror), Mozilla (Yep, NN<5 rendering engine - this might be confusing), Opera (Don't know any name for their engine, so I guess we can use the name of the browser there), Triton
That would be fun to try <g>. 'You silly sod, your site doesn't work in Tasman!'.
Seriously though, the naming conventions of the Mozilla project have established as fact that the browser is called 'Mozilla'. It's a bit late to say that Mozilla really isn't a browser when people have been talking about this browser for years now. What's done's done. Now live with it.
In short, it's technical accuracy vs. marketable user-friendliness. The time has finally come that the latter is more important to the Project than the former.
confusion
Mozilla Branding
Confused?
Re: Confused?
What a lot of people seems to have gotten wrong, is that they thing it's Mozilla that will be replaced by Firebird. That's not the plan and never was.
In hindsight. While the names debate was going on, however, no one actually said so, no one from Mozilla and none of the commentators, either.
It could also be that the Project only says that it never planned to change the names etc. We cannot be sure any more.
It looks suspiciously like corporate distater control to me.
Re[2]: Confused?
Quote from the Mozilla roadmap: "1. Switch Mozilla's default browser component from the XPFE-based Navigator to the standalone Phoenix browser."
This states pretty clear that it's the default browser component that is to be changed from Navigator to Firebird (then Phoenix). People have confused themselves and not taken their time to read it through, or they would have seen that it's not the suite itself that is to be replaced.
hmmm
Example: "It is our plan to replace the browser program called Mozilla with Phoenix. Phoenix will soon be renamed Firebird. The browser suite will still be called Mozilla."
The trouble is there are so many components and development trees to the Mozilla project. To add confusion, IE calls itself "Mozilla" in its user agent string. How is the average surfer supposed to know what Mozilla is any more? Even hardened coders like ppk have given up trying to understand it. What's worse is that the goalposts keep moving! You don't hear of multiple programs and browser engines called "Opera".
Re: Is it really that very hard?
You shouldn't forget that in Open Source Community (which Mozilla belongs to), versions < 1.0 aren't considered as stables and aren't aimed to standards users. So the pre-1.0 numbering system doesn't have to be easy to understand for such users.
I'm not so sure. Now that the browser actually works, people must be made to download and use it. As long as there are so many names for the same piece of software (the average user doesn't know about the differences, and doesn't need to know either), people will get confused. "Oh, is Firebird the same as Mozilla?". And why a different name for each OS? Why not simply [name] for Windows, [name] for Mac, [name] for Linux? Much easier to remember, much easier to market.
This sort of naming convention exists with Mozilla : Mozilla for Windows, Mozilla for Mac, Mozilla for Linux. Other names (Firebird/Thunderbird, K-meleon...) are either parts of the Mozilla suite, either projects that just use parts of Mozilla code. Again, standard users usually just know Mozilla as a web/mail client, as nobody knew the name of the Netscape Communicator's mail client or said "I made this page with composer" but "I made this page with Netscape".
And the copyright stuff remains stupid, no matter how you look at it.
Which copyright ? You certainly means "copyleft"...
Since I have no idea what XPFE or GRE are, nor what the exact difference between an 'application' and a 'suite' is, I'm not sure if I understand. I know I could look it up on the Mozilla site, but I strictly confine myself to the viewpoint of someone who wants to download a good browser and doesn't want to know the technical details.
To do so, you just have to go to the Mozilla home page and download the latest (stable) version of Mozilla ! I don't think it could be simplier. Most users don't go to the microsoft'site to download only Outlook Express, they download the whole suite (IE/Outlook), as it can easily be donr with Mozilla.
The Mozilla naming system, while completely comprehensible to fellow-geeks, is not targeted at the average user, and that's what I object to.
Again, if you accessed to all the "underground" project on the Mozilla's site, you didn't take the easy way...
Okay, for real...you're totally right
Next of Kin facility