Michael Kaply wrote: > "David T. Johnson" wrote: > > >> Which is the most stable of the recent milestone versions? Would you >> expect that version to be more stable than the IBM Web Browser? > > > Some people feel 0.9.3 looked pretty good. It's really an opinion thing. You can >also checkout > my 0.9.2.1 build which is the same codebase as Netscape 6.1. A lot of people have >said that is > one of the best milestones we have done. > > >ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/warpzilla/mozilla-i386-pcos2-vacpp-0.9.2.1.zip > > I will probably do a 0.9.4.1 release now that Netscape 6.2 has shipped. > > In general I would not expect the milestones to be more stable since they haven't >been tested > as much, but they would have more features because they are on a later codebase.
Thanks for your reply. What do you see as the important features in the later milestones that are not yet in the IBM Web Browser? > > >> My experience is that the Mozilla OS/2 browsers are not very stable and >> just cannot be used for very long. I have not yet tried 0.9.5, though. > > > That certainly is the case sometimes, since the milestones aren't really tested that >much. We > hope to improve this process in the future. Generally I release an open source >version of the > equivalent IBM browser so that people who do not have a Software Choice subscription >can have > the same browser. I think I forgot to do that with the August update. > > >> The IBM Web Browser August release is the most usable Mozilla version >> that I have yet seen for OS/2. Maybe the fixes are "ugly" but... So is >> the IBM Web Browser going to remain at 0.6 indefinitely or do you intend >> to upgrade it to a later Mozilla revision level? > > > The new 0.6 was definitely a usable/stable version. We put a lot of effort into >fixing the > issues in the frst 0.6. In some areas, it was actually faster than the corresponding >Windows > build! I would agree with this. Prior to the August release of the IWB I looked at the Mozilla project as something that would eventually produce a better OS/2 browser but that was still a 'work-in-progress.' The August release however actually will stay up for hours and renders pages much better than Netscape v4.61 so it seems like a usable tool rather than a prototype. The mail and news clients still have some significant bugs but they are nevertheless usable as well. > > As far as remaining at 0.6 indefinitely, I can't make comments on future IBM plans, >but I think > the fact that my team is continuing to participate in the Mozilla community makes >this kind of > clear. > > There is a big difference between this and 4.61. Everything Netscape had released >after 4.6 > (4.61-4.8X) has just been bug fixes and we never felt it necessary to grab all those >fixes > because in some cases they destabilized the browser, and in general people were >happy with > 4.61. I like the Netscape v4.61 browser and I agree that there was nothing significant wrt features in later 4.61-4.8x releases. The current Netscape v4.61 build is very stable but is outdated wrt features. > > Mozilla (and Netscape) are not doing this. Netscape 6.1 was much better than >Netscape 6.0 and > Netscape 6.2 is much better than Netscape 6.1. They aren't just bug fixes. > > >> What are the future plans for the IBM Web Browser? > > > As usual, I can't make any comments on IBM's future plans, but you will continue to >see my team > and I participate in the Mozilla community and continue to release browsers based on >that > codebase (whether IBM Web Browser or open source, you'll just have to wait and see.) Well, I certainly hope that you continue to work on releasing usable versions such as the IWB versions as well, be they SWC-only :( or open source freely available. :) > > Mike Kaply > IBM -- Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.51 and IBM Web Browser
