Closed
Bug 32218
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
Mozilla needs an updated splash screen.
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: General, defect, P5)
SeaMonkey
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
DUPLICATE
of bug 194291
mozilla1.0
People
(Reporter: joona.nuutinen, Assigned: kerz)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: DO NOT POST MORE SPLASHES! DO NOT SPAM!)
Attachments
(40 files, 6 obsolete files)
123.22 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
98.98 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
14.42 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
297.63 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
10.53 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
24.40 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
37.11 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
26.24 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
24.52 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
25.34 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
147.71 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
23.65 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
62.91 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
69.54 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
10.28 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
257.57 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
54.01 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
73.93 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
6.85 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
68.44 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
7.54 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
78.61 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
158.77 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
79.01 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
14.41 KB,
application/x-zip-compressed
|
Details | |
11.87 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
2.12 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
12.33 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
16.99 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
12.61 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
20.03 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
100.97 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
298.78 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
167.41 KB,
application/x-zip-compressed
|
Details | |
6.08 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
90.29 KB,
image/bmp
|
Details | |
63.78 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
51.56 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
55.79 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
15.79 KB,
image/png
|
Details |
Current Mozilla splash screen sucks. So, I've brought this up in the newsgroups and everyone's been really enthusiastic about this splash screen image. Replace the current splash screen with: http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/hsplash1.jpg
Updated•24 years ago
|
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned. → Mozilla's splash screen should be changed hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned.
Reporter | ||
Updated•24 years ago
|
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned. → Mozilla's splash screen should be changed hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned (description).
Reporter | ||
Updated•24 years ago
|
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned (description). → Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned (description).
Comment 1•24 years ago
|
||
The webpage is gone. Quick, someone pull the image from a cache!
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•24 years ago
|
||
Fixed. The image is back on the server.
Marking Fixed.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Not fixed. The original "fixed" referred to fixing the webpage; Joona wants mozilla to actually use the images from the given page while loading.
Status: VERIFIED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 7•24 years ago
|
||
leaf, the people have spoken... do you know how to fix this?
Assignee: chofmann → leaf
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
These images are really cool. I wish we had a splash screeen on linux.
Comment 9•24 years ago
|
||
I've commented on splash screens before in n.p.m[xpfe|ui], but I'll make the same comments here in case anyone tries to fix this bug... a splash screen should: - be light on text. images are not localizable ;) - not integrate with any particular skin, splash screens are not skinnable. - not contain loading text, this is overlayed in programmatically if the platform supports this (e.g. mac) - get the dates and version numbers right ;) mozilla.org has decided that its first release is "Mozilla 1.0" That said, some of the images on the page in the URL are cool looking, although if I chose I'd pick the first one :)
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Updating QA contact to asa since he handles mozilla specific issues.
QA Contact: leger → asa
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
Who owns the green mozilla in teh image. Is that property of Dave Titus or of Netscape? Are there any legal issues that we'd have to address to use the image? I also like the first one the best (would need to change the 5.0 to 1.0)
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
OK guys. There is one updated image from #1. Version number is changed to 1.0, and a small change in the gradient bars. Also a bitmap version of the image is created. They both can be found in http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/new/ Or you can jump right here: http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/new/msplashc.jpg and http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/new/msplashc.bmp
Comment 13•24 years ago
|
||
Ben, as owner of the mozilla UI do you want to drop this new splash (image #1) into the builds
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•24 years ago
|
||
Summary updated. New image information (location & name).
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to hsplash1.jpg in the URL mentioned (description). → Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to msplashc.jpg in the URL mentioned (description).
Comment 15•24 years ago
|
||
reassign to Ben. leaf doesn't hack UI.
Assignee: leaf → ben
Component: Tracking → User Interface: Design Feedback
Comment 16•24 years ago
|
||
I did two new splash screens (well, one is not completely new). you can see them at http://www.crosswinds.net/~ggc/
Comment 17•24 years ago
|
||
The green lizard is a Netscape trademark and/or copyright "property" and mozilla.org is *not* free to use it. The current splash screen using it is a bug, said Mitchell Baker. Also note that the 5-star looks close to a satanism symbol. (If the lines were drawn through, it would be one.) Please do not use it anymore.
Comment 18•24 years ago
|
||
benb, stars are used all over the place. my country's flag has 50 of them. do you propose an exorcism?
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
Chaning the qa contact on these bugs to me. MPT will be moving to the owner of this component shortly. I would like to thank him for all his hard work as he moves roles in mozilla.org...Yada, Yada, Yada...
QA Contact: asa → zach
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
Other suggested splash-screens from newsgroup: http://www.corplink.com.au/~bennettf/mozilla.gif http://www.crosswinds.net/~ggc/
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
OK, this bug has sat here for long enough. A splash screen has been chosen, and we want to get it checked in after 0.9. Assuming the author of this screen is one of those CCed: can you please make a new version that says Mozilla 0.9 instead of 1.0? We'll check in the 1.0 version just before we reach that. I assume BenG has final say over which splash screen we use. As he doesn't read bugmail, I'll send him email about it. Gerv
Reporter | ||
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
New version of the Splash screen is on it's way. I'll post here when it's done. I think I'll make a couple new ones also, but in the style of the old one.
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
Feel free to make a couple of new ones, but _please_ make the one you post here the same as the one given, or (at least) that used to be given in the URL. If that's the one people wanted, and it's been agreed on, then we shouldn't mess with it. And I like it ;-) Gerv
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
OK, has this splash screen been floated in all the popular places? (Little details like splash screens and throbbers are emotive things and my experience with changing them in the past without asking anybody has led to me being flamed ;) A note however: the progress text that appears on mac while the app starts is displayed in white. Copying smfr for comment.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
I was under the impression that this bug was the result of a discussion, and that the screen that used to be in the URL (where did that go) was the winner. Is that not correct? (I should note in passing that any screens featuring the green lizard may well meet substantial resistance from inside mozilla.org.) Gerv
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Okay! The updated version of the image is ready to rumble. It can be found at http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/new2/msplashc.jpg I tested it with white text also, should do fine. Getting this in to Mozilla would mean alot to me!
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
Can you raise up the "version 0.9" so it's the same distance off the baseline as the "Mozilla"? I take it it's exactly the same size as the other one... As long as you are sure it'll do fine with white text... Gerv
Reporter | ||
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Changes made. What do you think? Ready?
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
Who is sanctioning this splash screen? Was it decided by some form of popular vote? (I happen to like it less than the corrent splash.) As for Mac, we draw progress text over the bottom part of the image, so there has to be sufficient contrast in the lower stripe to allow either black or white text to stand out.
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
> Changes made. What do you think? Ready? Nope - still 1 pixel too low and 1 too far to the right. And yes, you can tell. :-) > Who is sanctioning this splash screen? Was it decided by some form of popular > vote? Good question, and one I asked above :-) However, as endico@mozilla.org will attest, the current one using the green lizard is definitely a bug, and from that point of view replacing it with anything with our proper mascot on is better. And this one's reasonably slickly done. As a sidenote, I think that, in general, a popular vote is a bad way to decide anything like this :-) I rather thought from comments above that Mac could only do white status text - great. Black would be very useful on this image. Gerv
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
I thought people complained about our use of the star. [Personally I like the star, and I like the proposed art] Could the version use the same font face and color as mozilla? And it looks like the top triangle is not wide enough to line up with its matched sides (mostly stretch the left side, but also slightly stretch the right side).
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
Please don't check this in. We don't want the mozilla.org trademark to be MPL'd which means for now, the red mozilla can't be checked in to the tree. Mitchell is in the process of making a way to work around that, but until that's done, please don't check in any mozillas. Yes, there are already some mozillas checked in to the tree but don't check in more. The current splash screen is just fine the way it is for now. In addition, I don't like the image. I don't like the railroad tracks, I don't like the photography. The splash screen shouldn't have the version number in it. Including the version number in the splash screen would mean that it would have to be updated at every milestone and that kind of thing would never happen. I'd rather not use the star any more. The image is low res and mozilla's teeth are half filled in. The bottom section doesn't contrast well enough with the white lettering on mac. Someone should try making one based on this image. http://mozilla.org/projects/svg/images/svgmoz.png
Reporter | ||
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
So maybe there shouldn't be a version number, but I've seen the majority of people liking my image. I didn't have the layered file anymore, so I had to edit the existing JPG. I didn't notice it to bee too different. Let's not rush with this...I really do hope, that we can blast the current splash - it gives an amateurish image of the project (not saying this image would do much better). This bug was all about getting a better splash for Mozilla, and I'm working on some new images (if this one is too radical).
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
Note that while I don't care for that image, I do appreciate the effort you're putting in to this. The splash screen should follow the style of the rest of our artwork. It would be nice to try something based on this image.... http://mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
given the licensing and copyright issues surrouding the mozilla icon, as well as the color controvery, it is strongly suggested that as long as mozilla 1.0 will appear under the mozilla public license, that *no* dinosaur icon appear in any part of the application. since the use of term "mozilla" itself is presumably within legal boundaries, it would seem most appropriate for a splash screen to use only the word "mozilla" with a generic background, using either the block-form font used in the 1998 party ad (see link above), or the fiery font used in the current splash screen. as for the issue surrounding the use of the "red star" and the possible satanist and/or communist implications, it seems that without appropriate *objective* research on the subject, no firm decisions should be made. regardless, these issues need to be decided before an official 1.0 splash screen and/or icon configuration can be determined. two separate bugs regarding the legalities behind the dinosaur icon and the red star controversy should be opened; this bug should be marked dependent on them.
Comment 36•23 years ago
|
||
The legal status of the green lizard is irrelevant. Even if we were legally allowed to use it, staff@mozilla.org are adamant that the red lizard is mozilla.org's logo. End of story. No, I mean it. _End_ of story. I don't care if you think he's cute. How exactly will opening a bug about the red star help? This subject has been done to death in the newsgroups. mozilla.org is not in the business of making political statements and, IMO, if we drop the red star because it has "communist overtones" we are doing just that. Also, bear in mind for a moment that people from all over the world contribute to Mozilla - quite possibly including some people who live in communist countries. We need a simple splash screen based on the red lizard. I like the orange train one but others don't. Fair enough. endico@mozilla.org has already suggested a good source for the graphics. Let's get on with it :-) Gerv
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
my reasoning regarding a further examination of the "red star" issue is based on the fact that a lot of passionate argumentation has been made, but very little actual research has been done. is the red star associated with particular religious and/or political identities? if so, *exactly* where and how? are those associations still valid currently? who are the people making these associations, and how are they represented in the potential user/developer base? on top of that, your point that dropping the red star would be a "political" statement is flawed. preserving the icon could present mozilla as making an equally significant political statement, however inadvertant that may be. it should be fairly clear that mozilla would be making a political or religious statment if certain, more blatant icons were used - the crucifix, the clockwise swastika, the star of david, and so on. but without an accurate assessment of the potential unintended relevance of an icon like a solid, bold red star, it should not be incorporated into a 1.0 release. (p.s. - the 1998 moz party image endico linked to uses an orange star with a red background, which may be more acceptable without ruining the general idea.)
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
This discussion is spamming too many people. We should move to a newsgroup. > is the red star associated with particular > religious and/or political identities? if so, *exactly* where and how? are > those associations still valid currently? who are the people making these > associations, and how are they represented in the potential user/developer > base? All of this is totally irrelevant. In the same way that if you are buying tights in France, Microsoft is just another brand that you might consider, the current Mozilla logo is known to be the Mozilla logo in the techie world. The fact that it stands, or stood for, something else elsewhere is irrelevant. For some reason, Americans particularly seem to have a cold-war hangover obsession with Communism as a great evil. Communism would be the ideal system of government if humans were perfect - but we aren't, so it isn't. Mozilla is contributed to by people from all around the world, with many differing political viewpoints and ideologies, and who follow a variety of different religions. Saying "we are changing our logo because we think it stands for Communism and Communism is nasty and we stand for truth, justice and the American Way" may well be deeply offensive to some of those people. > on top of that, your point that dropping the red star would be a "political" > statement is flawed. preserving the icon could present mozilla as making an > equally significant political statement, however inadvertant that may be. You can't "inadvertently" make a political statement. And, even if you could, if any political statement would be made by having the star as Mozilla's icon, it has been made long ago. It's been our logo for three years now. Also, if you consider the orange star less offensive, when does orange become red? Do you get more and more annoyed the more red it gets? Gerv
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
hear hear! What Gerv said, three times over.
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
in order to be a little more proactive, i've put up two very rough ideas for splash screens. http://www.northwestern.edu/people/ratman/mozilla1.jpg http://www.northwestern.edu/people/ratman/mozilla2.jpg neither of these include the red star icon. the first one actually doesn't include any icon at all, and the second one has the commie mozilla peeking in from the side. these are not final products, but are merely a demonstration of the fact that the visual effect produced without the red star is not all that different from one that includes it. as for the use of the red star, i think there are too many questions and random (and possibly invalid) assumptions being drawn for there not to be a filed bug on the issue blocking this bug. unless i'm beaten to it, i'll try to do so in the near future.
Reporter | ||
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
I have to say that both of these images would give an amateurish image of the project. The current splash screen is on the same level with these. I'd like to see _professional_ or at least more finished looking image to kick Mozilla's ego. Maybe I'll have to make more propotions based on the red saurus. This bug is more than a year old, and the splash screen made back then may not be the best possible option we have right now.
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
to provide clarification - the two images i referenced are provided only as examples of the visual effect of not including any icons (or limitedly including the dino icon) in the splash screen. they are not intended as actual proposed splash screens at all. i pulled them out of my derriere while i was waiting for the guy from domino's pizza. i was thinking "pepperoni on fire". i'm sorry.
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
okay, i've been satiated. here are two slightly less amateurish ideas, following the same pattern as before: http://www.nwu.edu/people/ratman/mozilla3.jpg http://www.nwu.edu/people/ratman/mozilla4.jpg again, the idea here is just to consider splash screens that don't use the red star. from my observation, the only prominent use of the red star icon at this time is only in the "about:" dialog - only the dino is present in mozilla.org. i doubt it will be missed. p.s.: i made an icon for the above splash screens too, same directory, just replace the jpg file names with mozicon.jpg or mozicon.ico, depending on your preference.
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
I was just wondering why the new splash has to be completely redone? I thought that the fire breathing moz was cute except for the **** background. I was looking at some of the images joona was creating, and I thought http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/gsplash2.jpg was sufficient. I agree that the first image about the railroad tracks and stuff to me did not resembol mozilla any way. But does the splash screen really need to be drastically changed? Or just some minor improvements?
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
1) red, not green. 2) red, not green. 3) red, not green. 4) dino, not lizard. 5) and not cute! actually, peering at the unpublicized splash screens in joona's /mozilla directory reveals a number of excellent potential ones - my favorite is http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/esplash1.jpg, which neutralizes the whole "red star" thing altogether.
Comment 46•23 years ago
|
||
It needs to be redone because mozilla.org does _not_ want to use the green lizzard.
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
Why shouldn't we have the green lizzard?? I mean, we should be using the same thing we have been using since Microsoft decided to dump their stupid "e" for internet explorer on Netscapes lawn, that they defaced and had cute little mozzie sitting on top of it.
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
this bug is not about any green lizards. THIS BUG IS NOT ABOUT ANY GREEN LIZARDS.
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
ohhh that is soooo nice! I vote for that logo!
Comment 51•23 years ago
|
||
(a) it's 1.0 [or pre 1.0] not 5.0 (b) it's not exactly released under NPL, i think. the code is NPL or MPL otherwise I really like it.
Comment 52•23 years ago
|
||
OK, This is getting old. I am sure that by now, the developers CCd on this bug are sick of this bickering and spam. Mozilla has many other bugs which need to be fixed prior to this one. I would ask that comments be taken to the newsgroups, but I know that not much will get done there either. The only way we will have a solution is if Mozilla.org holds a contest (similar to the one for the throbber) to vote for a new splash. At the same time, I'd recommend that there be a contest for application icons as well. (although I think that there was mention of those going to a 3rd party design shop.) Designers should be able to submit proposals with a few rules: 1. Mozilla.org has determined that due to several copyright/trademark issues, the green mozilla lizard will not be allowed on the splash screen. (Besides, that lizard has grown up and is now a big red dino.) 2. The picture must be certain dimensions with certain color limitations and must contain a contrasting bar for status text. Other text should be limited due to international issues. etc. etc. etc... Of course, this should all be done once the issues with the red dino/MPL are worked out. If mozilla goes about it in this manner, we can be asured that it will be settled quickly and easily. And best of all, we can hope that this bug will be resolved with a minimal amount of new spam.
Reporter | ||
Comment 53•23 years ago
|
||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to msplashc.jpg in the URL mentioned (description). → Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to something, who knows what
Comment 54•23 years ago
|
||
Just adding my 2 cents but... -I don't think the star may be took as a satanism thing, as long as the crossing lines drawing the star are not there. -The red star may cause bad opinion on mozilla. Some people saw the Mozilla Icon on my desktop and were wondering if it was sort of communist republics software -The splash logo need to reflect the spirit of mozilla. For example, Netscape6 is simple, but really powerful. -The colors should also be taken from the default Mozilla css style... (the new grey / blue one I think) I looked all the splash screens. Does the railroad means something ? It makes thing , go ahead. But mozilla should appear to allow moving in all directions (exploring the web). Ex:The Netscape Navigator navigation icon were great for this idea. The too much simple wouldn't be useful too. In fact, we should really ask to people working in marketing pictures, or publicity for rules on what to do. The splash screen is the first impress the user will get on the 'product'. It's really important.
Comment 55•23 years ago
|
||
"as for the issue surrounding the use of the "red star" and the possible satanist and/or communist implications, it seems that without appropriate *objective* research on the subject, no firm decisions should be made." The star is not a pentagram (hence Satanism), it is a pentacle - just like those on the U.S. flag, just like any other star. If it was a pentagram, it would be pointing downwards (that is, it would be upside down). And the only Communist association comes from the color red, not the fact that the star is a star. As for Mozilla and communism, communism is not the point in the whole revolution theme. The point is revolution against the Great Satan of Software - Microsoft, who have tried very hard to kill Netscape, and Mozilla, and failed. As for the splash screens attached here, I don't see how the railroad tracks look any more professional than the current splash. At least the current splash has good colors - the railroad tracks one looks washed out, and railroad tracks have little to do with Mozilla. If you're going to use a background photo, use something relevant, or at least something that's not irrelevant. Actually I LIKE the current splash, other than the fact that it has a blank status-loading text field that hasn't been used (Communicator had the same thing). (Interesting tidbit: did you know that if you zoom way in on that splash image you can see the author's name in the red background?). I suggest a MozillaZine contest to redefine the splash, listing specific guidelines (as Endico outlined above), and pointing to a newsgroup discussion on it. Also, saying "popular vote is a bad way to do things like this" means that you don't really care what anyone else thinks. Mozilla has an open-source community behind it - why not let them vote on it? I only found this bug by accident - use MozillaZine! That's what it's for! As to someone's comment that the Netscape 6 splash was a good one, I hate it. It looks like a bunch of kid's blocks, and the colors of blue they picked were just awful - and blue is my favorite color. Whatever you do, don't use that as a template. Mozilla should NOT look like AOL if we can avoid it. I actually like the last one attached here the best. It's the background I really like. I'd increase the size of that background, though, to make it more prominent. Why is the top 1/3 all gray? It looks tacky against the bright background colors.
Comment 56•23 years ago
|
||
> Also, saying "popular vote is a bad way to do things like this" means that
> you don't really care what anyone else thinks.
This a direct quote, or at least a paraphrase, of a member of mozilla.org staff.
Everyone always suggests a contest of some sort to resolve any controversial
issue, as if this is somehow the best way. It's not - it's design by committee
by any other name, it allows random people with no connection with the project
to come along and stick their oar in, and it produces something which the
greatest number of people don't dislike, rather than like.
For example, what happened if there were 8 screens entered, and the winning one
had 19% of the vote. This could easily happen. How exactly is that a mandate?
Gerv
Comment 57•23 years ago
|
||
Please see <a href="http://grafica.mareotis.com/mozilla/versions.htm">this</a>
Comment 58•23 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the spam.. but why couldn't someone start a Mozilla splash screen competition (for example on Mozillazine)? I'd definitelly apply. BUt not until than, because I've seen a lot of splashes posted recently, but in the end, nothing came out of it... --mondo
Comment 59•23 years ago
|
||
Please look at: http://www.geocities.com/mozillaman2000/ It has the red Mozilla logo.
Comment 60•23 years ago
|
||
Just to throw in my few cents: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cltan/temp/splash-export.png It has the red SVG lizard and the industrial buildings, no star, no subliminal communism messages, etc. It's basically done on the theme of the www.mozilla.org graphics. Have a look. I'm also working on some icons along the same theme in my spare time, but I realise that probably not everybody likes my style of graphics so I'll keep them to myself.
Comment 61•23 years ago
|
||
Fine, I think it's clear that the green lizard, despite it's overwhelming popularity is gone, permanently. Even I've stopped beating this dead horse. Although Mozilla had a few words for me... See the story here: http://www.alltel.net/~burnt/greenmoz.html Anyway, I see a REALLY big problem with any splash with the Red Moz logo. Half way down the page Dawn said this: "Please don't check this in. We don't want the mozilla.org trademark to be MPL'd which means for now, the red mozilla can't be checked in to the tree." Ok, I can understand this. Of course, a simple edit to the MPL could fix this. Make the Red Moz image trademark an exception from the license, with limited rights of distribution. You may use, but not modify, etc. Sure, RMS devotees will scream in pain at more rights being stripped away (from them that is, it's ok to screw the developer of rights though), but the MPL isn't GNU anyway, so who cares. I'd say just exempt this logo from the license. But... Later in the VERY SAME COMMENT Dawn says this: "Someone should try making one based on this image. http://mozilla.org/projects/svg/images/svgmoz.png" Now, maybe I was shaken a little too hard as a baby, but it would seem to me that these two statements are mutually exclusive of each other. How can we make a splashed based on that image when that is the very image that we're NOT supposed to use for risk of diluting it via the MPL? And another point. The font. Aside from being very ugly, it's not free, nor open, nor even shareware. It's 20 GPB, or about $28 US (at current exchange rates). Now, even though it's licensed for up to ten people per license, bringing it down to US$2.80 per user, we still have to worry about distribution and collecting that US$2.80. I suggest not making this font manditory for splash screens (really for ANY graphic in Mozilla, but that's a bigger windmill to tilt at) and using a free/open font (Ray Larabie is my personal fave). I would be glad to approach Ray about designing a font specifically for the Mozilla organization and project. I've spoken with him before, and he's used some of my ideas for fonts in the past. I'm sure he'd love to give it a whirl.
Comment 62•23 years ago
|
||
If anyone wants the font, email me: netdemonz@yahoo.com. BTW - I'm constantly updating the splash screen at the url I posted earlier.
Comment 63•23 years ago
|
||
Please send links to all splash screens that should be considered as replacements of the current one to pali@pali.sk . Thank you. I'm about to compile a list of all images, so that drivers@mozilla.org & staff@mozilla.org could choose a replacement that will be used in the tree & milestone releases. --mondo
Assignee | ||
Comment 64•23 years ago
|
||
Don't send splash screens to drivers or staff, as I'm sure they don't care. This bug is blocked by 28028. Until that is resolved, no more comments in this bug please, as it is just noise. All discussions and prototypes need to be done in .ui, not here. I am taking this bug from ben, as discussed, and futuring it, as well as cleaning up the summary and priority/severity and moving it to B-G.
Assignee: ben → kerz
Severity: normal → trivial
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Component: User Interface Design → Browser-General
Depends on: 28028
Priority: P3 → P5
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: Mozilla's splash screen should be changed to something, who knows what → Mozilla needs an updated splash screen.
Target Milestone: --- → Future
Assignee | ||
Comment 65•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 93093 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 66•23 years ago
|
||
IMHO, the ones at http://www.crosswinds.net/~ggc/oldstuff/index.html are the best looking, though http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/hsplash1.jpg is very nice too
Comment 67•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 68•23 years ago
|
||
http://grafica.mareotis.com/mozilla/versions.htm Gorgeous! Makes mine look like a bucket of puke: http://holloway.co.nz/mozilla/splash
Comment 69•23 years ago
|
||
Since this seems to be the repository for splash links, what the hell. Everyone lovs a little spam. http://www.geocities.com/mozamp/mozsplash.html This is the one and only location for my splashes, so check every couple months for new ones. the ones that used to be there are gone, because they suck. Any word on the lawyerspeak for the Red Mozilla dino design?
Comment 70•23 years ago
|
||
So now that the license thing is finished with, can this be sent to drivers@mozilla.org? I really think both this and the icons are important for the release of 1.0. BTW - My ?final? splashes are available here: http://www.geocities.com/mozillaman2000/
Assignee | ||
Comment 71•23 years ago
|
||
The license change was to change the existing license on source files. Nothing to do with images. Nothing has been resolved.
Comment 72•23 years ago
|
||
A clarification: the license problems with the mozilla.org-identifying images are indeed separate from the ongoing license changes in the code tree - but those license changes do involve images in the code tree as well. Mitchell is working on the mozilla.org-identifying images licensing issues. Gerv
Comment 73•23 years ago
|
||
I'm starting an effort to formalize an effort to revise the parts of Mozilla's appearance outside themes, such as the icon suite, the installer, the splash screen, and the Profile Manager dialog. I've started a web page with some initial ideas and bug links at [http://greg.tcp.com/mozilla/ui/Outside/introduction.html]. I welcome any and all comments on it.
Comment 74•23 years ago
|
||
Why has nothing happened? Clearly everyone is in agreement that the current Splash Screen as Kerz mentiones Sucks really bad. Quite a few very nuce alternatives are available, why not implement on of them? I expecially like the first one here; http://digilander.iol.it/mozillaart/oldstuff/index.html
Comment 75•23 years ago
|
||
Just my 20 millidollars... I really like the splash screens at http://www.slater.ch/moz/ - I've currently got the "I love Moz" one in my tree, and it makes Mozilla look far nicer overall. Is there any chance of a new splash screen this year? This bug is nearly two years old! Even if it's a temporary replacement, with a vote coming later, at least update the current one, it's horrid!
Comment 76•23 years ago
|
||
It should go without saying, but we are waiting for a resolution to bug 28028 (which has been marked as a dependency). Go vote for that :-)
Comment 77•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 78•23 years ago
|
||
btw, all you have to do is use a bitmap image called: mozilla.bmp -which is the filename you need to use and place it in your mozilla.org/mozilla nightly directory, and walla.
Comment 79•23 years ago
|
||
walla? What's walla? I think you mean "Voila" (French, you know).
Comment 80•23 years ago
|
||
This bug has to be fixed before 1.0
Comment 81•23 years ago
|
||
This bug should be blocking bug 103705
Comment 82•23 years ago
|
||
A splash screen like Netscape 6.2 would be nice. That one gives a very proffesional impression. And to my question. Does the browser HAVE to have a splash screen??
Comment 83•23 years ago
|
||
Bennet: no offence, but that splash screen looks satanic. Especially with the point on the end of the tail.
Comment 84•23 years ago
|
||
What does everyone think about this one?
Comment 85•23 years ago
|
||
Somehow it looks a bit revolutionary to me.
Comment 86•22 years ago
|
||
Actually I rather like <A href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=59142&action=edit">59142</A> - it's just a little too "busy" for me. I disagree that the splash screen should be entirely theme-independant. A consistent interface is a better interface; with a splash screen, you really need to make some kind of visual link between the "loading" image and the eventual item else the average Joe hasn't got a clue what it was. <P>Take the background M, the interface screenshot, and (maybe) the lizard out of the 59142 splash screen and I'd vote it a winner. <P>Perhaps a separate bug: why is the mac version the only one to show loading progress?
Comment 87•22 years ago
|
||
Matt, I think MACS do that on its own (OS fills in the loading proceedures,) but it would be nice if this could be seen on other OS. But I would like to know what the backup plan is if we can't decide on a new splash when 1.0 is shipped. Is the splashscreen just going to be removed until one is decided or what? We are getting pretty close to the wire on this one, and we can't wait for the last minute debate to pick one when it is time to ship. (Of course you guys know this right?)
Comment 88•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 89•22 years ago
|
||
i will soon be losing my web account, so my splash screen suggestion from comment 43 is now attached here. once again, we can temporarily bypass the issue of image rights (bug 28028) by eliminating potentially copyrightable/trademarkable images. given the time frame involved, this is the best solution.
Comment 90•22 years ago
|
||
>Matt, I think MACS do that on its own (OS fills in the loading proceedures,) but
>it would be nice if this could be seen on other OS.
I'm not sure what you mean by "OS fills in the loading proceedures", but it's
nothing special that the OS is doing. We just have some platform-specific
resources for the Mac splash screen that add a text field with the default text
of "Loading...", and update that from XPCOM observer callbacks.
And, please, "Mac", not "MAC". It's not an acronym.
Comment 91•22 years ago
|
||
I made the Z a bit softer.
Attachment #67943 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 92•22 years ago
|
||
What's the deal with this bug? Why can't we update the splash screen? http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/hsplash1.jpg http://personal.inet.fi/cool/net/mozilla/new2/msplashc.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mozillaman2000/ http://digilander.iol.it/mozillaart/oldstuff/index.html [my favourite !!!!!] are all great. Why are we debating with endless people submitting their own, personal pride and personal sentiment asside, inferior and tacky designs?
Comment 93•22 years ago
|
||
> Why can't we update the splash screen? This bug is blocked by bug 28028.
Comment 94•22 years ago
|
||
Can we have some action on this please? Let me come back to Ben Goodgers list of what a splash screen should be: - be light on text. images are not localizable ;) - not integrate with any particular skin, splash screens are not skinnable. - not contain loading text, this is overlayed in programmatically if the platform supports this (e.g. mac) - get the dates and version numbers right ;) mozilla.org has decided that its first release is "Mozilla 1.0" I'd like to add another two: - Contain only official Mozilla imagery - Not contain copyrighted material The current splash screen does not fit these two new rules (the green mozilla is copyright Netscape, and if they wanted to sue Mozilla.org then they would probably win ;). The red mozilla is the official Mozilla.org mascot/logo). The splashscreens located at http://www.slater.ch/moz/ http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cltan/temp/splash-export.png do fit all these rules (or could be easily modified so that they did). Legally, using the green mozilla is probably a 1.0 blocker (although removing the splashscreen would solve that).
Comment 95•22 years ago
|
||
http://www.slater.ch/moz/ any of these get my vote.
Comment 96•22 years ago
|
||
<qa ignore> Please do not use this bug to vote for your favorite splash screens. If you have created a new splash screen which conforms to all the above rules, then post it to netscape.public.mozilla.ui to get some opinions on it before posting it here.
Assignee | ||
Comment 97•22 years ago
|
||
Frank, is there any news on an image license? This will have to be cut from 1.0 if not. All: please don't post splashscreens or your feelings on splashscreens in this bug. Do that in npm.ui. adding mozilla1.0 keyword and targetting for 1.0 for now. If there's no movement on a license, we'll try and get something generic in.
Keywords: mozilla1.0
Target Milestone: Future → mozilla1.0
Comment 98•22 years ago
|
||
Another note: Splash screens should NOT have hardwired version numbers or dates. Those will be put in programmatically. Some of the aforementioned splash screens break that.
Comment 99•22 years ago
|
||
my understanding of bug 28028 blocking this bug includes the fact that if the "official" red dino image was included in the code/splash screen, the issue of copyright protection and the mpl would be problematic at best (see comment 32). the images at http://www.slater.ch/moz/ http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cltan/temp/splash-export.png both include the red dino, and the former page includes an "invalid" copyright claim. once again, given the time frame involved here, if licensing cannot be straightened out in time for 1.0, this bug should be a 1.0 blocker and a splash screen devoid of any potentially copyrightable images should be used, such as attachment 36096 [details], attachment 68788 [details], attachment 68888 [details], or the image at http://www.slater.ch/moz/splashscreen7.gif.
Comment 100•22 years ago
|
||
Nice to know that people can't read basic english! Ratman, take it to a news group!
Comment 101•22 years ago
|
||
Mitchell is the person to ask about image licenses (though I would be glad to help her with this if she wants to go forward with it). In any case, I think having a set of generic images (for splash screen, throbber, about page, desktop icons, etc.) would be a good idea; I recommend that you proceed with that.
Comment 102•22 years ago
|
||
i'm working on the generic images
Comment 103•22 years ago
|
||
Moving Netscape owned 0.9.9 and 1.0 bugs that don't have an nsbeta1, nsbeta1+, topembed, topembed+, Mozilla0.9.9+ or Mozilla1.0+ keyword. Please send any questions or feedback about this to adt@netscape.com. You can search for "Moving bugs not scheduled for a project" to quickly delete this bugmail.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0 → mozilla1.2
Comment 105•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 130551 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 106•22 years ago
|
||
Just a random, useless comment, but I favour the very styly and simple factory backdrop and red lizard. http://mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif would be great, perhaps without the "free the lizard" text, and mayhap rearrenged to be landscape. I'd definitely like to see that one land, after these licensing/trademark/et cetera issues are resolved!
Comment 107•22 years ago
|
||
hi everybody! this is another splash screen. I hope you like it as I do :-) bye Francesco De Francesco <fdefrancesco@iol.it>
Comment 108•22 years ago
|
||
please post new splashscreens and comments on splashscreens to the newsgroups ONLY, not this bug. netscape.public.mozilla.ui
Comment 109•22 years ago
|
||
sorry. I can't view newsgroups however: i've troubles with my ISP (tiscalinet.it). could I publish my pics on a website and give you a link? bye all Francesco <fdefrancesco@iol.it>
Comment 110•22 years ago
|
||
That, again, has a hardcoded version number. Endico: Can you please post a spec on the newsgroup and in this bug and the icon bug of requirements for splash screens and icons? Thank you.
Comment 111•22 years ago
|
||
This one is non-theme related. Using standard mozilla artwork. Its clean, professional, and easy to look at. It follows a standard style, and won't become dated. The mozila text can be moved up to accomidate a version number, or whatever else is needed.
Comment 112•22 years ago
|
||
well, what about voting for the best ones? i think, that < http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=75935&action=view > is still the best one, only the font for "mozilla" looks ugly (its simply not fitting into the picture). the only alternative (for me) would be < http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=36038&action=view >, although it has too little space for build and loading-info (i think).
Comment 113•22 years ago
|
||
in reply to comment #112 > only the font for "mozilla" looks ugly (its simply not > fitting into the picture) do you know where can I find an hi-res (preferably clean) picture which includes the word "Mozilla" in the original font? must I repaint it from scratch? bye Francesco <fdefrancesco@iol.it>
Comment 114•22 years ago
|
||
I like the two available here better than any of the ones in this bug: http://digilander.iol.it/mozillaart/oldstuff/index.html
Comment 115•22 years ago
|
||
[ reply to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32218#c113 ] hmm, i could only identify the font, if that helps... the font is called "Revolution", published by AGFA-Monotype. for more information see < http://www.identifont.com/identify?19+mozilla+4KG+3A6+6V+9M+1Z+20V+20Z+2ZF+97+9J+33I+773+1TR+2E+J+9Z+76Y+9T+M >, i hope it helps. (you could take either the "mozilla" from the starthomepage, or from there by assembling the characters to "mozilla". - but i rather thought of taking a more professional looking font, like Helvetica Neue or similar fonts. if you need any information concerning fonts, send me an email.
Comment 116•22 years ago
|
||
hello everyone! for everyone interested (and especially in reply to comment #112) I built another splashscreen using the Revolution font. It uses a loading bar too. Please tell me (in private e-mail too) if you like it or if you think I should use a sans-serif font instead (as Benjamin Schallar, comment #115, said). thanks for your support see you soon Francesco <fdefrancesco@iol.it>
Comment 117•22 years ago
|
||
Please do not post splashscreens or comments on splashscreens to this bug. I have setup a website for discussing the splashscreen of posting your creations at http://www.lemnet.com/mozilla/
Comment 118•22 years ago
|
||
If you do not want people to post splashscreens or comments to this bug, than perhaps you ought to pick up the pace on resolving it. This bug has been open with no resolution or even movement toward resolution in OVER TWO YEARS! This is not only unacceptable, it is shameful. The people are getting restless as is clear by the flurry of activity that surrounds this bug every time a new post is made to it by some bright guy with a new splashscreen. We want to replace the unspeakably ugly splashscreen we are currently saddled with. What is so hard to understand about that? ANY CHANGE WOULD BE FOR THE BETTER! Do not presume to say "this is not the place" when it is clear that every other place is ignored. I say keep the comments and the attachments coming. Ignore these pleas to take this discussion "off line" and something may actually get done about it.
Comment 119•22 years ago
|
||
Josh, and everyone... I'd advise you all to please consider the way bugzilla works. It is a massive database of attachments, summaries, and descriptions. Every new attachment or description makes searching through the database that much more difficult. Yes this bug has been here for 2 years, and yes it should be fixed before 1.0, but adding meaningless "I like that one" comments and attaching hundreds of splashscreens will not make the bug get fixed any faster. There have been many comments made throughout this bugs life that most people haven't bothered to read because of all the crap that fills this bug. I'm going to go ahead and restate the most important of those comments so that everyone out there knows exactly what is happening. If you want to comment, you can post a message to netscape.public.mozilla.ui at news.mozilla.org. if you want to submit a splashscreen, you can do so at Ian's website http://www.lemnet.com/mozilla/ and I'm sure plenty others. Please do not try to start some sort of revolution in the bug database. That will only anger people and possibly cause you to lose your account. The Facts: 1. This bug is blocked (partially) by bug 28028 which means that you cannot put the Red Mozilla Dinosaur or any other Mozilla.org copyrighted item in the splashscreen. This is due to some licensing issues that the lawyers are figuring out. If you want this process to move faster or whatever, Mitchell Baker (the Chief Lizard Wrangler) is assigned that bug and you can take it up with her at mitchell@mozilla.org. I've talked with her already and the issue is definitely a complicated one so... 2. Make a generic splashscreen. No attachment to one theme, no mozilla iconography, no red dino, (no green lizard especially). very little text (we can't localize the splashscreen), have a blank copy where version numbers can be applied each time, no loading text (just a space for it) it will be written overtop later (hence the black stripe in our current screen) 3. Dawn Endico (endico@mozilla.org) has said that artwork style should be similar to the artwork for our parties/website. You can find this artwork all around mozilla.org. some examples: http://mozilla.org/party and http://mozilla.org/banners - the font is the revolution font from comment #116 but as always, the higher-ups at mozilla.org may want something a little different, so make sure you keep the original so you can change it. :-) 4. Dawn is also working on a generic splashscreen (as per comment #102 ) so you might best be in contact with dawn at endico@mozilla.org or on IRC to make sure you are on the right track. And finally, if you have questions or comments about what the splashscreen should look like, or when we are going to get a splashscreen, or wanting a contest on mozillazine or mozillanews, or whatever... I'd recommend that you email the perties that would be able to help you, or go on IRC and talk to people, or post a message on the newsgroups. This bug is filled enough already and you can definitely make a bigger noise if you comment in the right venues rather than spam a bug report that most people are ignoring.
Whiteboard: DO NOT SPAM
Comment 120•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 143879 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 121•22 years ago
|
||
I see many people talking about the font that is used on the splash screens. I have said this before but there have been so many posts of people obviously not reading previous postings that I'll post it again. That font is REVOLUTION. The M is slightly changed for the Mozilla.org graphics. Email me for information on it. If you searched netscape.public.mozilla.ui on Google Groups - you would know this. Please stop posting splash screens or your comments about splash screens to this bug. People are sick of the spam and the obscuring of useful information with people's opinions. There are probably hundreds of splash screens not linked to on this bug. Therefore, your screens WON'T be ignored if they aren't on this bug. Lots of the links on this bug are out of date anyway. The following URLs keep a more up-to-date list. Please only post a comment on this bug if you have compiled such a list with many splash screens from various people: http://www.pali.sk/mozilla/splash_list.html http://www.lemnet.com/mozilla/ Mozilla artwork here: http://mozilla.org/party/ SVG here: http://mozilla.org/projects/svg/ PLEASE KEEP OPINIONS ON AND LINKS TO SPLASH SCREENS TO YOURSELF. PLEASE KEEP COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE TIME THIS BUG IS OPEN TO YOURSELF. IF YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS, OPINIONS, OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THIS BUG, THEN PLEASE USE EMAIL OR NEWSGROUPS. PLEASE USE DISCRETION BEFORE POSTING TO THIS BUG.
Comment 122•22 years ago
|
||
somebody being interested, I posted another splashscreen on http://www.lemnet.qatlantis.com/mozilla/ as requested. as usual, please make me know if you like it! :-) bye all Francesco
Comment 123•22 years ago
|
||
Ok, thanks for adding that link to your page... but even if you have a page listing multiple splash screens, please "cache" the info for page updates and tell us about them all at once in a larger posting (maybe every couple months) to keep comments down in this bug. Thanks - I'm sure it will be appreciated. :-)
Comment 124•22 years ago
|
||
in reply to comment #123: that's *not* my page. that's a page that collects splashscreen /in order to reduce the traffic/ on this bug. you even signaled it in your comment #121 just like Mike Young did in comment #119! I'm getting bored of this policy! what should we use Bugzilla for? I tought this time I had done something good since I had not post binaries here but... I'm gonna post *nothing* more if things go this way! and if somebody wants to see my latest splash, will look for it in lemnet.com/mozilla every 2 or 3 days. do you think this is right? I don't. Sincerely, Francesco
Comment 125•22 years ago
|
||
I'm sorry you were offended, but there are so many splash screens being created, and if every one of them were mentioned on this bug, it would probably take hours to read every comment. That is why those pages that list multiple splash screens is good. I accidentally thought you were the one who maintained the page because you said you had posted the splash screen as requested (therefore i assumed that they requested it of you and this was a second email account you use with Bugzilla) Yes, people can bookmark those pages and view them as frequently as they want to see new splash screens. If they are not interested in seeing the new splash screens, I doubt they will want to hear about it from this bug - so regardless of how proud you are of the hard work you put into it, they will feel you are forcing the splash screen down their throat if they are just CCed on this bug to see if the legal issues have been resolved, etc etc. Until the legal issues are resolved, there will be no splash screen in Mozilla save the generic screen that Endico is working on. I assume when the time comes, people will be more interested, but as of now, splash screens are moot. Therefore, when the time comes, people will start looking at all the splash screens and try to decide on the one they like best. Therefore, as long as your splash screen can be found from those listing pages, you don't have to worry about it not having an equal chance compared to the other splash screens. Maybe Mozilla could even have a splash screen .xpi installation page or something so that people aren't bound down to the splash screen that is settled on.
Comment 126•22 years ago
|
||
ok. that's right. I agree. *then* why don't we build a kind of "official website" where to put ALL the splashscreens/artwork which relate to this bug? www.lemnet.com/mozilla doesn't look bad but... improving it or making -from scratch if necessary- something more organic (and more "official-like") would be useful. (a kind of 'splashzilla', in other words :) sorry for having been so hard in my recent post see ya soon Francesco
Comment 127•22 years ago
|
||
I have been thinking about taking slashcode and making a Mozilla forum based off of that, with part of it being a rating system for artwork, or maybe just a ratings system for artwork and that's it, but I'm concerned about bandwidth issues. I am only on cable. I'm sure I could probably pull some kind of artwork rating system or equivalent off sourceforge.com, and if I kept it to that, then bandwidth wouldn't be a problem. The thing is, I would like it to be bigger than that, but I don't know if I could handle the number of connections I would get.
Comment 128•22 years ago
|
||
I submitted a new project to SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net) called SplashZilla. they say I must wait 2 business days... I hope they'll accept my proposal! I'll keep you in track Francesco
Comment 129•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 130•22 years ago
|
||
actualy I wanted to make a big foot ..like godzilla !! We grow older ...
Comment 131•22 years ago
|
||
<bastard mode="on"> uh... I tought sending splashes here was deprecated... </bastard> btw, http://sourceforge.net/projects/splashzilla is up and running. can somebody help me managing it? I'm not familiar with SF... thanks in advance Francesco
Comment 132•22 years ago
|
||
Personally, I don't think this bug will ever be closed :-) because the amount of creativity the splash screen can gnerate is endless. I think it will be on going and the splashscreens should be changed from time to time along with major releases. At what intervals for change should be decided be the community, it could be by time (eg. every half year), by fixed interval releases (eg every third major release) or by every release (every 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 etc.) I would really like to see all the good splashes see light to day. Hopefully these are some ideas for your splashzilla project.
Comment 133•22 years ago
|
||
Personally, I believe we should settle on one splash screen and allow a mechanism for easily changing the splash screen. There are many reasons for this. One is for stability and product identification. If we are constantly changing the splash screen, people might get upset because they liked the previous splash screen more than the new one. Another reason is because it is unecessary work when there will be plenty of themes sites that could host splash screens. I think we should leave it up to people to change their own splash screen. I would also like to see splash screens on unix machines.
Comment 134•22 years ago
|
||
Not sure who to credit for this image, but its worth a look-see.
Comment 135•22 years ago
|
||
I think its time to Resolve this bug with a new code "AN OOPS", since we just released 1.0
Comment 136•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 137•22 years ago
|
||
Dear Sirs: I was showing Mozilla 1.0 to my boss, the little dragon did not too much for Mozilla. For him it didn't look professional, Mozilla seemed to be an Internet toy made by forty teens. An adequate Splash Screen is an important thing if we want Mozilla to be taken seriously.
Comment 138•22 years ago
|
||
why don't we just turn off the splash screen?! on other os's like linux it isn't shown and I like it better that way then the splash screen we currently have..
Comment 139•22 years ago
|
||
my poor splashscreen :) sorry for the spam ;)
Comment 140•22 years ago
|
||
well :) why not :) ;) :p
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment description: a very splash splashscreen :p → inappropriate
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment mime type: image/jpeg → application/octetstream
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment mime type: application/octetstream → application/octet-stream
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment mime type: application/octet-stream → image/jpeg
Attachment #90213 -
Attachment mime type: image/jpeg → application/octet-stream
Comment 141•22 years ago
|
||
I got a huge gallery of mozilla/netscape splashes here: http://www.resexcellence.com/user_splash_Netscape.shtml Unforetuneately, they are all .sitted and even if you unsit them, some are empty archives with nothing but a readme (which is sometimes empty), and some are empty .rsc files which neither mozilla nor stuffit recognizes. This might be as a result of unsitting on a PC. Can any macintosh users unsit and put up a .bmp/.jpg mirror of the above sit?
Comment 142•22 years ago
|
||
Splash screen suggestion, released under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. Contact me at wowtip-at-home.se
Comment 143•22 years ago
|
||
I suggest marking this bug report invalid on the grounds that its signal-to-noise ratio is less than 10 percent.
Comment 144•22 years ago
|
||
mpt: invalid would just cause people to ask "Why is this bug invalid?". Is there any way we can make this "Read only" until bug 28028 is resolved?
Comment 145•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 162614 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 146•22 years ago
|
||
RFE - Splash screen sucks!
Comment 147•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 164073 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 148•22 years ago
|
||
This shouldn't be marked as dependent on 28028 - if you just DELETE the splash, no licensing is required. The current one is illegal anyway - why is it still being allowed in the builds? If other people are as irritated as I am about the splash screen, they should VOTE for it. I can't believe it has only 41 votes, when it has almost 150 comments. I for one will not use mozilla for browzing until the splash is changed, or more sensibly just deleted.
Comment 149•22 years ago
|
||
I agree. It is ugly and unprofessional. It looks like something out of some 12 year old's "l33t" vb app.
Comment 150•22 years ago
|
||
i agree with mpt and his suggestion in comment 143. i *strongly* suggest closing this bug as invalid. at this point, i do not see any possibility of any future comments or inclusions here leading to a "successful" solution to this bug. this is a trivial, p5 bug targeted for a long past milestone. end it, please.
Comment 151•22 years ago
|
||
>at this point, i do not see any possibility of any future comments or
>inclusions here leading to a "successful" solution to this bug.
Are you tripping? 'Delete the splash screen' bugs gets filed as a
duplicates of this one! Just get rid of it, problem solved, splashscreen
'updated'!
Signal/noise ratio <10%: Generate more noise, maybe someone will get off their
dorrie and delete the file.
Comment 152•22 years ago
|
||
endico: How is the generic splash screen coming along? Can we replace the current one that has legal issues with a generic one with no images, no Revolution font, just arial text or something for the time being? Ratman said: "i *strongly* suggest closing this bug as invalid. at this point, i do not see any possibility of any future comments or inclusions here leading to a "successful" solution to this bug. this is a trivial, p5 bug targeted for a long past milestone. end it, please." AFAIK, the legal issues are close to being resolved.
Comment 153•22 years ago
|
||
Let's close the bug? Part of wide acceptence of Mozilla invloves Mozilla looking more professional and actually looking like a final project (for example, not having Final builds such as 1.1 goto mozilla.org/start/ have them point to mozilla.org/start/1.0/). Mozilla will still be laughed at in any professional setting due to it's splash screen and I don't think that is a good impression to make on people. One of the things I hate about the MOzilla project is that it takes an act of god to get anything done around here. This bug has been open for years, all it requires is replacing or removing some bitmap. Now you're saying it should just be closed and marked as invalid? This truely is redicules. I think someone needs to take some initiative and resolve this bug, take 5 seconds of there time and replace the bitmap with a more professional looking splash or just remove it. I also feel this is more then trivial. Believe it or not it is things like this that affect widespread acceptiance of Mozilla. While things like MathML support are nice, it's not the type of thing that is going to impress your average joe or corporate user. Mozilla is past 1.0 now, we need to stop treating it like it's a beta and that it's just for developers and the curious. And certain cosmetic things, as shocking as it is to all of you elitest developers, affect the acceptance of Mozilla, and I hope, I really do hope, that that is something that is not "trivial" to you.
Comment 154•22 years ago
|
||
Sorry got posted as one long line last time - Hopefully it works now. ----------- Let's close the bug? Part of wide acceptence of Mozilla invloves Mozilla looking more professional and actually looking like a final project (for example, not having Final builds such as 1.1 goto mozilla.org/start/ have them point to mozilla.org/start/1.0/). Mozilla will still be laughed at in any professional setting due to it's splash screen and I don't think that is a good impression to make on people. One of the things I hate about the Mozilla project is that it takes an act of god to get anything done around here. This bug has been open for years, all it requires is replacing or removing some bitmap. Now you're saying it should just be closed and marked as invalid? This truely is redicules. I think someone needs to take some initiative and resolve this bug, take 5 seconds of there time and replace the bitmap with a more professional looking splash or just remove it. I also feel this is more then trivial. Believe it or not it is things like this that affect widespread acceptiance of Mozilla. While things like MathML support are nice, it's not the type of thing that is going to impress your average joe or corporate user. Mozilla is past 1.0 now, we need to stop treating it like it's a beta and that it's just for developers and the curious. And certain cosmetic things, as shocking as it is to all of you elitest developers, affect the acceptance of Mozilla, and I hope, I really do hope, that that is something that is not "trivial" to you.
Comment 155•22 years ago
|
||
God save us!
Comment 156•22 years ago
|
||
Author: JDL
Comment 157•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 158•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 159•22 years ago
|
||
I agree that the Mozilla splash screen could be made a little more professional looking. I wonder about going further though and allowing themes to alter the splash window in the same way they alter the rest of the Mozilla user interface. I have created an enhancment request #170964 if anyone has any comments about such an idea.
Comment 160•22 years ago
|
||
I would just like to say that I also think the current splash screen is very unprofessional and that it really can and will cause people to not use the software. There are so many other splashes out there that are so much better, why can't it just be replaced with one of those? I do not agree that the splash screen should be deleted all together. The splash screen keeps people with slower computers from double-clicking on the icon over and over again because it doesn't load right away for them. That's just my two cents.
Comment 161•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 162•22 years ago
|
||
In defense of unprofessionalism; When Mozilla 1.0 came out I started installing it on all the computers at work. Nobody cared much about the enhanced standard compliance. Nobody cared much about the new features. Nobody even blinked at the skinnability. But _Everybody_ loved the cute little dinosaur on the splash screen. The ladies in the sales department especially got a kick out of that little fella breathing fire on their desktops. Go figure :)
Comment 163•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 164•22 years ago
|
||
Originally drew just for fun, but my boyfriend told me It was possible to post it here. This is for all you moz developers. You rawk :}
Comment 165•22 years ago
|
||
I understand this is a 'do not spam' bug, but I'd like to know if there's any work planned on allowing people to simply specify their own splash screens from an image in the install directory, for example.
Comment 166•22 years ago
|
||
Michael, yes, please read or scan all of the comments before posting to bugs like this one. The answer to your question is in comment 78.
Comment 167•22 years ago
|
||
Let me share with you my own opinion and my point of view. I assume that Mozilla Red Dino logo is of no copyright violation, since it is used widely (e.g. on "about:"). And I also feel that Comment #36 was right. Some of Mozilla contributors live in communist countries. And, which is much more important, lots of people of our world live in communist countries, like China, right now, and will deeply appreciate Mozilla. Mozilla is a sign of Communism, whether you do want it or not. Software being downloaded and installed free of charge. That's how Communism works ;-) Personally I was born in that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which the Cold War was against. Do you know that today (07 Dec 2002) is exactly the 4000th day after the end of USSR in 1991? Kind of a surprise for you, I guess ;-) And I think it's a great idea to draw another pentacle-based Mozilla splash today - I'll use exactly that red star from "about:" page. And I'll even to so far to upload it here. ZIP file is only 14 Kb, though there's 298 Kb BMP inside. I hope this will help us to get rid of the green lizard. My splash is of minimalist style, I used four colours only: black, white, red, and orange. Following the advices from comment 94, > - be light on text. images are not localizable ;) my splash has only "Mozilla" text and website URL > - not integrate with any particular skin, splash screens are not skinnable. my splash will suitable almost with any theme of themes.mozdev.org > - not contain loading text, this is overlayed in programmatically if the platform supports this (e.g. mac) splash origin written below is going to be replaced with "Loading in progress" messages generated by the software > - get the dates and version numbers right ;) mozilla.org has decided that its first release is "Mozilla 1.0" my splash does not contain any Mozilla version number > - Contain only official Mozilla imagery my splash contains only about: star logo > - Not contain copyrighted material as far as I can judge, my splash does not. Download it, extract BMP into the folder where mozilla.exe is. Then enjoy it ;-) Deeply, Mithgol.
Comment 168•22 years ago
|
||
Hmm... I've just read that again... looks like http://www.mozilla.org/banners/ impressed me a way too much. Those banners looks like slogans of the Revolution, and are designed to. That's great. I guess the following development of the brand should follow that direction... Sorry if all that looks like spam. BTW, it's funny. Why only 57 votes for this bug? I'll add mine.
Comment 169•22 years ago
|
||
I personally don't like the banners on http://www.mozilla.org/banners/. 99% of the people don't give a f00k about whether or not they can view the code, or what kind of political statement their browser is. 99% of the people just want to use what they find to be better. Mozilla is "better" in a lot of ways. I think the banners should focus on pointing out Mozilla's strong points over competiting browsers (such as Internet Explorer). Things like built-in pop-up blocking, ad blocking, tabs, skins, etc... As much as you like the banners sounding like a "revolution", it is moot to most people. Most people really don't care. The only way to get them to switch is convincing them that Mozilla is better feature wise, stability wise, security wise, etc... Btw, open source in general is communist (from each their abilities, to each their needs), but that cannot be compared to any country that has or does call itself communist. Because there has yet to be a true communist country. That is why so many people associate communism with dictatorship from a few and political oppression. So there is not that some people don't like Mozilla to be associated with communism in and of it self, it is just that some people don't like Mozilla to be associated with the highly negitive reputation that countries who have claimed to have adopted "communism" have given it. P.S. If you're ever at a book store, pick yourself up a copy of "Animal Farm".
Comment 170•22 years ago
|
||
The problem with this bug is not communist imagery, and it's not copyrighted fonts, words or iconography. It's not the impending lawsuit from the owners of Godzilla, and it's sure as **** not colour-clash. There's at least a billion splashes which avoid these issues, some of them are popular enough to be used, and in any case, they can't breach copyright any worse than the current green- lizard splash. The problem with this bug is that the people responsible for it don't want it fixed. I suspect that they find the bug so annoyingly trivial that they have stopped reading the list. They repond to pleas for help with 'worry about something useful instead'. They are presumably exclusive unix users, who think that ugly art makes no difference whatever to the quality and popularity of the software. They are, of course, wrong. This has always been the problem with open source. No focus groups. Which works fine for gcc, or emacs, where only developers will use it. But for mozilla, where potentially everyone could use it, it sucks.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.3a+
Comment 171•22 years ago
|
||
"The problem with this bug is not communist imagery, and it's not copyrighted fonts, words or iconography. It's not the impending lawsuit from the owners of Godzilla, and it's sure as **** not colour-clash. There's at least a billion splashes which avoid these issues, some of them are popular enough to be used, and in any case, they can't breach copyright any worse than the current green- lizard splash." Completely agree with you. "The problem with this bug is that the people responsible for it don't want it fixed. I suspect that they find the bug so annoyingly trivial that they have stopped reading the list. They respond to pleas for help with 'worry about something useful instead'. They are presumably exclusive unix users, who think that ugly art makes no difference whatever to the quality and popularity of the software. They are, of course, wrong." Actually I noticed this type of (miss-)behavior in several cases already (here). So one of these guys marked the quite popular wish for a "Home button" in the main toolbar a "WONT FIX" (and hence "RESOLVED"). Incredible! See Bug #89350. Sometimes it really SEAMS as if these guys have lost touch with the wishes and needs of _normal users_ ("the mass" if you like). "This has always been the problem with open source. No focus groups. Which works fine for gcc, or emacs, where only developers will use it. But for mozilla, where potentially everyone could use it, it sucks." Completely agree with you! (...) ---------------- Someone said: "...[they do] not integrate with any particular skin, splash screens are not skinnable." Hmmm... Actually I think that "Skins" in the future SHOULD contain also a splash screen, if possible. Certainly there ARE issues with "colour-clash" - but in this way they could be resolved. (IMHO)
Comment 172•22 years ago
|
||
60 votes. Adding dependency to "large community interest bug."
Blocks: majorbugs
Keywords: mozilla1.0 → mozilla1.3
Comment 173•22 years ago
|
||
Is there an easy way to write XPI putting mozilla.bmp into Mozilla installation folder?
Comment 175•22 years ago
|
||
Learn to spell Amateur please. But yeah, this is obscene now. We're post 1.3alpha. Someone just need to pull the damn splash and put in somethign blank, such as http://mods.mozillanews.org/splashes/ultrablanksplash.png or really anything but this. It's relly pathetic at this point in time. I've had folks roll their eyes on more than one occasion.
Comment 176•22 years ago
|
||
Yeah, sorry about the spelling error. Someone needs to pull it or replace it. On most computers it doesn't take more than a second or two to load anyways, so it's not even necessary. At the same time you guys have a lot of options for alternate splash screens that don't look so amateur.
Comment 177•22 years ago
|
||
Um... it may be getting really obscene, but I'm sure a lot of people won't care for a petition. IMHO it solves nothing in an environment such as Mozilla's. Have faith in the system; right now there are 62 votes. What we really need to do is come to a general consensus on *which* splash to use, and not that we need a new one (we already know that). A lot of... um... n00bs who don't realize how our bug system works like to just say, 'let's get this fixed'. In this case, as well as many other cases, that just isn't feasible, getting us nowhere. Somebody who can needs to hold a vote or something (hint, hint).
Comment 178•22 years ago
|
||
Agreed, the petition is useless. But since this bug has been around for ages, we have solutions that avoid bug 28028 entirely, and there has been NO action on any part of this, it's quite obvious that it's become a nuisance bug that will NOT get fixed out of spite. Unless (unfortunately quote JTK) we drag this out to the public view, dangle it around, scream shout and dance about it, and basically humilate someone to fix this damn thing. We all know votes are near-worthless, and with almost 200 comments, at least a petition makes this a little more high profile. This is really a polish issue, and someone needs to bite the bullet, and just replace this thing already.
Comment 179•22 years ago
|
||
Well let's canvas ideas on how best to make this issue public. Derek, why don't you ask Mozillazine to link to your petition?
Assignee | ||
Comment 180•22 years ago
|
||
We're not putting a silly petition on mozillazine. Please find something better to do with your time, rather than spamming this silly bug.
Comment 181•22 years ago
|
||
Ok that's what I'm talking about. Presumably any further comments here are spam, rather than debate, purely because you don't want to hear them. Essentially you want to move this from a democratic process - fixing this bug because it has a large number of votes - to an autocratic process. This makes me wonder, why even work on an open source project?
Assignee | ||
Comment 182•22 years ago
|
||
Please find me where it says this is a democratic process. Until then, be quiet. There are thousands of more important bugs that this. Just because 61 people out of the tens of thousands of people registered for bugzilla want a new picture, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Please, stop being silly, and find something useful to campaign for.
Comment 183•22 years ago
|
||
That's ok, I did. http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=fbea82051a091a24155550117315c439
Comment 184•22 years ago
|
||
Then why not fix it and shut us all up?
Comment 185•22 years ago
|
||
This bug is unlikely to get fixed. Mozilla is a *test* binary, not a distribution. They have provided framework for suppressing or changing the splash screen. Their goal is to work on the technology, not on deployment issues and that's exactly what they did. Please join us in creating a user-supported Mozilla distribution instead of demanding the unlikely or impossible.
Comment 186•22 years ago
|
||
Saw the petition. Suggestions: replace old green lizard with new red dinosaur. no text (translation issues). keep it simple (minimize disagreements based on style) Commentary: Current splash screen looks awful. I thought so the moment I first saw it, and still think so. I'm not arguing *for* any particular splash screen, just *against* the unfixed mistake that is the current one. Apologies to anyone who (completely wrongly) believes the current one is acceptable :-)
Comment 187•22 years ago
|
||
well I like this one for example: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=108580&action=view its attachment id 108580 "14 Kb ZIP with yet another pentacle-based Mozilla splash dedicated to 07 Dec 2002, the 4000th day after the end of U.S.S.R." I like it because it's simple but good-looking. With some little changes it would be a very good replacement for the current one.
Comment 188•22 years ago
|
||
Once again sorry about the damned spelling error, trying to get petitiononline to let me ammend it but no response lol. Anywho, I say just remove the damned splash. Like I said, on most systems Mozilla starts up quickly enough now a days anyways. If the developers still feel the need to make sure people know that Mozilla is starting to they don't click a million times wondering what is going on, then why not just a simple, little, "Loading..." text. No copywrite issues, don't have to worry about cramping people's style, etc... The point is, DO /SOMETHING/ kerz@netscape.com "Please find me where it says this is a democratic process. Until then, be quiet." Oh, I'm sorry kerz, the voting and comment system mistakenly gave me the impression that the users' opinions count for something. My bad.
Comment 189•22 years ago
|
||
Proposed generic simple splash
Comment 190•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 191•22 years ago
|
||
Need to remove myself from this junk mail ;) But before I leave, 1 last comment READ: Opened: 2000-03-17 05:00 ITS BEEN ALMOST 3 YEARS! Give me a frickin bone here! ;) Has anyone ironed out the legal issues that were behind this bug? If we haven't, we are still ILLEGALY using this image! FOR OVER 3 YEARS!
Comment 192•22 years ago
|
||
Thanks to Jason Chambers for trying to make this bug open. Still I see the only "Leave as NEW" option below the "Additional Comments" field. Hmm... maybe I should wait... or all that was just a bad joke... Thanks to Harald Glatt who liked my splash most of all. And the greatest today thanks to http://mozcafe.com for an XPI sample of bug installation. I'll soon make my own XPI pentacle-based splash installer, and provide a link on it. Please stand by if you're interested.
Comment 193•22 years ago
|
||
Sergey, please do :-) We would like to work with the splash screen maintainer at mozdev.org and put up a whole gallery of easy-to-install XPIs as a temporary relief for the general public.
Comment 194•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 195•22 years ago
|
||
All right, I've just uploaded a self-installing XPI; get it from http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/mithgol.xpi Hmmm... maybe it's just a classical cause for Slashdot Effect. Imagine thousands of Mozilla users potentially ready to get an XPI... my site may get really overcrowded really soon ;-) Well, I'm at least sure it's only 15 Kb. I can afford serving requests to http://mithgol.pp.ru/ with about 600 Mb of total responce traffic - and then there'll be no garanteed service. It's all seems to be about 40000 of XPI downloads, and there are only 67 votes. Ok. Will leave.
Comment 196•22 years ago
|
||
By the way, the darktoned version above is a partially transparent GIF. Since there's actually no way to provide partial transparency for Mozilla Splash nowadays (it's format is plain BMP Windows Bitmap), the splash with rounded corners won't work (sorry Brander) - it needs an extended support from Mozilla code developers.
Comment 197•22 years ago
|
||
Re; http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32218#c178 In light of some recent conversations, events, and information, I apologize for that comment. It was inappropriate (especially for Bugzilla), and rude. I'm sorry.
Comment 198•22 years ago
|
||
Here is one proposal. It is up to the Mozilla to make this decision. There was a prospal of including the XPI into Mozilla that allow the option of changing the splash screen. How about a proposal to include an option to the recent proposal that would display no splash screen at all as an addition to it. This would satisfied some people who complained about it and would allow Mozilla to move on to tackling other bugs. Just a penny for my thought.
Comment 199•22 years ago
|
||
My favourite self-made-splash. The original graphic is an Photoshop psd-file so the version- and copyright-information can be changed very easy. Looks also with 256 colors really viewable.
Comment 200•22 years ago
|
||
I don't particularly like http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=110113&action=view and there shouldn't be a version number on it, as after every update it would need to be changed.
Comment 201•22 years ago
|
||
Aren't you able to place a version text label at position X,Y over the picture? You would be able to show the version on the loading splash screen then easily... And it wouldn't need a change both in code and the picture when the version changes...
Comment 202•22 years ago
|
||
Okay, we'll be lucky if we can get the developers to so much as replace a bmp file, let alone dick around putting version numbers over the splash screen.
Comment 203•22 years ago
|
||
I think, a version information on the splash is extremely important. Look at every software out in the business, everybody has a version information in their splash screen. Changing the version number is a work of 15 seconds because the original file is saved as a photoshop files with layers. My second thing is to make a simple splash with carries all needed information within seconds to the user. The user didn't want to see an glorious graphic, the user should see the software name, a version of the software, the copyright and maximum a logo. A simple, clear splash visualizes a quick and health program. Sounds funny but I'm doing the job for several years now. ;-) My third thing is to make a splash simple so that 256 coloured screens would show the splash nearly like a high coloured screen. That's done.
Comment 204•22 years ago
|
||
To avoid spamming Bugzilla attachment system with my splashes, I've just created http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/ webpage where ready-to-install XPIs and comments and preview images are now stored. Download, install and enjoy!
Comment 205•22 years ago
|
||
I understand that you feel having version information in the splash is important, however, if we can't even get the developers to replace a bitmap file (or even give a f00k about this bug for that matter), have fun trying to get them to go above and beyond that and code to add version information and whatnot to the splash. In otherwords, don't make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Comment 206•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 207•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 208•22 years ago
|
||
I prefer this design over my original.
Comment 209•22 years ago
|
||
Against my better judgement, I'll (re)post. http://home.alphalink.com.au/~cltan/mozilla/ Its claim to fame is that it's based on the graphic style of www.mozilla.org, which is about as official as it gets. It also has the same dimensions as the current splash screen.
Comment 210•22 years ago
|
||
allow me to quote "a bug's life cycle" (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/bug_status.html): WONTFIX The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. i make the following challenge: unless someone can generate solid proof before the release of mozilla 1.3 that the folks at mozilla.org have any intention to fix this bug, this bug should be resolved as WONTFIX by definition. somebody running this project needs to either admit this needs to be fixed or admit that nobody that matters actually gives a d***.
Comment 211•22 years ago
|
||
I am adding this splash screen I made. Hopefully it will suffice.
Comment 212•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 188400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 213•22 years ago
|
||
Now that I have a fuller understanding of the criteria, here's a much better attempt. I tried to make it clean and simple, (without any unnecessary text) while maintaining the Mozilla spirit. I obtained the dinosaur image from this page: http://mozilla.org/projects/svg/ I used a freeware font called "Eraser." The background was created using various Photoshop filters. It's dark enough to display white lettering clearly, and the appropriate amount of space has been reserved at the bottom to accommodate such an overlay.
Attachment #110311 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #110312 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #110311 -
Attachment description: Here's my attempt. → Disregard.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #110312 -
Attachment description: Here's a slight variation. → Disregard.
Comment 214•22 years ago
|
||
Hope to don't spam... but I think that Mozilla should show what's happening while it's loading. I like the current image (but if it's changed it makes me no problem, though), and if you watch at it, you'll see that a black space remains under the lizard, inside the box that appear. So, why don't add a white text which say: "Loading Navigator...", "Loading Preferences...", and so on (like Communicator does, if I remember exactly). Maybe it's just my Win32 build (I would like to pass to Linux, but I can't since I share the computer with other people in the family!). Ok, sorry for the personal comments, and say if it is possible, or just makes a messy.
Comment 215•22 years ago
|
||
in reply to comment #214: I think that the main block on displaying loading text is that it's image-based and therefore non-localizable (as for comment #9). I know it is a bad thing but at the time there's nothing to do (except of a code fork, of course!) ^_^ PS: you *can* switch to linux if you have enough disk space (~5GB) to host it in a separate partition, even if your relatives disagree: just set the boot manager to load Windows by default ;)
Comment 216•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 215 The status text (bug 35866) is overlayed. The only thing non-localizable is text on the splash screen itself. Also, a better place to post new splash screens would be http://mozilla.deskmod.com/?show=showcat&cat_name=mozsplash and I like http://www.corplink.com.au/~bennettf/mozilla.gif without version number and status text best.
Comment 217•22 years ago
|
||
re: comment #216 you're right, but bug 35866 is still not solved (actually nor assigned). should this be depending on it?
Comment 218•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 216 I finally came to a conclusion that http://mozilla.deskmod.com/?show=showcat&cat_name=mozsplash in not the suitable place to post new splash screens. They stated (in their upload webpage), "In general, by submitting photographic, artistic, computer-generated and/or other materials (audio, visual, audiovisual and otherwise) to us and agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth below, you are giving us the nonexclusive right (i.e., you can grant similar rights to others at any time) to use those materials on and as part of our websites (e.g., to include your materials in our database which we make freely available over the World Wide Web). You are also representing to us that, among other things, you have the right to allow us to so use the materials and are agreeing, among other things, to cover the costs of our defense if someone claims that we do not have the right to so use the materials (or that you do not have the right to allow us to so use the materials)." Personally I cannot afford covering their defence costs, including additional cost of money transfer from Russia (where I live) and converting from roubles to dollars or anywhat. And I don't feel myself responsible for possible violation of some "mad" copyright laws in foreign network, like DMCA in U.S., because we are independent. So I'll publish my artwork on mithgol.pp.ru and will defend it under Russian jurisdiction; and I've read our copyright laws and won't violate them.
Comment 219•22 years ago
|
||
If bug 35866 doesn't get fixed, there's no need for an empty bar.
Depends on: 35866
Comment 220•22 years ago
|
||
> If bug 35866 doesn't get fixed, there's no need for an empty bar.I don't really care if windows suports it or not. My platform does, so there is a reason for that space.
No longer depends on: 35866
Comment 221•22 years ago
|
||
I've created a new variation of my design, this time with the famous "Revolution" font logo. As recommended by CT, I've uploaded it to DeskMod. [Thanks for the link! I'm familiar with that website, and I previously tried and failed to locate a section for Mozilla splash images.] If anyone gets a chance, please leave a comment: http://mozilla.deskmod.com/?show=showskin&skin_id=23741
Comment 222•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 223•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 189867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 224•22 years ago
|
||
RE: comment #37 The red star is on the flag of north Korea, which is a communist country. Some people are offended by this, but I am not. --- I am planning on making a splash screen based on the mozilla svg image. It should be done and posted by the days end.
Comment 225•22 years ago
|
||
RE: comment #37 The red star is on the flag of north Korea, which is a communist country. Some people are offended by this, but I am not. --- I am planning on making a splash screen based on the mozilla svg image. It should be done and posted by the days end.
Comment 226•22 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 227•22 years ago
|
||
I think we've had enough fun here. This bug's not ever going to be fixed, for so many different reasons. Time to kill it.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Comment 228•22 years ago
|
||
Kerz: Could the reasons for nor resolution be listed so we can show reasons for closure if people revisit this bug in the future?
Assignee | ||
Comment 229•22 years ago
|
||
The bug is completely unmanagable, and now quite useless. There is no way any constructive work will happen here, as too many people have filled it with junk. If it's ever decided that a new splash should go in, a new bug can be opened. For now, there are no plans to, which is why this is a WONTFIX.
Comment 230•22 years ago
|
||
Verifying fixed before someone posts the Soviet flag... http://members.aol.com/duvelle/nxp-zarya/ussr.gif
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 231•22 years ago
|
||
replying to comment #229: > If it's ever decided that a new splash should go in, > a new bug can be opened. *who* will decide this? people at netscape, mozilla.org board, or users? who? thank you
Comment 232•22 years ago
|
||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #112167 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 233•22 years ago
|
||
The people in charge of the mozilla distrubution, ie drivers@mozilla.org. Robert: Can you not read?
Comment 234•22 years ago
|
||
This is a ridiculous bug, not because it's not a problem, but because no one's going to step up, make a stand and say THIS is the way it should be. Given the fact that the judgement of a 'Good' splash screen is so subjective, the delivery mechanism should just be changed so it's tied to the skin/theme. That way, the honus for creating them is placed upon the 'creative' folks making the skins, and if joe schmoe doesn't like it, he's welcome to either turn it off with the launch command variable, or open up the skin and change it there. That's my 2 cents.
Comment 235•22 years ago
|
||
This is a decision for drivers@mozilla.org. For their own reasons (copyright has been mentioned) they have decided that they do not want to change the splashscreen at this moment. Nothing you can do will change that decision. Someone has to be in charge of a project, if you don't like their decisions then you are free to fork the code. The splashscreen cannot be theme-specific because it is shown before mozilla knows what theme is active. It can easily be changed by the user on windows by putting a file called mozilla.bmp in the main moz dir (though not on other platforms IIRC).
Comment 236•22 years ago
|
||
It's amusing, in a sick way, how much antagonism the question of the splash screen causes between (primarily) developers and non-developers. There's an interesting sociological article in there somewhere for someone with more time on their hands than I.
Comment 237•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 238•22 years ago
|
||
I always asked myself how Netscape could manage to dropout from place 1 to last place until they released their code. I know the answer when I look at your email adress, kerz. You're really funny. Instead judging that a bug with 72 votes and 30 attachments and 50000 comments probably need to be fixed you judge that it shouldn't be fixed couse there is to much interest in it. Don't tell me it'ss unmanageable because the community tried to help you. If the community wasn't be there mozilla have never been as far as it is now. And what is there to manage btw. This bug is about one thing I can tell it in one phrase: "Change the splashscreen to a 32bit picture which is antialiased and has less color in it." Currently some people don't use your browser because they say "With that splashscreen it rather looks like a children's browser than a reliable thing." And all kind of people are thing this, people that want to use it for home-use, people that use it at work, and sam chief's judging about using mozilla as an alternative solution to their current browser. And telling OVER and OVER again that the splashscreen isn't themable - what is this crap? You're the devs. Then change it to be! It won't be harder than any other possible bug. You could even get the problem solved that the splashscreen is currently only popping up on Win32. Currently the users of mozilla don't have a choice about their splash. And you won't tell an IT director of a company that he can use mozilla without being laughed at when he draws his own bitmap and replaces the original one with that. Well think about this and then hopefully make another choice about this bug.
Comment 239•22 years ago
|
||
I *completely* agree with Harald Glatt (comment #238) and I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of this bug history will. please consider this if you plan to close it.
Comment 240•22 years ago
|
||
Peace people! Let me try to calm you all down a bit by pointing out a few things and making a few suggestions: First, please accept that drivers have to last word about what gets into Mozilla and what not. If you do not agree, discussion should probably be done in the newsgroups, not in a bug description. If you still do not agree, you are, as has been pointed out, free to fork the code. Second: while I do not like the current splash screen either, I must say that there is hardly an alternative that looks any more professional, and many of the suggestions here or at other places are, frankly, worse. Third: this seems to be a topic that *is* important to lot of users. This should bot be ignored, but as far as I can see, there is simply no way to make everybody happy: just imagine that drivers *would* select one of the alternatives - then immediately all the other proposers would be angry, complain that this choice is even worse and why did not their proposal get selected? Fourth: making this dependent on the theme sounds good but is very hard to do. Maybe those complaining about lack of this feature should look at the code and figure out how to do it. If you come up with something workable, chances are high that your patch will get accepted (do it in another bug). Fifth: a simpler solution might be for somebody who really cares about this to provided some add-on that makes it very easy to change the splash screen (e.g. at installation time). Or come up with a patch that allows to use an alternate splash screen from the user's profile and then provide an addon to allows to change that. Theme authors could then provide optional splash screen bitmaps (outside the theme jar) for users to use with that feature. Sixth: If you are worried to use Mozilla with the current splash screen in your company: it has been pointed out how to change it. It is really easy. Note that you can repackage Mozilla with a chnged splash screen quite easily for later installation in your company.
Comment 241•22 years ago
|
||
> First, please accept that drivers have to last word about what gets into > Mozilla and what not. > Sure. But shouldn't that people try to decide in a _responsible_ way. That's simply not the case here (imho). :-( > [...] If you still do not agree, you are, as has been pointed out, free to > fork the code. > C'mon you KNOW that that's not really a "practicable" solution! (In fact it's neither practicable, nor would it be a "positive" solution!) In fact, it seems to me that these "argument" could be (mis-)used as some means for _repressing_ divergent opinions and whishes concerning the development process of the project. > Third: this seems to be a topic that *is* important to lot of users. > This should [n]ot be ignored > Yes. (Tell the drivers!) > but as far as I can see, there is simply no way to make > everybody happy... > The KEYWORD is _choice_ (as always in such cases). GIVE THE PEOPLE the POSSIBILITY FOR CHOSING THEMSELVES (what they want)! Hence a possible solution would be implementing such a "mechanism" to choose the splash screen (if so). > Fourth: making this dependent on the theme sounds good [ full stop ] > Still it could be done differently! > Fifth: a simpler solution might be for somebody who really cares about > this to provided some add-on that makes it very easy to change the splash > screen. > Actually, that would be my favorite "ad hoc" solution. HELL, it shouldn't be THAT DIFFICULT to implement a preference setting that allows for choosing the _picture_ that is shown at start up. Actually there could be _several_ pictures in the main directory and the preference setting just would allow to pick out ONE of them. (The startup code of Mozilla obviously always uses "mozilla.bmp" at the moment. Is this hardcoded? Why the hell not change THAT ... such that the startup code uses some preference setting to decide which picture should be shown/if any.) BTW: This could be implemented "parallel" to the idea of including "splash screens" in the themes. Why not bundle "...bmp" images with the themes? [ They simply should be copied into the main directory when choosing that theme. One could use a "standardized" naming scheme: splash1.bmp, splash2.bmp, etc. where "splash1" denotes the "default" splash screen.] > Sixth: If you are worried to use Mozilla with the current splash screen in > your company: it has been pointed out how to change it. > Yes. SEE ABOVE. :-) ;-) > It is really easy. > Yes. One would think so.
Comment 242•22 years ago
|
||
Thanx johann@ai.univie.ac.at for calming us down but this won't help all the people who created all that nice splash screens since this bug exists. You have to understand that these people are very angry now that it has just been closed like that. Like Francesco De Francesco said, this bug will make history and will be talked about in IT media if you will close it just like that now.
Comment 243•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 190078 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 244•22 years ago
|
||
Franz, Harald, johann@ai.univie.ac.at, Jason and everyone interested: this bug has been opened almost three years ago, and many people would now love to see it solved, in a way or another. I think we all are tired of this long debate. I besides think that something went wrong in the principle; maybe the original reporter had not idea about the image rights problem, neither about the skinnability/l10n issues. but the splash problem, like Harald pointed out, is not so ridicolous as some may think (see comments #210, #227, #229 & #234). many people dislike the current splash, and having loading info(s) would not only be useful, but (imho) would give a more ‘professional look' to the beast. this bug should NOT be closed this way. but these are concepts already said, explained and re-re-re-repeated. what to do then? personally, my vote is for Franz's solution (comment #241): giving to the user the ability to choose (via preference) the splash screen he/she likes. i think it is definitely the best thing to do, and for many reasons (beside Franz's ones, of course): 1. at this time, using a splash different than the default one is easy _for me_ and _under Windows only_. an unexperienced user doesn't even now what a bitmap is, and how to put it in a folder. 2. under other platforms you have to recompile the whole, and this is at least boring (when possible). why? 3. implementing a simple preference for choosing a favourite pixmap shouldn't be very hard to do 4. what if tomorrow drivers think it's time to change the splash? do you think people would be so happy to donate their works that today are in fact being refused? my 2 cents Francesco *** peace & love ***
Comment 245•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 190089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 246•22 years ago
|
||
> you are free to fork the code
You like cheap shots? Me too!
How about instead of forking, I just use *Konqueror* and *Safari* instead. It
seems that it's what everyone else with a clue is using... It's open source, who
cares? Ummm, "drivers" who are paid salaries might care if their project is
hated by the public. Mozilla might move on, but their jobs sure won't if no one
uses it out of resentment.
Comment 247•22 years ago
|
||
Again: calm down everybody!
> How about instead of forking, I just use *Konqueror* and *Safari* instead.
Is that supposed to be some sort of threat?
I don't like the current splash screen either and voted for this bug, but these
rants do not do any good.
How about everybody writing NO MORE COMMENTS for about one week and then see if
the anger is still as strong?
And *then* those of you with *some* programming abilities can try to find a way
to perform one of the ideas in this bug like prefs for splash.
Those without this knowledge are currently shouting "then make the splash
skinnable" without knowing that the splash screen is exactly there to let the
user see that something is happening while Mozilla needs some time to get
skinning enabled at all. So I think it is better to only open new bugs if there
is a feasible idea and there are people who can implement that idea.
Bugs by people just proposing that *something* should be done are as likely not
to be fixed as this one. No offense intended, but you see various proposals in
this bug - but nobody who is willing to implement them.
When it comes back to simply replacing the current one: the only consensus here
is *that* it should be replaced, but I'm sure for every proposal there would be
somebody filing a new bug that it should be replaced or reverted to the old one.
I don't think mozilla.org is so deep in love with the current one that they
would never replace it, but there is still no alternative that everybody agrees
with.
=== So they decided to better leave people unhappy with the old one than make
them unhappy with a new one. ===
Ranting in bugzilla is veeery unlikely to change that decision, don't you think?
Closing this bug OTOH does not prevent anybody from finding a better splash that
everybody agrees with. But that should not be done in bugzilla, but in public:
the newsgroups, mozillazine.org,...
IF you come up with a 100% agreed on new splash, I'm sure mozilla.org staff will
also like it and might be willing to use it after the waves have flattened.
IF you do NOT get broad consensus on an alternative, then you'll probably
understand that it does not make sense trying to get it in Mozilla.
Thanks for your attention. ;-)
P.S.: If you feel like you have to write an answer to this comment now, PLEASE
sleep one night before you do so, then think about it again.
Comment 248•22 years ago
|
||
Maybe the splash screen on other OS's is different but i really don't see what people are so worked up about the splash screen looks allright on BeOS
Comment 249•22 years ago
|
||
> And *then* those of you with *some* programming abilities can try to find a way > to perform one of the ideas in this bug like prefs for splash. Well, for my part, my desire requires absolutely no programming skills. It just requires replacing the current cartoon with something that isn't so ass-disgustingly childish and ugly. The prefs thing is not the issue - as has been pointed out, you can change the image simply by putting one in the moz directory (I pre-install Mozilla on all our workstations at work, and that splash screen is outta there immediately). It's the first impression someone gets when they download and install Mozilla for themselves. But we've been over this before. > When it comes back to simply replacing the current one: the only consensus here > is *that* it should be replaced, but I'm sure for every proposal there would be > somebody filing a new bug that it should be replaced or reverted to the old one. > I don't think mozilla.org is so deep in love with the current one that they > would never replace it, Having followed this bug for quite some time, that's exactly what I think. Either that or it's strictly a power/ego trip for the people who control the check-in of the splash screen image. Either way, it boils down to those individuals either having naked contempt for the testers' opinions regarding this issue, or being dishonest with them about their true motives/intentions. > but there is still no alternative that everybody agrees > with. The simple answer is to hold a Mozilla Splash Screen contest. I dislike most of the alternatives submitted via this bug (those I've looked at), but would probably take any of them over the current one. Establish criteria for the image, and then put it up for two rounds of votes: First offer up all eligible candidate images for vote. Then take the top ten and take a vote on those. The winner is the new splash screen, and then everyone can STFU, me included, because the question has been fairly decided. > Ranting in bugzilla is veeery unlikely to change that decision, don't you think? What the hell else are we supposed to do? Oh yeah - fork the code. To change the splash screen. I forgot. > Closing this bug OTOH does not prevent anybody from finding a better splash that > everybody agrees with. But that should not be done in bugzilla, but in public: > the newsgroups, mozillazine.org,... THAT'S NOT WHERE THE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE. They're being made here. > IF you come up with a 100% agreed on new splash, I'm sure mozilla.org staff will > also like it and might be willing to use it after the waves have flattened. And I'm sure that coming to 100% agreement will never happen, so your suggestion is useless. See my vote suggestion. > IF you do NOT get broad consensus on an alternative, then you'll probably > understand that it does not make sense trying to get it in Mozilla. Why not put it up for a vote? That way the current image can be subjected to the same degree of apathy/adoration/antipathy as any other candidate image might garner, rather than requiring an unrealistic, overwhelming consensus. > P.S.: If you feel like you have to write an answer to this comment now, PLEASE > sleep one night before you do so, then think about it again. I've been saving this one for weeks.
Comment 250•22 years ago
|
||
"The prefs thing is not the issue - as has been pointed out, you can change the image simply by putting one in the moz directory" What they are refering to is a pref in the preferences menu, a GUI pref, to change the splash. As far as splash screens based upon the current skin, I see it being possible. Just allow skins to write a pref to the preferences file (or a seperate text file) and when Mozilla loads up it checks that file real quick and loads the defined slash screen. Same concept with a GUI pref, only intead of the skin chosing it, the user does by the preferences menu. "The simple answer is to hold a Mozilla Splash Screen contest. I dislike most of the alternatives submitted via this bug (those I've looked at), but would probably take any of them over the current one." I agree. But considering the additude of certain developers, such as kerz whom seems to not give a sh*t about the testers, I doubt this will happen. But voting seems to be the most logical move in case the devs ever decide to give a sh*t about the testers.
Comment 251•22 years ago
|
||
fully agree with lloyd - voting is a good idea...
Comment 252•22 years ago
|
||
All of you who dislike this decision check out this bug: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=190078 Boris Zbarsky suggested to tell staff@mozilla.org that an @netscape.com developer is abusing his position. May I laugh?
Comment 253•22 years ago
|
||
I think it's come the time to open a discuss on mozillazine.org, in order to hear other people opinion. I know my english is poor so I'd rather avoid to write an article there, but if nobody else has enough time to spend I will do it. thank you Francesco *** peace & love ***
Comment 254•22 years ago
|
||
> > Closing this bug OTOH does not prevent anybody from finding a better splash > > that everybody agrees with. But that should not be done in bugzilla, but in > > public: > > the newsgroups, mozillazine.org,... > >THAT'S NOT WHERE THE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE. They're being made here. Wrong. Decisions are NOT being made here. They're made by module owners, or drivers/staff if they cover more than one topic or are "hot stuff" (like this one). And, what is even more important, this is NOT the place for lenghtly discussions about "hot" topics. You should go into mozillazine forums and, much more improtant, newsgroups, for discussions. For personal discussions, it's also good to use IRC. But Bugzilla is NOT made for lengthy discussions, and what's going on here in this bug report is simply abuse of Bugzilla, even all those attachments, which are useless unless there is stuff that people can agree with. This bug report only waste's space in the Bugzilla database in it's current state. When the legal issues are solved, and drivers/staff can agree with a method how to find out what to be used as a new splash screen, then we can open a new bug to _implement_ it. Don't open one to discuss it, that won't help. The current throbber image also was found with a contest (on mozillazine and a long time ago), which was announced by "officials" of mozilla.org - nowadays what staff would represent, I'd guess. Please just shut up at that issue for now - don't forget to look at the bug report for the legal issue (don't make useless comments there though), and perhaps ask somebody "important" from time to time (not too often) what's the status, so the issue won't be forgotten. The time will come when light will come into the dark here. (And yes, I agree that the current image is suboptimal - though it's cute...)
Comment 255•22 years ago
|
||
Woah, calm it, people. You're making yourself look like children here, really. 1. This bug has been marked "WONTFIX". Quoting http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/bug_status.html , that means nothing else than " The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed." Now, obviously, the question arises: *Why* will this never be fixed? This question has been answered many, many times. There are actually multiple reasons: A. There are some image rights issues keeping mozilla.org from using the "proper" Mozilla logo in any place of their software. This sounds ridiculous to me, seeing as mozilla.org mostly consists of Netscape people anyway, but that aside, these issues are there, and that's why the dragon doesn't really look like the original Mozilla dragon. B. It just doesn't matter. The product "Mozilla" (originally "Mozilla Seamonkey"), which is more of a proof-of-concept for a cross-platform Gecko-based browser on which companies and other organizations can build entire browser suites such as Netscape, Beonex or even OEone's whatever-they-call-it, doesn't need a fancy splash screen, fancy icons or a fancy look at all, for that matter. It - in my very humble opinion - is the distributor's job to do that. That's why major distributors such as Netscape *do* replace the splash screen, and if I may say so, Netscape's splash screen looks quite cool and quite right too. C. This bug has been over-loaded with over 200 comments (of which probably not even 10% really try and fix the problem) and about 30 (!) attachments, most of them being different kinds of splash screens. Since when has BugZilla turned into an image hosting site? How about writing a patch that will read the theme information and thus allow for theme-dependant splash screens (not that I'd agree to that idea, but it's much better than *not* contributing something useful). How about just SHUTTING UP when there's a "DON'T SPAM" comment in the Status Whiteboard already, clearly suggesting that nobody appreciates the endless "blah blah this splash screen makes me puke" any longer? 2. Rather than trying to solve the problem through IRC or the newsgroups, or contacting staff@mozilla.org as has been suggested two or three times already by various persons, additional bugs have been filed where the reporters KNEW they were dupes. Namely bug 190078 ("Mozilla made me puke because of the splash screen!") and bug 190089 ("Lack of cool splash screen is clearly a blocker"). In the latter, bzbarsky suggests creating a mozdev.org project for storing splash screens. Let me point you all to http://themes.mozdev.org/splash.html , which has been there for ages and should work just fine. Unfortunately it links here :-/ 3. If you plan to convince your big boss to use Mozilla in your company, you should have at least have as much knowledge that once you do, you're responsible of your company's Mozilla installations on your own, as you distributed them. mozilla.org does not do end-user support. This also means that you can customize your company's own Mozilla to have more relevant bookmarks (such as the company home page), a customized feature set, and... ooh! a different splash screen per default. It's simple to do that. Much more simple than write up a useless comment in BugZilla and get flamed for it. Sorry for the spam.
Comment 256•22 years ago
|
||
Forget it Robert, no one will shutup about this. You won't tell us sitting for years in this bug to shut up now. You didn't make a single commment on this bug. This bug was about finding a new splashscreen. And those attachments are all splashscreen proposals. They are no spam and they are no crap. An no waste of database space. Don't ever dare to insult all the people who invested time into making splash screens again like this.
Comment 257•22 years ago
|
||
>You didn't make a single commment on this bug.
Exactly !
He knows why he shouldn't add SPAM comments in bugs. Maybe you could learn
something from him ?
Comment 258•22 years ago
|
||
Until this debate started the comments were about 10% spam and 90% useful. In my eyes you guys started to wreck this bug with your decision about closing it. The only reason why this bug grew so big was because it a) is open since 2000-03-17 b) there were many people drawing solutions c) there were many people saying what they like and dislike AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT BUGZILLA IS FOR. This bug is about a SPLASHSCREEN a image. So the attachments can't be C++ Code but images. And the comments can't be discussions about how to write some C++ Code but about how to draw the splash screens. If that doesn't fit in your mind I'm very sorry about you. And if it's really the mozilla "officials" speaking here then I'm very sorry about mozilla too.
Comment 259•22 years ago
|
||
Regarding #255 from Sören 'Chucker' Kuklau,
1. "bug which will never be fixed."
=> That exactly is the problem.
A. image rights issues
=> There are lots of cool MoZilla Splashs which don't even use a dragon (or any
other potentially copyrighted animal) at all and still look much better.
The problem with the current dragon is that it looks like a 256 color dragon
from 1995.
B. "It just doesn't matter (...) it' is the distributor's job to do that."
=> Yeah, right, but it still looks ugly and quite a few ppl actually USE MoZilla
regardless of how many distributions are available. At least switch it off - or
is a splash screen really needed for a proof-of-howto-splash-concept ?
And why is the MoZilla "Modern" Skin included in the Package ? No need for that,
the "classic" works fine.
So, please remove the "Modern" Skin from all future releases - it's a waste of
space and absolutely not needed for a proof-of-concept!
C. "How about writing a patch that will read the theme
information and thus allow for theme-dependant splash screens"
=> Good Idea, assign this task do a developer !
2. (...)
Well, i can't say much to this, but i don't think discussing something in the
bug is THAT bad.
3. "you can customize your company's own Mozilla"
Yeah, of course you can customize EVERYTHING in an open source project by
writing your own code,
adding your own images, ... - But still it should be any project's goal to make
the product itself better and make customizations only necessary where needed.
It is not that productive if you have to spend hours setting up a usable
configuration - thats why there are default configurations which should fit for
>90% of the users.
Comment 260•22 years ago
|
||
ok ppl, who's able to write a small plugin/patch to make users able to choose the splash pic they like? let's start a mozdev project! ;-) Francesco *** peace & love (_o_) ***
Comment 261•22 years ago
|
||
Francesco, are self-installable XPIs good enough? We´ve had an experimental splash.xpi posted on our website for about a month. I meant to contact you about creating a gallery of XPIs and let everyone have it their way. Working with most popular skins distributors and have them include an alternate splash in their XPI is another possibility.
Comment 262•22 years ago
|
||
Okay, by reading this thread, I want to put in my opinion on the matter. This problem is not going to go away and you can't code a solution to solve it. There is a bigger problem here that needs to be addressed before this thread could ever be closed. There is no process in place for how visual assets, whether it's an icon, a splash screen, or a button are added into Mozilla via the community. The Modern skin was primarily driven by Netscape, from what I know, and therefore, it didn't have the difficulties that we are having with community proposed modifications. Whether it's Drivers, or staff or whoever, there needs to be some process created and followed to solve this issue. People like me, who want to contribute to the Mozilla effort, who aren't coders are having a hell of a time contributing. I have spent my spare time, which is valuable as hell to me, to make what I think is a cool browser a little bit better the only way I can, and because of a lack of a process, it's being thrown out. Why? Because it's "unmanagable". That's totally bogus, and if this continues, you're going to scare off the very small community of willing artists you have. That's my 2 cents. -s
Comment 263•22 years ago
|
||
I'll comment more on this. Specially for Jacek Piskozub about comment 230: I've planned more than just posting the Soviet Union flag. Look at http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/ for a sample of really Soviet XPI self-installable splash. Specially for Harald Glatt about comment 238: Frankly speaking, themes CAN alter Mozilla splash, but they must be XPI for that trick, instead of JAR. This makes no problem since some themes at MozDev (Pinball, for instance) are already made XPI installable. But the problem is that switching theme (via Mozilla View menu) will not result in splash switching, and you'll have to re-install splash. That's why splashes and skins would better not depend on each other at all. For all other people, including those of Mozilla development team: You know we all already have "Get New Themes" in menu, pointing to http://www.mozilla.org/themes/download/ - there we should have "Get New Splash" also, pointing to http://themes.mozdev.org/splash.html This will make splash installation as easy as those of skins at MozDev: the user just picks a preview sample and clicks on it, then the skin is installed via XPI. Creating new menu item "View -> Apply Theme -> Get New Splash" is, as I hope, a pretty simple task - it is as easy as copying several lines of the code and changing only one URL in a certain string constant; and this will fix the bug properly and immediately! Notice that the bug is not in the ugly default splash; some people may think that Modern or Classic skins are also ugly, but that's not the problem. The bug is, actually, in the wrong conceptual model. The wrong concept is having only one splash - instead of multiple splashes in our avail somewhere in the Web, installable with a single click. Some users suggested holding a contest or a voting about what splash is the best - that sounds really terrifying for me - imagine that you don't have all that themes Early Blue, Eskimo, Gold, Gray Modern, Internet Explorer, Kzilla, LCARStrek, LittleMozilla, Lo-Fi Classic, Lopbury Flat, Negative Modern, Orbit, Pinball, Skypilot Classic, Wood etc. - but you have only one skin instead, though approved by the public voting, as the best in show? Looks like you are really choosing between freedom and democracy nowadays. I think, in my humble opinion, that it's much better to satisfy everyone's needs differently (that's how the freedom works), than to satisfy the majority only, but by an equal supply for all. I assumed above that most http://themes.mozdev.org/splash.html items are self-installable XPI, ready to install; actually, they're not. There are some BMP images, which need to be manually moved to Mozilla folder, and also PNG/JPEG/GIF etc., which also need proper conversion to BMP before placing them properly on a local filesystem. I feel also, that invention of XPI makes all that former formats of splash things obsolete; this also means for me that splash authors must be provided with some means of convertion. They need both how-to knowledge files and real examples. Then, if someone needs an example of XPI splash, try http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/ussr.xpi And, if some manual docs would really do better than an example, try http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2001/xpinstall/1.0 And, for Mozilla's sake, don't hold any damned contests on features that are easy to alter. Keep multiple choice alive. Thank you. And please stop discussing the situation here, or I'll take my vote off the bug. My mailbox is really getting overburdened. At least use direct e-mail for personal comments, which are mostly not things to be interested in.
Comment 264•22 years ago
|
||
in reply to comment #263: I agree that choice is important, but it seems nobody on the drivers' board takes it seriously. therefore, the only things we can do are: 1. discuss about splashes 2. find solutions (lixe XPIs, as you point out - but it looks like more a workaround than a *real* solution) 3. collect as many splashes as we can 4. eventually be ready to vote one Harald Glatt, me and others are setting up a discussion board at http://www.dynaloop.net/mozilla-splash/ (maybe in the next future http://splashzilla.dynaloop.net or similar). it is still in a demo phase so sometng could not work (but phpbb is great and we plan to solve all problems in a few days). register if you wish, and enjoy! moreover, I'm gonna update the _whole_ http://themes.mozdev.org/splash.html . I didn't do it for months (personal issues, and a 30G hard disk blow) but now it's time to do, if possible with brand-new XPI installable splashes (if admins give me enough space for BMPs instead of JPEGs) I hope this is my last post here thank you everybody Francesco
Comment 265•22 years ago
|
||
The majority want this fixed *LISTEN*
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 266•22 years ago
|
||
Bugzilla isn't a popularity contest site, it isn't an image hosting site, and it's not a debate site. If and when mozilla.org chooses a new splash screen, they will open a new bug. This bug has gotten completely out of hand, and I'm putting a stop to it. Don't reopen it again, or your bugzilla permissions to do so will be removed. Take your debate and your favorite images to the newsgroups, bugzilla isn't the place.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Comment 267•22 years ago
|
||
Verifying. I'm more than sorry I broght this up. This is NOT the type of discussion I intended. This is now a "mee too" fest. This bug is now being closed NOT because no one wants it fixed, it's being closed because there are larger issues that need resolved first, and they are complex, hairy, political issues. This issue will eventually be resolved, but this bug is no longer useful. It's NOT a gallery, it's NOT a forum for discussion, it's NOT an arena for argument, it's now nothing but noise. We're all going to need to be patient here, yes, MORE patient. If we want more discussion of this issue, let's take it to a web forum, or a newsgroup. This bug report is now far beyond every being useful, as it's now nothing but opinion from 200 people. This is NOT me telling someone to open yet another bug report on this, as they will be marked DUPEs, rightly so. Let's take this discussion somewhere else more productive.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 268•22 years ago
|
||
> > This bug is now being closed NOT because no one wants it fixed, it's being > closed because there are larger issues that need resolved first, and they are > complex, hairy, political issues. > What a nonsense! Obviously your "complex, hairy, political issues" does not prevent the present extremely childish splash screen TO BE THERE! So please don't tell fairytales. > > It's NOT a gallery, it's NOT a forum for discussion, it's NOT an arena > for argument, it's now nothing but noise. > Actually, (1) it SHOULDN'T be the TASK of testers/users to CONVINCE developers of bugs! One would think it's enough that they actually SPOT and REPORT them. In addition (2) it's an extremely bad practice to "solve" bugs by just ignoring bug reports (i.e. mark them as "invalid"). :-(
Comment 269•22 years ago
|
||
#268 must have missed something from the part "We're all going to need to be patient here, yes, MORE patient." This bug is dead, dead, dead - killed by the presumed doctors, as it was. This bug has degenerated into a beauty contest of no real value and I believe that Bugzilla is for more pressing issues than deciding which screen the average user has to watch for 5 to 10 seconds while Mozilla starts up. As it is, the current screen (politically incorrect as it may be) could just as well stay on for the time being - it gives the user a last chuckle before dull work starts again. ;-)
Comment 270•22 years ago
|
||
To Mozilla drivers: couldn't the existing splash be just removed? That would solve this bug. Who want's a splash could install some from xpi. I believe this is a way this issue must be solved. Tnx.
Comment 271•22 years ago
|
||
@#268 You shouldn't underestimate the impact of such (from the viewpoint of a developer) "unimportant" topic. For Mozilla as such it IS of a certain importance how the browser presents "itself". (!) @#270 Well... actually a splash screen SHOULD be there. I can't imagine a big software product like Mozilla which _doesn't_ have such a splash screen (at least under Windows.) It's just to SHOW the everyday user that _something_ happens (and/or that there is a "progress"). [ If there were only the spinning cursor the Windows-experienced user would think that the program hangs. :-) ]
Comment 272•22 years ago
|
||
If you want no splash screen while launching, launch mozilla with the "nosplash" parameter. As simple as that. If you want to replace the splash screen on Win32, add a / replace the mozilla.bmp file in the program directory. If you want to replace the splash screen for your distro build, replace the file in the sources. @ Franz: As I've explained before, the look of Mozilla's splash screen doesn't really matter much as distributors should just use their own.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.3
Comment 273•22 years ago
|
||
argh, lets scrap the modern theme - it doesn't matter thats stuff of the distributer too
Comment 274•22 years ago
|
||
I'd just like to say that I'm personally offended by the remarks of Jason Kersey, as well as by the decision to mark this bug "invalid." Firstly, it's impossible for a bug to suddenly become "invalid" after close to three years. Secondly, numerous people have dedicated their valuable time and effort for the purpose of finding a solution. I'm new to the Mozilla community, and I lack the knowledge required to write program code. Therefore, I decided to contribute in the only manner that I was able. This nasty backlash only serves as discouragement from further involvement in the Mozilla project. Thirdly, it's outrageous to claim that the attachment of images was improper; the bug is described as "Mozilla needs an updated splash screen," and these files are proposed fixes. They're every bit as legitimate as patches and the like, and it's extraordinarily arrogant and condescending for you to believe otherwise. (It's as though you feel that only the efforts of programmers are worthwhile.) Having said that, I will refrain from posting splash screens to this bug in the future. As I did with my last version, I'll upload any new designs to: http://mozilla.deskmod.com/?show=showcat&cat_name=mozsplash Those who are seeking a simple, office-type splash screen can check out: http://mozilla.deskmod.com/core.mod?show=showskin&skin_id=24014
Comment 275•22 years ago
|
||
this bug should be resolved/verified as WONTFIX, not invalid (despite my earlier comments). this bug is certainly a "valid" one, it simply will not be fixed. unless a good reason is provided for the invalid resolution, i intend to reassign the resolution to WONTFIX. this relatively minor bug seems to have become a significantly more serious one when it became an issue of what really is "open" to the community within the theoretically open source code, and what remains proprietary to the code's "owners" (i.e., drivers@moz, staff@moz, etc.) instead. while one would argue that a successful open source project would incorporate as much input from the community as a whole, any project eventually remains in *someone's* control, in order to set the limits of the project itself. arguing this boundary is a moot issue - we as the community have the privilege, not the right, to assist in the development of this project. admittedly, the length of this bug displays the frustration that many contributers are feeling regarding the central control of this project, and may eventually lead to the loss of valuable capability and insight from mozilla as a whole. but this issue is clearly outside the scope of a bug that simply will not be solved in the open community.
Comment 276•22 years ago
|
||
> this bug should be resolved/verified as WONTFIX, not invalid This is what Jason Kersey did previously. Shortly thereafter, he changed it to "INVALID," purely out of anger and spite. (an obvious abuse of his position) > this bug is certainly a "valid" one, it simply will not be fixed. > unless a good reason is provided for the invalid resolution, i > intend to reassign the resolution to WONTFIX. In my opinion, "LATER" is the most appropriate resolution; it’s likely that Mozilla’s default splash screen will be changed eventually, but not in the immediate future. To address the other designations: While the official description of "trivial" could be applied, "enhancement" might be a better choice. A "P5" priority indicates the lowest level of significance. While purely a matter of aesthetics, the passionate reaction that this discussion has generated clearly establishes a higher degree of concern within the Mozilla community. As version 1.0 was released some time ago, the target milestone should be "Future." Thank you for considering my feedback.
Comment 277•22 years ago
|
||
Re: Comment #275 From ratman 2003-01-25 16:37 > this bug should be resolved/verified as WONTFIX, not invalid > (despite my earlier comments). this bug is certainly a "valid" one, it simply > will not be fixed. unless a good reason is provided for the invalid resolution, > i intend to reassign the resolution to WONTFIX. The bug was first resolved as wontfix as it won't be fixed the way most of the commentors would like it. It is now invalid because, while the report in itself is valid, the resulting attempts to fix it (the attachments) are not the right solution. BugZilla is not a whiteboard for discussion what graphics look cooler - the newsgroups can be used for that.
Comment 278•22 years ago
|
||
I am wondering how a reasonable person can formulate SUCH A NONSENS! "The bug [...] is now invalid because, while the report in itself is valid, the resulting attempts to fix it (...) are not the right solution." Hence _a problem vanishes_ (or may be ignored) if _the proposed solutions_ are not appropriate??! Right??! Oh my god, WHAT A LOGIC! ----------------------- Actually, you seem to be quite desperate in seeking "justification" for such an incredible incident!
Comment 279•22 years ago
|
||
David (comment #276), you say: "In my opinion, 'LATER' is the most appropriate resolution; it’s likely that Mozilla’s default splash screen will be changed eventually, but not in the immediate future." Well, actually it depends on what you mean with "later". Did you notice that the bug was opened at 2000-03-17 (!)? Isn't 2003 (3 years later!) not "late enough"?! No, really, actually it's quite obvious that Mozilla presently seems to be headed by a group of adult children and/or youngsters, but _certainly_ not by a serious people. This might shed some light to Apple's decision NOT to use Mozilla as basis for their own browser!
Comment 280•22 years ago
|
||
Re: Comment #278 From Franz Fritsche 2003-01-26 04:30 > "The bug [...] is now invalid because, while the report in itself is valid, > the resulting attempts to fix it (...) are not the right solution." > > Hence _a problem vanishes_ (or may be ignored) if _the proposed solutions_ > are not appropriate??! Right??! Oh my god, WHAT A LOGIC! No, that's not what I said. I said that BugZilla is the wrong medium for solving this problem. As I pointed out many days earlier, mozdev.org has been providing a place for getting alternate splash screens for a long time. Changing the default splash screen most likely won't happen until the bug this bug depends on (bug 28028) gets fixed. > Actually, you seem to be quite desperate in seeking "justification" for such > an incredible incident! No, I'm trying to make this bug die a quick death. If you want this problem ("Mozilla needs an updated splash screen.") solved, discuss it in the newsgroups. But obviously, that's not what you want to do, as I've suggested it multiple times before and you didn't even comment on that.
Comment 281•22 years ago
|
||
Sören (#280) said: "BugZilla is the wrong medium for solving this problem." Well, certainly you are right. BUT on the other hand, clearly BugZilla SHOULD BE the place where bugs/problems are "collected" AND/OR *acknowledged*. (No?) Actually marking a bug report that is about 3 years old and has more that 70 votes (!) as INVALID is an incredible incident! It simply crashes the whole idea of means like BugZilla. ("No, it's not a bug, it's a FEATURE!") "As I pointed out many days earlier, mozdev.org has been providing a place for getting alternate splash screens for a long time." Yes. That's certainly a step in the right direction. What is _missing_ now (imho) is a means to change the splash screen without editing some "preference files" (say hello to Linux) or dealing with bitmap files at OS-level. With other words: there should be a possibility in the _preferences_ menu to change the splash screen. (Moreover one could think about a mechanism for EXTENDING Mozilla's "skins/themeing" ability to include splash screens. Or introduce a now menu command like "Get a new Splash Screen", etc.)
Comment 282•22 years ago
|
||
> > BugZilla is the wrong medium for solving this problem. > Well, certainly you are right. BUT on the other hand, clearly BugZilla SHOULD > BE the place where bugs/problems are "collected" AND/OR *acknowledged*. Yes, this is why this bug was accepted and left open in the first place. But then it was more and more misused for discussion - what you admit should be happening in the newsgroups. Only now when about 99% of the comments are sheer discussion, this bug is closed because it is *not* what it was meant for anymore. You sure do understand that. kerz explicitly mentioned that there might be a new bug filed when the time was right, the problems solved. I think this does also not sound bad to you. But unfortunately the time is obviously not right yet because you see right here that such a bug would be mostly used for discussing and spamming. > It simply crashes the whole idea of means like BugZilla. ("No, it's not > a bug, it's a FEATURE!") With this and similar comments you (not only you, others as well) show your ignorance of what I just said. Nobody ever said it's a feature. And you should know very well by now *why* this bug was closed. It's a shame that you still post such comments. BTW: LATER is deprecated (as is CLOSED).
Comment 283•22 years ago
|
||
> > Only now when about 99% of the comments are sheer discussion, this bug is > closed because it is *not* what it was meant for anymore. > Well, but that surely DOES NOT make _the bug_ go away! While "A Bug's Life Cycle" suggests a different interpretation: INVALID The problem described is not a bug >> >> ...this simply crashes the whole idea of a means like BugZilla. (...) >> > With this and similar comments you (not only you, others as well) show > your ignorance of what I just said. > Agree. ;-) > > And you should know very well by now *why* this bug was closed. It's a > shame that you still post such comments. > Look, Andreas, a) I want that PROBLEM/BUG accepted _as such_ (since it is one) and b) I want that appropriate measures are taken to resolve that PROBLEM/BUG in the future. (Of course it's part of the Module-Owner's duty to _decide_ which measure might be appropriate, and when things actually can be done.) By just declare that bug INVALID neither a) nor b) is "fulfilled". > > BTW: LATER is deprecated (as is CLOSED). > A Bug's Life Cycle says: LATER The problem described is a bug which will not be fixed in this version of the product Actually "LATER" would be good enough for me.
Comment 284•22 years ago
|
||
from comment #277: > It is now invalid because, while the report in itself is valid, the resulting > attempts to fix it (the attachments) are not the right solution. a bug's status and resolution are to be based solely on the reporter's original summary and description, or as acceptably amended via follow-up comments. only the final results of commentary are relevant to the status and resolution (i.e., patch, fix, etc.), not the path taken by the comments of a bug. since you also concede that this bug is valid based on its initial report, clearly this bug should be WONTFIX.
Comment 285•22 years ago
|
||
"It is now invalid because, while the report in itself is valid, the resulting attempts to fix it (the attachments) are not the right solution. BugZilla is not a whiteboard for discussion what graphics look cooler - the newsgroups can be used for that." When a bug involves changes in the code, people submit code changes (patches). When a bug has a fix that involves a change/removal of a certain graphic, people submit graphic changes (splash screen attachments). It is only logical. As a coder you should understand logic quite well, although it appears you, and others who have made similar comments, have missed this one. Is it an ego thing that bugzilla should only contain attachments of coding that the average Joe wouldn't understand, but now we have (usually) pretty graphics? Or is it that you guys truely are blind to certain logic? I really hope you guys aren't arrogant enough for the former to be true, but I sense that it is.
Comment 286•22 years ago
|
||
Removing self from CC Derek Petersen (&others): While patches are small and usually one or a few of them do fix the problem for good, the images are large and do not fix the problem here (legal issues). And even if the legal issues were resolved (which they should have been) one or a few images are not the fix since there is nothing that guarantees anybody but the author likes the image. Although I value the effort of poeple who created the splashes I think they should not be placed here. Imagine how large the bugzilla database would be if any splashscreen ever created for Mozilla would be stored there.
Comment 287•22 years ago
|
||
WHY do people continue to accept that this bug has any dependencies whatsoever? The existing splash breaks copyright 3 times and style rules about 100 times. We could pick ANY splash in this list, even if you think they are ALL bad, and it would be a major, major upgrade both in terms of legal liability and professionalism. ***FACT 1*** The current splash is a problem - keeping it until drivers are ready to replace it isn't an option. We don't need to be pedantic about the wording of it; truthfully this bug would be SOLVED by deleting the splash. This would satisfy almost everyone, not least the lawyers of Toho, Netscape etc. It is also ridiculous to suggest that posting images here is not a valid way to fix the bug. Maybe kerz et al., would be happier if someone wrote a splash in C? splash_bitmap[] = 10010010010010010... "Imagine how large the bugzilla database would be if any splashscreen ever created for Mozilla would be stored there." Sure, imagine that, it might wind up 10 mb in size! Oh no! ***FACT 2*** This is the right place for splashes to be posted. You are all right to suggest that drivers should pick, or design, a splash which doesn't break copyright laws and style rules. WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT YET??? *** FACT 3*** The reason this bug is broken is because of drivers, not because of testers, artists and people who are writing comm.. er, spamming, here.
Comment 288•22 years ago
|
||
WHY do people continue to accept that this bug has any dependencies whatsoever? The existing splash breaks copyright 3 times and style rules about 100 times. We could pick ANY splash in this list, even if you think they are ALL bad, and it would be a major, major upgrade both in terms of legal liability and professionalism. ***FACT 1*** The current splash is a problem - keeping it until drivers are ready to replace it isn't an option. We don't need to be pedantic about the wording of it; truthfully this bug would be SOLVED by deleting the splash. This would satisfy almost everyone, not least the lawyers of Toho, Netscape etc. It is also ridiculous to suggest that posting images here is not a valid way to fix the bug. Maybe kerz et al., would be happier if someone wrote a splash in C? splash_bitmap[] = 10010010010010010... "Imagine how large the bugzilla database would be if any splashscreen ever created for Mozilla would be stored there." Sure, imagine that, it might wind up 10 mb in size! Oh no! ***FACT 2*** This is the right place for splashes to be posted. You are all right to suggest that drivers should pick, or design, a splash which doesn't break copyright laws and style rules. WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT YET??? *** FACT 3*** The reason this bug is broken is because of drivers, not because of testers, artists and people who are writing comm.. er, spamming, here.
Comment 289•22 years ago
|
||
reopening to change resolution.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
Comment 290•22 years ago
|
||
resolving as WONTFIX. for explanations see above.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Comment 291•22 years ago
|
||
To change the "resolution" to WONTFIX is a wise decision, but still not a _good solution_! Imho, you guys (whoever) simply underestimate the (negative) "psychological" effect of this feature (in its present "incarnation")! Actually..., its mere existence (and your constant resistance to change it, even after being confronted with considerable public interest in doing so) says A LOT about the people "behind" Mozilla (and their relation to the public)! In fact, it doesn't help to gain any confidence concerning the project. How about taking people serious who actually use Mozilla (and TRY to contribute something with giving feedback)? F.
Comment 293•21 years ago
|
||
"Asa has a simple one done by Kerz - just the plain name "Mozilla" in Revolution font on a plain background. No trademark issues. Asa to send it to Gerv, to arrange for checkin." - 2003-02-19 Mozilla staff meeting minutes, available at <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E5AB326.402%40mozilla.org&output=gplain>
Comment 294•21 years ago
|
||
I created this one and have been using it for a couple of months now, and it still doesn't bore me...
Comment 295•21 years ago
|
||
It's a picture test, if you like it, i can make others one. I've done it quickly. And when i done this picture, it was because i didn't found many soft splashscreen (for professionnal use in some company). I hope you like it.
Comment 296•21 years ago
|
||
It's a picture test, if you like it, i can make others one. I've done it quickly. And when i done this picture, it was because i didn't found many soft splashscreen (for professionnal use in some company). I hope you like it.
Attachment #117264 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 297•21 years ago
|
||
Soft splashscreen is very nice. Good work :)
Comment 298•21 years ago
|
||
The blue sky version, for gray/modern
Comment 299•21 years ago
|
||
The blue ocean version, for blue theme
Comment 300•21 years ago
|
||
300 comments and this bug is not fixed yet.... Attention needs to be put elsewhere to fix bugs.
Updated•21 years ago
|
Whiteboard: DO NOT SPAM → DO NOT POST MORE SPLASHES! DO NOT SPAM!
Assignee | ||
Comment 301•21 years ago
|
||
This has been fixed. Stop posting splashes already.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 302•21 years ago
|
||
Yes, I'm duping against a much newer bug. You guys trashed this one and made it useless. This is fixed. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 194291 ***
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago → 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Comment 303•21 years ago
|
||
Verifying per the fact it was already four time verified fixed/wontfix/invalid. We didn't have a duplicate, yet!
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 304•21 years ago
|
||
So we must stop to post splash screen or there is an other way to propose to mozilla team some splash screen? Thanks for your help. Théome.
Comment 305•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 306•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #294) > Created an attachment (id=116259) > A simple small elegant professional splashscreen > > I created this one and have been using it for a couple of months now, and it > still doesn't bore me... http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/653647/ even though it took me abour 5 mins to make, cribbing my work and pushing a few of the pixels around != creating. just posted for posterity. thanks guys.
Comment 307•20 years ago
|
||
I'm so off this thread...
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•