Netscape 2001 reflects better changes that have been made. It has less or nothing in common with Navigator.

I don't mean to be flaming, but come on, if you're going to post something, why post something about BeZilla on a discussion for the news of a name? Really, that's stupid. Why don't you check the newsgroup out? Or ask on npm.general? You're much more likely to get an answer from them than from people expecting to discuss mozilla's name.

I have talked to a couple of the guys on the project a while back, and what they do is spurts of development as the main code base matures.

It would be a waste of time for them to come up with every M release for testing. I was suprised that they have not posted an alpha build, however.

Anyways, these guys have proven that they do a good job working in spurts on the project, so I have faith that they are going to keep up.

According to a post on n.p.m.beos: "We have development versions in the works based off M13. We keep fixing bugs."

As far as I can tell, the BeZilla team has been playing a catch-up job from the start. They were getting really close until Necko stopped things a bit. My guess is that 'BONE', the new Networking Environment for R5 would make things much easier in this area (as it finally allows things like sockets as file descriptors which makes porting unix based networking functions much easier... finally we can expect a *real* port of Perl!). I suppose the BeZilla team are using R5 betas now (at least I'm certain Duncan Wilcox would be, working for Be and all, but I don't know if he's got much time for BeZilla at this stage, he's probably working on R5 himself).

Once the BeZilla team catches-up completely I'm sure we can expectBeOS releases for all further milestones and I'm certain that with R5 freely available for download (and able to be run from Windows) more developers will have access to BeOS. So perhaps we can also expect nightly BeZilla builds too in the near future. I think this is one area where Be's decision to release R5 freely will really have some benefits.

"Either news.com has jumped the gun here or AOL is hiding something from us Mozilla folk."

Uh, I'll give you one guess...

Gecko is more or less complete, it just need some tweaks. The components that use Gecko (main browser, mail, etc) still needs most of the work.

I am guessing that AOL might be hiding something, but with no real reliable info for me to speculate further 8P

<:3)~~

Quite cool, actually. Enough of my brain is not dominated by binary operations that I know that PR is/was going to have a tough time spinning the browser. Standards compliance is a checkmark on businesspeople's list, only web developers care about it. Intergration with the OS (like IE) is a big ass deal to them, and they think it's important. Real geeks know it's not (or at least, IE's implementation isn't). Every standard that programmers have worked hard to support is going to look like this to business people: "Mozilla is compliant with W3C standards." That's it. No mention of the sweat that the developers went through. So I wanted to know what ways marketing would show off the browser that would make it look like it was something cool, and worth looking at and switching to. I don't, however, think that we should be making that large of an issue out of the fact that it can be easily customized. Who the hell cares? Real features should be touted. I think that Moz 7 (err whatever) will have a lot of geewiz type stuff like that.

It is a bit early, but maybe they are talking about a beta, but then I saw this:

"The new browser looks similar to Communicator 4.7, with some noticeable differences, according to Merrill Lynch analyst Henry Blodget, who attended the AOL briefing. " Would noticable differances include things like round buttons, a totally differant layout, new icons and not forgetting the new colours?

"Netscape 6.0's technology also will support AOL's moves onto non-PC devices, according to Bentley. AOL is trying to push its service onto PDAs, cell phones, TV set-top boxes and other remote products as a way to keep its customers on its services." Sounds like Mozilla to me, there has been loads of talk about putting Mozilla in set top boxes etc, and I guess it would work on a PDA.

Lemming

They said they weren't going to release it until spring/summer, and that's when final is scheduled for Mozilla, no? I mean, the beta's only a month or a bit more away. Once feature freeze comes about it's just bug squashing from there.

I agree, Netscape 1.0 would be very odd. However, Mozilla 1.0 (or Gecko 1.0 or FansySuperBrowser 1.0) wouldn't be. This reflects even better than Netscape 1.0 the fact that Mozilla is a truly new technology.

Your argument about scripts is sort of weak, though. All you'd have to do is what IE does, and report yourself as a 5.0 browser. (Though user agent request reading "Mozilla 5.0 (Compatible); Mozilla 1.0" would be a little odd...) or something to that extent. (Windows 95 identifies itself to programs as 4.0, for example, and IIRC 98 identifies itself as 4.1, so it's not like this is a new or untried idea.)

By the time the darn thing is released (by then I hope to be using Linux somewhat regularily) people will get used that retarded name and think it's the best and only operating system on the face of the Earth 8P

<:3)~~

I think names like Windows ME have the same purpose as names like My Netscape, My AOL, My Yahoo and Yourware. I guess they are supposed to make people feel like they have a personal tie to whatever the service is. How could I not use AOL if it is mine? How could I not use Windows if it is "Me"?

(n/t)

Die Microsoft

Not to nitpick, but I believe that news.com was right about that point. The article said, "Communicator 5.0 is based on Gecko, the Communicator browsing engine responsible for rendering graphics and text. In addition, it uses Extensible User Interface Language (XUL), a new technology for creating the user interface with Web programming languages rather than computer coding languages."

See Dave Hyatt's <A href="http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulrdf.htm">XUL and RDF: The Implementation of the Application Object Model</A>, 3rd paragraph.

BTW, I don't have a problem with MozClassic being designated stand-in for Netscape 5 and calling this spring's release 6.0 -- just get the sucker out there before IE 6 comes out.