Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Dec 2007 20:42 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Internet & Networking "The browser that helped kick-start the commercial web is to cease development because of lack of users. Netscape Navigator, now owned by AOL, will no longer be supported after 1 February 2008, the company has said. In the mid-1990s the browser was used by more than 90% of the web population, but numbers have slipped to just 0.6%. In particular, the browser has faced competition from Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which is now used by nearly 80% of all web users."
Order by: Score:
Netscape
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:03 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

I've used it recently.

It seemed little more than a re-branded Firefox.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Netscape
by Laurence on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "Netscape"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"It seemed little more than a re-branded Firefox."


I think it's more the other way round. Netscape Navigator had the skins, tabs, etc long before Firefox existed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Netscape
by KugelKurt on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

But the latest Netscape release was just a rebranded Firefox.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Netscape
by Lunitik on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netscape"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Umm... s/Firefox/SeaMonkey/ and you're correct...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Netscape
by KugelKurt on Mon 31st Dec 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netscape"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Netscape 9 is a rebranded Firefox, not SeaMonkey!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Netscape
by wirespot on Sun 30th Dec 2007 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netscape"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Netscape was never a rebranded Firefox. Netscape up to version 4 was its own browser (yes, the famous one that achieved icon status). Then management borked it up badly and couldn't decide whether version 5 should be a completely new browser or an incremental update from version 4. They lost precious time and money, and during that time Microsoft was busy using it's monopoly to push Explorer on all Windows desktops. So Netscape went down hard and never released v5.

In the meantime, project Mozilla managed to release a usable version of a browser based on the Gecko engine (which was a project Netscape has encouraged). When Netscape folded they sold the brand to AOL, which later used it to distribute a rebranded Mozilla as "Netscape 6", then 7 and I think 8 as well. But it was simply Mozilla with a coat of paint, never Firefox.

And now it seems they're through playing this game as well. For a while, people argued that keeping the Netscape brand alive was a good thing, because there were still people who remembered the good old days and say "oh, Netscape, I know that one" and supposedly picked it (so basically picked Mozilla) over Internet Explorer. But that was a while back and it always seemed like a silly argument to me, so I'm glad that AOL gave up parading the dead corpse of Netscape around.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Netscape
by KugelKurt on Mon 31st Dec 2007 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netscape"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Netscape was never a rebranded Firefox.

Are you that uninformed or do you lie on purpose? Netscape Navigator 9 is Firefox rebranded. Netscape Messenger 9 (currently beta, will probably never make it to final) is a rebranded Thunderbird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator_9#New_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Messenger_9

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Netscape
by sorpigal on Mon 31st Dec 2007 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netscape"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You are mostly correct. Netscape 6 and 7 were rebranded Mozilla Suite, Netscape 8 and 9 were rebranded Firefox.

Basically, the Mozilla project was the "Completely new" Netscape suite that Netscape eventually decided to produce. It began as a theoretically-open-source project but consisted of almost entirely Netscape employees for quite a while.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Netscape
by wowtip on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape"
wowtip Member since:
2005-07-14

Feel free to think that.

The Netscape suite was something almost no one wanted to use until Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox made something useful out of Gecko.

At one time it wasn't about choosing between current Netscape (6?) and Internet explorer. It was between Netscape 4.xx, Opera and IE.

Reply Score: 1

Web Icon Set?
by malept on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:18 UTC
malept
Member since:
2007-11-18

That's an odd name that the BBC gave Netscape, even if it's just a rebranded version of Firefox. Is that a British web colloquialism?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Web Icon Set?
by steampoweredlawn on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:25 UTC in reply to "Web Icon Set?"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

not quite.

It's a Web icon that is set to be discontinued. I had to read that headline a couple of times. Made my brain divide by zero the first time.

Edited 2007-12-29 21:25

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Web Icon Set?
by Joe User on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Web Icon Set?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"Made my brain divide by zero the first time"

Ah ah ah!!! Nice one. This happened to me as well ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Web Icon Set?
by Laurence on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:26 UTC in reply to "Web Icon Set?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The BBC mean "Web Icon - set to be Discontinued" rather than "Web Icon Set - to be Discontinued"

Reply Score: 4

Not surprising...
by umccullough on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:31 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Firefox is so much easier on the eyes than the new Netscape was - and Netscape is packed with lots of "useless" features that users can mostly add to firefox if they want.

The part of Netscape that I detest the most is the option to render using either Gecko or Trident.. pah, what a way for a browser to crawl back into its hole with no more than a whimper.

I guess I'm biased also because I detest AOL and almost all the software they have created or bought and destroyed. Granted I still use winamp on my Windows box at work - but even that is mostly due to my inertia rather than its high quality.

If AOL would just give it up and die finally, I think I'd be a little happier ;)

Reply Score: 8

RE: Not surprising...
by Joe User on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Not surprising..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"And Netscape is packed with lots of "useless" features that users can mostly add to firefox if they want".

Errr...If these features are non obtrusive and don't use resources (like in Opera), what's the problem? And, if they are "useless", why would you want to add them as extensions? And isn't it easier to use a feature that comes out of the box instead of having to install third-party extensions? BTW, Seamonkey and Netscape both allow extensions and themes. Not sure what the rationale is in the above statement.

AOL is a disaster itself. Any software they buy out is a kiss of death. I don't know how these guys are still in the market

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Not surprising...
by umccullough on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Errr...If these features are non obtrusive and don't use resources (like in Opera), what's the problem?

I'm guessing you didn't give Netscape 8 a shot when it came out.

Granted I never tried Netscape 9 either... so I'm just assuming it was more of the same crap.

Thanks for the useless Opera plug, btw ;)

edit: typo

Edited 2007-12-29 23:07

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Not surprising...
by Joe User on Sun 30th Dec 2007 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not surprising..."
RE[2]: Not surprising...
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Not surprising..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Errr...If these features are non obtrusive and don't use resources (like in Opera), what's the problem?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Paradox_of_choice

Reply Score: 2

Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape
by CowMan on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:32 UTC
CowMan
Member since:
2006-09-26

Firefox is put out by the Mozilla Foundation, which in older times was Netscape (well, Netscape people & with support from AOL, etc.).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape
by Laurence on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Firefox is put out by the Mozilla Foundation, which in older times was Netscape (well, Netscape people & with support from AOL, etc.)."


As well as being based on Netscape (Mozilla and Gecko) code

Edited 2007-12-29 21:43

Reply Score: 2

What is in a name
by Luminair on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:44 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Netscape just been a brand name for a long time now. There is no special spirit or product behind it. I think anyone who remembers what Netscape is probably knows that.

And exaggeration aside, Firefox truly is the modern incarnation of Netscape. So there's not much to be sad about.

Reply Score: 3

Blake Ross tells you why
by Vanders on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:01 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone handily linked to this on the Slashdot discussion, but it's a good read for those of you who wondered why Netscape failed: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Blake_Ross_on_Popup_Suppression.asp...

Reply Score: 8

Provision for AOL?
by hollovoid on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:49 UTC
hollovoid
Member since:
2005-09-21

There should be a provision that once netscape dies, that aol must go with it, kill two unused birds with one stone.

Sad to see netscape go after all this time.. still remember my first time using it, light years beyond IE at that point (IE was useless in the 95' days IMO)

But like mentioned above, its spirit does live on through Firefox and the Mozilla Foundation, so not much to fuss about really.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Provision for AOL?
by sj87 on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:32 UTC in reply to "Provision for AOL?"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

Sad to see netscape go after all this time.. still remember my first time using it, light years beyond IE at that point (IE was useless in the 95' days IMO)

So you say it's different now?

My experiences are only from Netscape 4 and 9, the first one was crap (my only real memories are how it was super slow to download files with) and the latter one had nice skins, but it was crap, too. I actually then downloaded the Netscape skin to my Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Provision for AOL?
by vaughancoveny on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:48 UTC in reply to "Provision for AOL?"
vaughancoveny Member since:
2007-12-26

There should be a provision that once netscape dies, that aol must go with it, kill two unused birds with one stone.


That is true. AOL was a Compuserve competitor. Compuserve never used its revenue to buy out other companies like AOL did. It just continue the AOL IM market. Which was free, at least for personal use.

Nor build a bad IE-based web browser with its own modem drivers that rarely worked, only switched it to the Netscape rendering engine after the anti-trust settlement, but not after it bought Netscape. It continued with IE.

It also kept on suing the pants of the old GAIM instant messenger; first for accessing its network when the IM only did this, then to change its name to Pidgin. Probably comes second to Levis Jeans lawsuits. ;)

BTW. Pidgin is a better name for a multi-IM because of homing pigeons. Just watch the 1999 US movie:

Ghost Dog - The way of the Samurai

To see their discreet effect over emails.

Reply Score: 1

I predicted this
by jayson.knight on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:53 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

About 6 months ago: http://jaysonknight.com/blog/archive/2007/06/06/what-if-you-built-a...

It's long overdue IMO.

Reply Score: 1

Netscape and the Mozilla name
by chemical_scum on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:59 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

The origin of the Mozilla name is somewhat ironic. Marc Andreessen co-wrote Mosaic the first graphical web browser, while a student working for the NCSA. It was released into the public domain. Then Marc Andreessen founded Netscape to work on an improved version of Mosaic and take it proprietary.

The code name for this project was Mozilla (to sound similar to Godzilla) which was derived from the phrase "Mosaic killer". When the decision was taken to open up the Navigator/Communicator code in a project led by Jamie Zawinski it was called Mozilla to refer to the original Netscape Navigator project.

So the code name to take free software proprietary was used to take it back again.

Opera is the only well known graphical browser not genetically derived from the original Mosaic code. Firefox and all the other Gecko-engine based browsers are. So is IE and its trident engine derived through the acquisition (through a confidence trick) of Spyglass technology based on the Mosaic browser. Finally, the KHTML/Safari/Webkit line of browsers is also derived from Mosaic.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Netscape and the Mozilla name
by Vanders on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:33 UTC in reply to "Netscape and the Mozilla name"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Finally, the KHTML/Safari/Webkit line of browsers is also derived from Mosaic.


As far as I am aware KHTML was written entirely from scratch and does not derive from any other rendering engine. For that matter Gecko is also a complete re-write and does not contain any Mosaic code, although it's easier to claim providence given the obvious Netscape link.

Reply Score: 5

kefkathecruel Member since:
2006-01-17

*buzz*
wrong!
The first graphical web browser was WorldWideWeb written on a NeXTStep system.

Reply Score: 0

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

The first graphical web browser was WorldWideWeb written on a NeXTStep system.

WorldWideWeb was indeed the first web browser in 1990, however the original version could not display inline images which were launched in separate windows using the NeXT support for image display.

http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html

Mosaic was the first web browser to incorporate the ability to display inline images in the displayed pages and thus as I see it was the first graphical web browser. This functionality was incorporated into the second release of the WorldWideWeb browser released in 1993.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netscape and the Mozilla name
by chmeee on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:58 UTC in reply to "Netscape and the Mozilla name"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

KHTML is _not_ derived from Mosaic in any way. It is a 100% KDE developed engine.

Reply Score: 2

antik Member since:
2006-05-19

KHTML is _not_ derived from Mosaic in any way. It is a 100% KDE developed engine.

KHTML is joint venture of KDE and Apple (Webkit). Yes Apple contributed code back to KHTML from their implementation.

I am only guy here who still use Mozilla Seamonkey (Formerly known as Mozilla Suite)? Firefox is bloatware and I just hate it- why Mozilla Foundation decided to break up great symbiose of browser, mail client, irc client and wysiwyg html editor is beyond me.

/me got hands on Mozilla since 0.7 release.

Reply Score: 1

KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

KHTML is joint venture of KDE and Apple (Webkit). Yes Apple contributed code back to KHTML from their implementation.

Wrong and wrong.
1.) Apple forked KHTML. Apple didn't join KHTML.
2.) Apple released the sources for WebKit. The KHTML Team incorporated some of that code into KHTML. Apple didn't commit the code into KHTML's SVN.

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

KHTML is joint venture of KDE and Apple (Webkit). Yes Apple contributed code back to KHTML from their implementation.

You have your facts wrong. KHTML was around long before Apple picked it up. Apple's variation is called WebKit. It is developed independently of KHTML although changes can be folded back into KHTML where appropriate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netscape and the Mozilla name
by sorpigal on Mon 31st Dec 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "Netscape and the Mozilla name"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

While what you say is largely true, there are a couple of factual errors.

Netscape up through version 4 was based off of Mosaic code, but Gecko never has been. It was a complete rewrite from scratch.

KHTML is in no way based on or derived from Mosaic code. Mosaic was written in C and as such would be abhorrent to KDE developers. Where did you get such an idea?

Reply Score: 1

Icon, have we gone orthodox ;-)
by thavith_osn on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:00 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

I started using the web with Mosaic (is that spelt right)? We didn't have a NeXT, so I didn't have access to World Wide Web (now there's an Icon)...

I remember after a year or so, this new thing called Netscape came along. We all loved it and jumped on the band wagon.

I guess in a lot of ways, Mosaic is still there under the banner of IE (although that point can be argued - I wonder if any of the original Mosaic code is still in there), Netscape will be there in spirit under Firefox...

We're not really losing icons, not really....

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

IE7 was reportedly audited to remove any remaining Mosiac code, which is why it no longer contains the "based on..." message in the About window.

Reply Score: 2

Just shows
by SlackerJack on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:38 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Don't it what damage Microsoft did in the 90's to Netscape, I'm just glad we have Firefox now or it be IE domination and webpage compatibility nightmare.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just shows
by Bending Unit on Sun 30th Dec 2007 00:16 UTC in reply to "Just shows"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but now we have this incompatibility nightmare instead...

Reply Score: 2

Netscape
by OSGuy on Sun 30th Dec 2007 00:07 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I still remember using Netscape 4.7 "Preview" edition. Once it came on a cover disk on a computer magazine. Way before that, I remember using Netscape "3.0" - I remember the UI with the Office 95 like toolbar buttons (non flat). Back then, I agree, IE 3.0 was piece of crap but it had a more modern GUI (flat buttons) than Netscape 3.0. However I also remember IE 2.0 which was included with NT4.0. Terrible! Then, IE 4 came out and it gave you a choice to transform your desktop. This is when IE started picking up market share. Later when Windows 98 came out, the desktop looked almost identical to the one of Win95 with IE4's new desktop. This was the beginning of the end of Netscape Navigator and Netscape Communicator. Opera back then was still a baby. Also, I remember using Red Hat 5.2 and later 6.0 which included Netscape. The GUI of Netscape back then for Linux was terrible. Looked like it was written with the Motif toolkit.

Edited 2007-12-30 00:12

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netscape
by elsewhere on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:42 UTC in reply to "Netscape"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Back then, I agree, IE 3.0 was piece of crap but it had a more modern GUI (flat buttons) than Netscape 3.0. However I also remember IE 2.0 which was included with NT4.0. Terrible! Then, IE 4 came out and it gave you a choice to transform your desktop. This is when IE started picking up market share.


You've hit an important point that most people overlook in the OMG-MS-IS-A-MONOPOLY argument with regards to the browser wars. Netscape Communicator sucked. IE 4.0 was better. It was faster, and frankly, cooler. I had used Navigator from 2.0 on, but threw in the towel at that point. And I remember everyone in my department saturating our precious T1 to download IE (we were standardized on NT 4.0 at the time).

That's not to say I'm a fan of IE, simply pointing out that at that point in time, IE 4.0 was a very popular upgrade whereas Netscape wasn't. The sad part is that MS simply stopped being creative once IE 4.0 came out and they achieved mass penetration.

I'd also point out that Netscape's ultimate intent was to displace desktop OSes and make the browser a universal client, with applications running on their proprietary server. That, frankly, is the reason MS invested so much to take them out of the market. They didn't care about the internet, they barely acknowledged it, but they did care about any other organization being able to leverage a client/server model for network applications, they were focused on neutralizing Novell at that time for the same reason.

So while we can lament the death of Netscape from a nostalgic point of view, I'm not convinced that the IT landscape would have been better served if they achieved their ideal of a proprietary model for network application delivery. Netscape Navigator/Communicator was always a free download, but Netscape was not an OSS company. They had an agenda.

BTW, this isn't in any way some sort of defense for MS or the pitiful state of IE. Just pointing out that people shouldn't have rose-colored glasses on when waxing poetic about Netscape. They have earned a concrete place in history for breaking open the web, and props for that, but then they simply started acting like every other megalomaniac software company that experiences a touch of success... ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Netscape
by vaughancoveny on Sun 30th Dec 2007 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape"
vaughancoveny Member since:
2007-12-26

They didn't care about the internet, they barely acknowledged it, but they did care about any other organization being able to leverage a client/server model for network applications, they were focused on neutralizing Novell at that time for the same reason.


So 12 years later they sign an agreement with Novell for companies to use SLED on their servers, so much for the client/server blowout, at least in OSes. They don't want the Google/EyeOS client/server plan to carry out. IE they say is for OS integration, seem to be more focused on that then the browser. Probably Office 200x collaboration is for this use.

It seems Netscape was better becoming a popular fast search engine/portal before developing web applications. Which it tried to be, but only after IE became dominant and Netscape's interface was awful.

Bit ironic, but MS deceive people's upgrades by XP Service Pack 3 placing an IE shortcut on the desktop, and Vista separating the web browser from explorer.exe, before and after the European anti-trust settlement.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Netscape
by apoclypse on Sun 30th Dec 2007 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yep. I remember when I first started using win95, IE3 just sucked, it wasn't good at all, but the UI was nice. IE4 was incredible, it literally transformed your desktop. The browser-like filemanager we all know and love today was first seen with the IE4 update. You could have webpages on your desktop, you could type any address in the filemanager and it would take you to a webpage. At that point Netscape lost by default. IE was faster more modern looking and was well integrated into desktop. Ofcourse nowadays all that integration is a big no-no due to the hack-a-thon that is the windows codebase. I have yet to see the level of integration between the internet and the OS as in IE4. The trend is to try to avoid having one app depend too much on another, for security reasons. It was cool when it was new, but we all know that MS pretty much let the product stagnate for 2 versions without any real updates and at that point the stupid thing was getting hacked left and right.

I respect Netscape because they gave the OSS community Mozilla, I respect them because they had brought the internet to many new computer users and are responsible for the early growth and development of the internet. However, Navigator was slow, cludgy, big (at the time) and by 4.0 it wasn't getting any better.

Reply Score: 4

Netscape 4.7
by OSGuy on Sun 30th Dec 2007 00:23 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01
RE: Netscape 4.7
by wirespot on Sun 30th Dec 2007 01:16 UTC in reply to "Netscape 4.7"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

That really takes me back. And reminds me why Netscape 4.x is considered a Web icon. It was the browser when the Web was starting to take off. It was the first browser to incorporate many of the modern settings we see in today's browsers. And not to forget, Netscape invented cookies and implemented them for the first time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Netscape 4.7
by OSGuy on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape 4.7"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Well that's why I posted it so you can all remember because I certainly do! ;) Didn't they also invent JavaScript?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Netscape 4.7
by sorpigal on Mon 31st Dec 2007 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Netscape 4.7"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You can get pretty accurate Netscape 4.x themes for Mozilla (and probably Firefox, too).

For that matter, I have Netscape 4.77 installed on my (Debian) workstation. It likes to segfault instead of starting, though...

Reply Score: 1

Scripture for the occasion
by adricnet on Sun 30th Dec 2007 02:31 UTC
adricnet
Member since:
2005-07-01

And so at last the beast fell and the unbelievers rejoiced.
But all was not lost, for from the ash rose a great bird.
The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire
and thunder upon them. For the beast had been
reborn with its strength renewed, and the
followers of Mammon cowered in horror.

from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15, as found in about:mozilla in Minefield.app

Reply Score: 3

RE: Scripture for the occasion
by OSGuy on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:03 UTC in reply to "Scripture for the occasion"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Is the from Stargate SG-1 and the Ori? ;) See, Firefox is evil! ;)

But all was not lost, for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them.

Is this really coming from "The Book of Mozilla"?

Edited 2007-12-30 03:06

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Scripture for the occasion
by adricnet on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Scripture for the occasion"
adricnet Member since:
2005-07-01

Hehe. Go to the special address "about:mozilla" in any Mozilla based browser to see the scriptures.

Just type about:mozilla into the URL bar and have a look ;)

Reply Score: 2

Hate to see it
by patrick_ on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:06 UTC
patrick_
Member since:
2006-03-02

As a programmer and a software lover, especially of older software, I must say I'm sad to see this. Though I only tried Netscape about a year ago and quickly uninstalled it (because I saw no advantages to it over FF or Opera), I realize the impact it has had on the web. FF and Mozilla would probably not exist if it weren't for Netscape. Imagine that.

Rest in peace, Netscape.

Edited 2007-12-30 03:26

Reply Score: 1

Should Firefox be rebranded Netscape?
by rx182 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:21 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

Just a thought ;-) I think it would be pretty cool if the Mozilla foundation had the right to use the name. They could even find a way to use both name. For the first time in 10 or so years, Netscape would have an interesting piece of the browsers market share ;)

Reply Score: 2

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Netscape Navigator 9 is just a rebranded Firefox. It never gained significant market share. Why should Mozilla care about the Netscape brand?

Reply Score: 2

Mosaic?
by slashdev on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:37 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

I remember using the Mosaic browser, pre-netscape era. I think it can still be downloaded. i dont think its been updated for awhile though. Now THAT browser brought about the commercial web. Netscape road on its coat tails lol

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mosaic?
by setec_astronomy on Sun 30th Dec 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "Mosaic?"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

You can still download the mosaic browser from the ncsa ftp server, but I had problems compiling it on contemporary linux systems. (I was kinda successfull on an old box with Debian Potato some years ago, but me thinks that such a setup is not very practical today).

ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic/

Various other flavours of the Mosaic browser (and quite a number of other legacy browsers) are available (for example) via

http://browsers.evolt.org/

I don't know how faithfull the rendering / look & feel really is compared to the "real thing" but a friend of mine recently pointed me towards the deja vu project and their browser emulator

http://www.dejavu.org/emulator.htm

which allows you try out the grandfathers of todays browsers inside your browser, including netscape 1.x, so this post is not completly off-topic :-)

Reply Score: 1

vaughancoveny
Member since:
2007-12-26

These browsers have many more features that FF needs 15 extensions to compete with.
K-Meleon is faster too. Has anyone benchmarked Galeon?

BTW. K-Meleon is for Windows only, Galeon for Gnome. Both are based on the firefox libs/Gecko engine which has some XUL code so probably extensions could work or be modified.
K-Meleon is perhaps a security risk, depending on vc6redist.exe and comctl32.dll. Often its unofficial editions have the ActiveX plugin plugged in; I'm sure the main edition doesn't.

Netscape's fluctuating market share could be taken by these browsers? If only they were brought to more users attention.

Could OSNews review/release news on their current status, Thom? I don't know if Galeon has been updated.

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net
http://galeon.sourceforge.net

Reply Score: 1

aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

These browsers have many more features that FF needs 15 extensions to compete with.

I think that is why Firefox is a great browser. I've only needed two addons...
1. FireFTP
2. UK dictionary

The days of software products that cannot be extended easily are slowly fading.

Reply Score: 1

The Good Old Days
by daschmidty on Sun 30th Dec 2007 06:18 UTC
daschmidty
Member since:
2007-03-01

I remember our old OS/2 systems when IBM started shipping with navigator 3 instead of IBM web Explorer. The internet finally seemed worthwhile. Navigator was a great browser and it really had all the features that everyone expects in a browser today, only ten years ago. Nonetheless, after the aol buyout, the Netscape name has become nothing more then a name and it seems wrong to keep pinning it to an irrelevant product.

R.I.P. Netscape

Reply Score: 3

Seamonkey is there
by trenchsol on Sun 30th Dec 2007 06:35 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Seamonkey project delivers a product that is very similar to old Netscaspe. Those who miss Netscape should try Seamonkey.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seamonkey is there
by apoclypse on Sun 30th Dec 2007 07:26 UTC in reply to "Seamonkey is there"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Seamonkey IS navigator if you really think about it. It was the original browser that came from the opoening of the code.It was called Mozilla at the time but up until a ayear or two ago when Firefox became so popular they changed the name to seamonkey, and the name Mozila is used to define the foundation instead. In-fact later versions of Netscape are actually based off of the Mozilla codebased, with added proprietary stuff (like the trident engine.

So by all means if Navigator did it for you, Seamonkey is the way to go.

Reply Score: 2

Hmmm
by BlackTiger on Sun 30th Dec 2007 09:05 UTC
BlackTiger
Member since:
2005-07-22

Once more? Or at last? No more resurrections?
Anyway, R.I.P.

It was a single browser which has performance issues on ANY hardware/platform.

Reply Score: 1

Off- topic i know but ....
by antwarrior on Sun 30th Dec 2007 15:14 UTC
antwarrior
Member since:
2006-02-11

I know this is offtopic in a way but the title of this particular article illustrates it. The wording could have easily done wihout the "set" and the meaning would not have been taken away. I read that title 3/4 times before I understood it - was 'set' a verb or a noun ? Could someone please explain to me why we have the strange inconsistent capitalisation of the words in OSNews articles ?

Look at the ones below :


"Web Icon Set to Be Discontinued"
"Samples by the New Wave of Videographers"
"Matthew Szulik Steps Down As Red Hat's CEO"

Sometimes all words are capitalised, in others it is just the prepositions, sometimes it seems to be just the nouns. It DOes not Make iT easiER to Read when IT haPPENS like THIS !!!

Tom do you think you could change it, if possible, i know it's a small thing (could be big - i dunno ) but i am sure i am not the only one who re-reads titles to try and get the meaning. cheers, mate !

Reply Score: 2

That title is spot on...
by BluenoseJake on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:13 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Considering Netscape is just a theme and an icon set for firefox

Reply Score: 3

sigh
by jeanmarc on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:35 UTC
jeanmarc
Member since:
2005-07-06

My first browser was Netscape 3.. well before FF, IE.. am i so old ? :'O

Reply Score: 1

RE: sigh
by sbergman27 on Mon 31st Dec 2007 14:20 UTC in reply to "sigh"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
am i so old ?
"""

No. I remember moving to Netscape 2 from... whatever that was that I was using before, on Trumpet Winsock and Windows 3.1. (Yeah. Although I've been a Unix admin forever, I was using Windows 3.1 on my desktop back then. Seems a lifetime ago.)

I remember watching a CNET story about how the new Netscape 2.0 had progressive jpeg support which seemed quite a cool development at the time.

Edited 2007-12-31 14:23

Reply Score: 2

What's in a brand?
by sbergman27 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 19:28 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

It's a testimony to the power of a "has been", "also ran" brand name that so many modern sites require IE6 or higher, or Netscape 6 or higher. Netscape versions after 4.x have had *zilch* for market share. Mozilla users outnumbered Netscape 6 users, and Firefox users absolutely dwarf the current Netscape user base. And yet I keep seeing requirements stated on web sites that imply that the webmaster still thinks that IE and Netscape are the two browsers that people use, and that Ronald Reagan probably won't get elected for a second term.

Reply Score: 3