Netscape Comments on Beta
Tuesday February 15th, 2000
A reader named "(if)" has for us a piece from LinuxToday on Netcenter's growing member base. The interesting part of the piece, however, is Netcenter's Senior Vice President and General Manager Jim Martin stating that the beta will be coming out within 60 days. You probably knew that already, but it's interesting that they're starting to talk more openly about it now. You should also note that they're not "releasing" a product as was reported elsewhere.
#1 Not releasing a product? Huh?
Wednesday February 16th, 2000 5:16 AM
What exactly do you mean by "not 'releasing' a product"?
#2 Not 'final' product as was implied elsewhere (n/t)
Wednesday February 16th, 2000 5:40 AM
#6 Re: Not 'final' product as was implied elsewhere (
Thursday February 17th, 2000 5:22 AM
So there won't be a Netscape Communicator 5.0 or whatever, is that right? So what's your average Joe Blow going to download and use? A nightly build?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand what this means.
Thursday February 17th, 2000 6:01 AM
They are going to be releasing a "beta" not a "final release" in spring.
#11 You don't think final could be out by June?
Thursday February 17th, 2000 10:09 AM
Not to defend CNET at all, but I still don't see why a final release couldn't come by late June. Once the beta's out it's all bug-quashing from there. That gives them about 2 months if beta comes out in April.
#13 Re: explanation
Thursday February 17th, 2000 6:59 PM
I thought you meant they weren't making a final release as in they were just making nightly builds. So you were correcting CNet? Right.
Wednesday February 16th, 2000 7:36 AM
Looks like m15 will be the new beta target.
#4 Re: m14/15
Wednesday February 16th, 2000 4:53 PM
Whee! I have an RFE http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21521 scheduled for M15, and it hasn't been pushed back. Maybe I'll see it in beta! <dances gleefully>
#5 "Spring" for final is quite possible
Wednesday February 16th, 2000 8:12 PM
To my knowledge the CNET stories have said 6.0 comes out this spring. Spring lasts until late June. I'm not seeing how this is a problem.
#8 Re: "Spring" for final is quite possible
Thursday February 17th, 2000 6:35 AM
I wouldn't read-into anything C|Net says about mozilla.
#9 Re: Re: "Spring" for final is quite poss
Thursday February 17th, 2000 6:42 AM
If c-net is that inaccurate then why does Netscape use it for the Netcenter site?
#10 Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (n/t)
Thursday February 17th, 2000 7:44 AM
#12 Re: Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (n
Thursday February 17th, 2000 3:43 PM
Is it possible to explain that in other words? It seems to me that you just told me C-Net and Netcenter are not necessarily sharing in being exclusive and I am quite confused.
#14 Re: Re: Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusiv
Friday February 18th, 2000 7:56 AM
You stated, "If c-net is that inaccurate then why does Netscape use it for the Netcenter site?" It was obviously a rhetorical question; you implied that if CNet was inaccurate, Netcenter wouldn't use them.
And I stated that they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, by which I meant that CNet printing inaccuracies and Netcenter utilizing CNet's feed can both be occurring (one doesn't necessarily *not* occur because the other *is* occurring). Netcenter's use of CNet's feed does not imply that CNet's news is free from inaccuracies.
Friday February 18th, 2000 9:42 AM
I think I understand now. You thought I was saying C-Net is accurate because Netcenter uses it. I do not trust C-net any more than I trust Microsoft, AOL, or escaped convicts who try to get me alone with them.
I was not trying to imply that C-net is accurate because Netcenter uses it. I was asking why Netcenter would use a news service that is known to be horrible, especially one that often publishes inaccurate information about Netscape and Mozilla.
#16 Ah, now I have no answer for that. :-) (n/t)
Friday February 18th, 2000 10:35 AM
#17 It's all irrelevent anyway
Friday February 18th, 2000 2:57 PM
The article was about a report written by someone who saw AOL's presentations. While CNET's coverage of Mozilla isn't always the greatest, with this article all they were doing is restating the report.
I also think you're overdoing the "CNET is inaccurate" thing. They were just picked up as an AP news source and I think overall they do okay, although sometimes their reporters tend to glaze over certain obvious angles, etc., and one in particular that covers Mozilla has annoyed us to no end.
Also, it looks like Netcenter is using CNN.com now.