Mozilla 0.9.6 problem

[Simon Fowler]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:18:38AM +0000, Jeremy wrote:
> And people complain about my elitist attitude.  What is so unreasonable
> about using a pre-built binary?  If the Debian package maintainer can't
> build it right, I don't think I'd have a better chance.  I could spend a
> whole evening compiling that mess, and then I'd still end up with a heavily
> buggy product.
> 
I wasn't talking about the Debian packages, I was talking about the
'official' mozilla.org binaries, which /used/ to be built on a
glibc2.1 system, and would segfault immediately on launch on a glibc
2.2 system. 

I /would/ expect the debian packages to work fine . . . I'm
surprised they didn't.

As for "compiling that mess", it's a simple "./configure; make" build
process, exactly the same as most other source distributions. The
only times I've had problems building it are when I've tried using
gcc-3.0, or when I managed to corrupt the source tree . . .

> Note that I gave it a fair run - I used it before I switched to konqueror,
> and occaisionally I give it another go.  But the poor thing gets hyped way
> to much given it's severe stability problems.
> 
I haven't had any stability problems with mozilla since 0.8.1, and
0.8 kept on working perfectly for me until the next release . . . So
please forgive me if I get a bit pissed off at people ranting about 
mozilla's stability problems when I never get to see them . . . 

YMMV, but I personally know many more people who are happy with mozilla
than who aren't.
>  
> > Aside from that you shouldn't have many problems with it. And if you
> 
> I'm sorry, aside from having to recompile from scratch every time a new
> version comes out?
> 
A few hours waiting for a recompile, then six weeks to two months
waiting for the next release . . . I don't see anything much wrong
with that. It's not like they put out a couple of releases every
week.

> > do, please /please/ post a bug report. Whinging about things like
> > that on this list is completely useless, whether it's problems with
> > mozilla or konqueror or any other piece of software. 
> 
> I prefer 'mutual commiseration', but I see your point.  Nonetheless it's a
> good idea to check to see if your problem has an easy fix before bothering
> the developers.
> 
That's what bugzilla.mozilla.org is there for, and the various
mozilla lists/newsgroups . . . 

Yes, calling it whinging is a bit harsh, but I get kind of pissed
off at people complaining about mozilla being too buggy for them to
use, when I've been using it happily and with minimal fuss for ages.
> 
> > PGP public key Id 0x144A991C, or ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/himi/himi.asc
> > (crappy) Homepage: http://bg77.anu.edu.au
> 
> Heh.  I used to be bgr68.  
> 
Small town . . . Did they charge you for your Internet access like
they are now?

Simon

-- 
PGP public key Id 0x144A991C, or ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/himi/himi.asc
(crappy) Homepage: http://bg77.anu.edu.au
doe #237 (see http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS) 
My DeCSS mirror: ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/mirrors/css/ 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20011126/a5e79ee1/attachment.bin