MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Astounding Comments From the WSP

Thursday July 20th, 2000

The WSP (Web Standards Project) now states that it is interested in released products more than compliance, and has released one of the most astounding pieces of work I have seen come out of their office.

The WaSP, a pseudonym which speaks for the whole WSP (or at least its leaders) has written a piece taking Netscape to task for failing to produce a browser in the allotted time limit. Click "Full Article..." below to read my response. For the record, I am not an employee of Netscape.


#1 Is it just me....

by FrodoB

Friday July 21st, 2000 10:26 AM

Reply to this message

Is it just me, or is WaSP entirely composed of people who've never written anything other than HTML (and related standards)? Do they not realize that it takes a while to rewrite a browser from the ground up, when a community has 1/1000th the manpower of the competitor?

Or do they just expect someone to be able to write a bug-free IE killer in 2 weeks?

#7 Re: Is it just me....

by marm

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:12 AM

Reply to this message

No, it's not just you. The Web Standards Project is rapidly losing my respect as an organisation that actually means anything - it has been blunted by a wish to appear non-partisan, and, more importantly, a fundamental non-understanding of the issues involved in getting an extremely complex piece of software standards-compliant and released. I think this is something even IE developers must feel, given the scathing attacks on IE5.5, and I suspect this rant about the non-releasedness of mozilla is essentially a toned-down mix of emails received by the WSP from microserfs enraged by the treatment of IE5.5 they got and the implied praise of the non-released mozilla.

So, my opinion is this: Stuff the Web Standards Project and their ramblings. Mozilla committed to producing a standards-compliant, stable, fast, reliable browser. That ethos should stay, no matter how long it takes, because those are the defining features of a good browser, and no-one else has achieved that yet.

As for Netscape continuing to keep NS4.x alive... well, maybe the WSP do have a point ;)

#33 Re: Is it just me....

by Zelphyr

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

It sure does take long time! It took the original team of Netscape developers (which was pretty a small group itself at the time) all of less than a year to put out the first release. Granted it didn't have nearly as many "features" (see: useless buttons) as current versions have.

How long has Mozilla been going? Almost 4 years now. FOUR YEARS!!!!

I think the issue here is, why is development continuing *at all* on the 4.x version? Why not devote EVERY SINGLE RESOURCE AVAILABLE to making Mozilla production ready?

What seems to be lost in all the din here is that the browser is a major key to the ongoing success of Linux. If Internet Explorer becomes the de-facto standard browser then nobody is going to develop for Linux anymore.

I'm personally watching with anticipation at the Konquerer project. They have what appears to be a very robust browser component and to my knowledge it hasn't taken them 3 1/2 years to build it.

#36 Re: Re: Is it just me....

by FrodoB

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:45 PM

Reply to this message

It's been less than two years. NGLayout was promoted to a key role (and MozClassic scrapped) in October, 1998. Heck, it's only been about 3 years since 4.0 (not the bug fixes) came out; certainly not four years.

#93 Re: Is it just me....

by cavedoni

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, but if it has "1/1000th the manpower of the competitor" why don't invest in manpower, since AOL is not a poor company? I'm a Mozilla fan but I downloaded one of the latest nightly builds of M17 and it was really unusable.

Volunteering is good, open source is good but what about *paying* some more people to help ship an usable browser quick?

I'm no programmer so don't flame me :)

#159 Re: Re: Is it just me....

by kperrier

Monday July 24th, 2000 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

>I'm a Mozilla fan but I downloaded one >of the latest nightly builds of M17 and >it was really unusable.

Uh, which part of the disclaimer didn't you understand?

Kent

#162 Define "unusable"

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:26 PM

Reply to this message

Do you mean it formatted your hard drive?

Crash OS?

Crash itself?

Freeze?

behaving weird?

doing everything at its own pace, which happen to be slower that what you whould define as "usable"?

#182 Re: Define "unusable"

by cavedoni

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 4:11 PM

Reply to this message

No, I did not have to format my hard drive but what about not being able to write on the location toolbar? That happened to me both with M16 and with a nightly M17. Both of them crashed and freezed many times and totally screwed up some sites (alphanumerica.com, for example).

This is "not usable" :)

#183 Re: Re: Define "unusable"

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 5:49 PM

Reply to this message

> not being able to write on the location toolbar?

yeah I hate that bug too.

> Both of them crashed and freezed many times and totally screwed up some sites (alphanumerica.com, for example).

the recent nightly builds seem to hardly crash and freeze. In the last build I downloaded, alphanumerica.com seems fine. Are you helping in QA? If not, mind letting me know which sites are causing problems for Moz? I'd love to verify/check for dups/file bugs.

#189 Re: Re: Re: Define "unusable"

by cavedoni

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 1:16 PM

Reply to this message

the last nighly I've been playing with is build 2000070120. Right now I've verified alphanumerica.com and it looks just fine. Another site that was giving problems was (!) phpbuilder.com. Right now I'm trying to reproduce the conditions in which I've seen those bugs 'cause I see that they are not systematic.

My next move will be: - download a newer build - check for that bug

If I found something worth reporting I'll let you know, thanks for asking :)

(BTW, I subscribed to BugAThon last week but there were no testcase to be made, I'll try to help in the future which is the main thing everybody complaining about Mozilla should start doing :)

#94 Re: Is it just me....

by cavedoni

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, but if it has "1/1000th the manpower of the competitor" why don't invest in manpower, since AOL is not a poor company? I'm a Mozilla fan but I downloaded one of the latest nightly builds of M17 and it was really unusable.

Volunteering is good, open source is good but what about *paying* some more people to help ship an usable browser quick?

I'm no programmer so don't flame me :)

#95 Re: Is it just me....

by cavedoni

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:27 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, but if it has "1/1000th the manpower of the competitor" why don't invest in manpower, since AOL is not a poor company? I'm a Mozilla fan but I downloaded one of the latest nightly builds of M17 and it was really unusable.

Volunteering is good, open source is good but what about *paying* some more people to help ship an usable browser quick?

I'm no programmer so don't flame me :)

#190 Netscape/Mozilla problems

by Zee

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 4:41 PM

Reply to this message

As a Java/VB/Delphi Developer, only recently have I had to tred the frustrating waters of Web Development -- and what a pain it is!! Netscape SUCKS!! Can I say that again -- N E T S C A P E S U C K S!!! Ever see how each time you resize a Netscape window, it RE-LOADS the page, rather than just resize the screen and use Cached content, like IE does? it does the same when you click the back button to return to a page!!

Besides that, I'm SHOCKED at how incredibly frustrating doing SIMPLE HTML is, if one wants it to look the same on Netscape and IE! Simple things like Tables are easy to visualize on IE, whereas in Netscape, their behavious is not compliant with the spec!

With these little brats stop whining about how Mozilla/Netscape shouldn't be slapped on the buttocks, and get Mozilla out! There are still so many bugs in Mozilla, that I'm surprised they dare to complain! Apparently, Mozilla is supposed to be out this year sometime -- GOOD LUCK!!

My $.02

#2 Arrrgh!

by Tekhir

Friday July 21st, 2000 10:46 AM

Reply to this message

I better not write too much or else I'll be banned for excessive use of foul language. All I can say is that WSP should shove their little article right where the sun don't shine. not only are the complaining about Mozilla being late, which they caused when they complained about standards compliance, they also want Netscape to forget its current customer base. No company forgets its customer base, thats all they have to live on.

#98 Re: Arrrgh!

by localman

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:42 PM

Reply to this message

Their letter is accurate to the market and the web user. You don't have to like it, but they are speaking the truth. It hurts. No matter what grand plans there are, Netscape (not Mozilla) should have made this happen faster. Money and featre stripping would have helped. They could have released the worlds first standards compliant browser a year ago if they had temporarily dropped the rest of the communicator baggage.

#3 software schedules

by sdm

Friday July 21st, 2000 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

Two years is actually just about average to write a large-scale application. What was the time between linux kernel 1.0 and 2.0? (2 years). Between 2.0 and 2.2? (2-1/2 years). Between NT4 and Windows2000? Between IE3 and IE4? you get my point.

#9 Re: software schedules

by FrodoB

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:18 AM

Reply to this message

And add to that the fact that all of those were building on previously-existing code, whereas Mozilla, for the most part (sans the few parts of 4.5+ that have been ported and rewritten), is not.

#14 Re: software schedules

by Hard_Code

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:57 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, but hasn't it been *4* years? Since 1996 right...? That is a *damn* long time to wait for Netscape to put out a competing product. I understand the Mozilla project, but I also understand internet users doubling every year having only IE as a viable option.

#37 Re: Re: software schedules

by FrodoB

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

Uh, 1998 was when Netscape was released for free, and March 1998 was when the source to MozClassic was released.

The current Mozilla took shape starting in about October of 1998.

2 years, not four. :)

(Heck, Netscape 3.0 came out in 1996. :) )

#49 Re: Re: software schedules

by Dan6992

Friday July 21st, 2000 4:48 PM

Reply to this message

The first release version of Netscape 4.0 was released in June of 1997! So even if they started developing the next version right away (which I doubt) it has only been three years. I do agree though that it is taking longer then I had hoped to get Mozilla finished, but I think it will be worth the wait.

Dan

#4 Frothing at the mouth

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 10:54 AM

Reply to this message

I sent my rant <http://lists.projectcool.…rds/2000-July/000347.html> to their mailing list :-)

#5 Monopoly My Ass

by mwasham

Friday July 21st, 2000 10:56 AM

Reply to this message

The reason Netscape is lagging is because V4 is a Peice of Shit. Nothing more nothing Less!

90% of all OEM Machines to this day STILL HAVE Netscape 4 Preinstalled on them. And guess what ? IE is MUCH MUCH MUCH Better!

I agree with you that WaSP is going overboard but blaming all of Netscapes pathetic failures on Microsoft is even more absurd. Quit your whining and get back to work.

#11 wrong

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

"90% of all OEM Machines to this day STILL HAVE Netscape 4 Preinstalled on them."

Fraid not, OEMs now do not ship Netscape unless the customer requests it, and only can do so up to 15% of the total. See the MS trial documentatation.

#66 macs

by doode

Friday July 21st, 2000 7:02 PM

Reply to this message

macs come with ns4,ie5,aohell...

#67 what the?

by doode

Friday July 21st, 2000 7:03 PM

Reply to this message

strange! that wasn't a reply to this message! hmm

#34 What are you talking about??

by uksi

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:29 PM

Reply to this message

Where did you get this statistic? Pardon my French, but are you on crack?

Over the past year, I've been providing tech support to people that bought new computers. It must've been luck, but I haven't seen A SINGLE new computer with any version of Netscape preinstalled!

An acquaintance of mine that holds a computer shop said that he has never preinstalled Netscape since Windows 98.

Buy a Gateway, buy a Dell PC? Do you see Netscape preinstalled there? Compaq? No, no and no.

Please, get your statistics right, or at least take a few hours to visit a bunch of computer shops in your area. You'll quickly drop the "90%" thought.

#96 Absolutely agreed

by astro_bdw <astro@disturbance.dhs.org>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

Just a quick note to say that, as a director at a company solely focused on multi-tier web development, I wish NN 4.x would just disappear. Developing for IE is much more straightforward, and yes, IE 4+ browsers are far more standards compliant.

Note too that this is a very serious issue for me as I am primarily a Linux user. If at all possible, I use KFM (KDE's builtin browser) instead of firing up the bloated mass that is Netscape at this point.

I must say, too, and this will open me up to great criticism, that I am NOT a fan of the current Mozilla direction - while it may be more standards-compliant in terms of rendering, I think it's clear that there is no professional UI expertise on the team. It is simply one of the most counter-intuitive interfaces (stacked menu bars? sheesh) I've encountered since the Win3.1 days.

I've all but given up on Netscape and just hope for someone sensible to re-implement the gecko code in an application that makes sense.

Bryan White mailto:<astro@disturbance.dhs.org>

#55 Re: Monopoly My Ass

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:35 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know how true that statement is but I just purchased Sony Vaio laptop and it has NS 4.x preinstalled.

#87 Re: Monopoly My Ass

by dladiges

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 9:06 AM

Reply to this message

As a long time NN user, I finally made the switch to IE when I started fulltime as a web developer. Let me say that I have used NN from 2.0 on including almost every version of 4 from the prewiew to the 4.7x versions. And NN version 4 has always been disappointing. It may have been supported a few more standards, but it has been bloated, slow, and unstable. And some of the extensions in IE are exactly what web developers want. Since the version 4.0 browsers, Microsoft has done every thing right and Netscape just keeps upgrading the same old codebase. Now, let me mention that I have used almost every milestone release from the the first preview of Mozilla and download nightly builds usually about twice a week. I like the direction Mozilla is going and I would love to switch back to a Netscape product. But until then I will just have to contend with the more userfriendly, flexible, and stable implementation of a browser, IE 5.0 than have to go back to a browser that doesn't even support table background pictures in a manner that makes sense to a developer.

#187 Re: Monopoly My Ass

by jujifruit

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 9:20 AM

Reply to this message

I agree completely. Chris, you abdicated all personal responsibility and blame all NNs problems on Microsoft. Guess what? I was raised on Netscape but switched to MS because it does the things I need it to do. I try to make my code compliant for Netscape but it's so dang buggy I end up spending hours and guess who I blame? Microsoft? No! I blame Netscape. I reiterate the previous author's sentiment: quit whining and deal with *your* problems. Microsoft isn't your biggest problem or even your second biggest problem and when you accept some personal responsibility then perhaps I'll think about using your products again but I'm not holding my breath. Seems like you guys would rather whine than actually FIX things.

#6 Painful but necessary

by simonstl

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

The WSP has spent a lot of time crushed between Microsoft's "no commitment to standards, but shipping", and Mozilla's "firm commitment to standards, but not shipping".

While I thoroughly support Mozilla, and have incredible hopes for its success, I find it incredibly frustrating that we can't have 'just a browser that works' yet. I'd like to see _something_ ship for real, even if it's just a tiny tiny wrapper around Gecko. Focus on the browser, get it out the door, and then build the application platform to end all application platforms.

Or am I just dreaming?

#168 Galeon

by antoniod

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 4:50 AM

Reply to this message

There _is_ a wrapper for Gecko! It's called Galeon & I use it as my regular browser.

#169 Galeon

by antoniod

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 4:58 AM

Reply to this message

There _is_ a wrapper for Gecko! It's called Galeon & I use it as my regular browser.

#8 *geeeeeeeee*

by stoecker <stoecker@mindrevolution.de>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

what's going on??

is the WSP HQ somewhere where the temp is actually above 45C ????

*still puzzled*

#10 *geeeeeeeee*

by stoecker <stoecker@mindrevolution.de>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

what's going on??

is the WSP HQ somewhere where the temp is actually above 45C ????

*still puzzled*

#12 WSP = Whiny idiots

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've advocated that to some degree, shipping a browser should be a priority. I think that spending an extra six months to hash out those last two bugs in DOM1 (arbitrary) for instance has a modicum of diminishing returns. Is it worth those 2 bugs for the possible loss of impact the browser has?

Having said that, I find the WSP argument utter gibberish. All the argument boils down to is impatience. Yes, it's okay to be uneasy about waiting, NO Netscape shouldn't release NOW. The browser will get KILLED in the market if it comes out in its current form. It HAS to go through the proper optimization stages to be worth releasing. Honestly, I think PR1 was almost a mistake. The horrible ZDNET review on it made IDG Books actually pull Netscape 6 For Dummies. It was a forced beta, I think, that AOL needed for the launch at Internet World.

The current schedule should hold, I think, and they should not hold back the browser for a couple of non-important standards bugs (and I mean NON-important, if they are important, hold it).

And the argument that they should "pull Nav4" shows just how stupid this person really is. You don't "pull" a browser. The only way to kill a previous browser is to release a new one and convince people to upgrade. Jesus, who did they get to write this, one of the management's kids for a high-school project?

And of course they haven't taken into account the Internet appliance market, where IE will see no real growth whatsoever, unless WinCE becomes a monopoly over night (it would have to not suck to do that).

Chris, I agree with you completely. I think the WSP served its purpose and is now just trying to find things to bitch about.

#13 WSP's got a point, don't forget

by omm123 <omm@mozcom.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

I'm struck by the fact that no one has posted in favor of the WSP article. Perhaps if the points were retained and WSP didn't attack Netscape or the Mozilla developers, things would have been different.

The issue here is getting people (both developers and users) to support a standard (any standard). In this case, it's the standard agreed upon by the W3C body. Fine.

Any standard or technology, no matter how good it may be, will only flourish in the business world if enough people adopt it.

Ever wondered why Betamax lost the the VHS format? Or why Windows flourished and other OSes floundered? In both cases, we have competing technologies claimed by a group of our professional peers to be better.

Whether it was the intention of the Mozilla developers or not, a lot of people are frantically awaiting the fruition of Mozilla's promise because they've bet the whole farm on it.

It may not be the Mozilla developers' objective to deliver a product at anyone else's time but their own, but don't be surprised to find even your staunchest supporters gone cause it's a give and take world out there and what people need most and can't afford to give is time.

#111 Re: WSP's got a point, don't forget

by thelem

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 5:08 PM

Reply to this message

I agree 100% with what you are saying. I sense a bit of "Mozilla.org can't do anything wrong, Microsoft can't do anything right". I have even seen people saying that because Microsoft included a feature in IE (the sidebar I think) it shouldn't be included in Mozilla. Go figure.

Had the WaSP released that article as soon as mozilla.org was founded, I would have supported them. But now we are near a release, so there is not much anyone can do.

IMO the biggest mistake Mozilla.org made (after not starting Gecko much earlier) was not releasing Classic. Had classic been released, there would have been no 4.5 (or 4.6 or 4.7) and a much more standards compliant browser. It may even have made migration of Mozilla that bit easier (I mean, no one would be using layers etc).

Lemming

#130 Umm....

by FrodoB

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

Classic didn't use Gecko. In fact, Classic's standards support was barely above that of 4.x. Classic would've just replaced 4.x with a prettier interface and a few more features.

#15 Monopoly My Ass

by mwasham

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:04 PM

Reply to this message

The reason Netscape is lagging is because V4 is a Peice of Shit. Nothing more nothing Less!

90% of all OEM Machines to this day STILL HAVE Netscape 4 Preinstalled on them. And guess what ? IE is MUCH MUCH MUCH Better!

I agree with you that WaSP is going overboard but blaming all of Netscapes pathetic failures on Microsoft is even more absurd. Quit your whining and get back to work.

#63 You already posted this (n/t)

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:35 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#16 hate to say it but the WSP is right

by mfaine

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:17 PM

Reply to this message

After reading the article I have to agree, Standards compliance is important but not if there is no product. By the time Netscape 6 comes out IE will be on version 7 and have nearly 100% of market share. The author is also correct in asking for that piece o' crap netscape 4.x to be stripped of it's browsing rights.

-Mark

#22 Wrong

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:35 PM

Reply to this message

"By the time Netscape 6 comes out IE will be on version 7"

Whatever. N6 will be out this year, before IE 6, which likely will not come out til early next year, a year after 5.

"The author is also correct in asking for that piece o' crap netscape 4.x to be stripped of it's browsing rights."

No, the author is an idiot for thinking it's possible. No one's stripping ME of 4.x until 6 comes out.

#180 Yes, you are wrong.

by Martyr

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

Funny. People keep judging NN 4.x by today's standards instead of yesterday's. Wonder how it would turn out in that light. Second, Microsoft will never have 100% market share, because if one person doesn't use it, then it doesn't have 100%. Fact is, there are plenty of people who either 1) refuse to use Microsoft garbage as much as possible, and yes it is possible, or 2) don't have IE for their platform, so they can't use it. In any case, 100% market share is...guess what, a monopoly, which brings Microsoft back into court.

#17 hate to say it but the WSP is right

by mfaine

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

After reading the article I have to agree, Standards compliance is important but not if there is no product. By the time Netscape 6 comes out IE will be on version 7 and have nearly 100% of market share. The author is also correct in asking for that piece o' crap netscape 4.x to be stripped of it's browsing rights.

-Mark

#18 Estimates?

by KiaserZohsay <kiaser_zohsay@hotmail.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

Remember, Open Source is not just about licencing, it's a whole development process, and the Mozilla team is on the bleeding edge, here. *No* *one* has ever tried an open project of this magnitude, so trying to "predict" how long anything will take is futile.

If anything, an open project will take longer to release a similarly complex piece of software, simply becease of the increased scrutiny that such a project receives. There simply can't be any "ship it by XXX whether it's ready or not" or "ship it now, patch it later" mentality, the process won't allow it.

In fact, the whole concept of a "release" gets fuzzy with open projects. I have been running Mozilla as my primary browser since M15, and Mozilla exclusively since M16. Anybody (and do mean anybody can run the installer builds) who wants a standards compliant browser can get one, and get get it now.

#23 Re: Estimates?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:39 PM

Reply to this message

The very idea that even had Netscape known how long it would take to get Mozilla done that they should have scrapped the idea is just stupidity.

Even if the author did have a small point that N6 needs to come out soon, he/she went completely the wrong route towards trying to prove that point. The whole article just reeks of incompetence and ignorance.

#19 It's the XUL, stupid

by ryampolsky <ryampols@cjds.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:21 PM

Reply to this message

Look, I agree that WSP is whining, and MS has killed the marketplace and all that.

But some of this has been brought on by Mozilla itself. Gecko's been in pretty good shape for a long time now, and I imagine that what's taking so long is getting the whole XUL-based wrapper up to speed.

The real issue is whether the Mozilla folks have just been too ambitious with their feature set. The WSP folks want a standards-compliant browser. Whether the world needs a massively scriptable cross-platform GUI development kit is another question.

Don't get me wrong. I personally believe that's just what the world needs (don't really know about the 'massively scriptable part', though). Still, I'm a great believer in taking a phased approach with polished, workable results at various points along the way.

Rather than lash out at critics, you might want to comment on why it was thought necessary to try to do it all at once.

#24 No, they deserve the lashing

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:42 PM

Reply to this message

Again, even if I can to some extent agree that the browser needs to come out soon, the author did a horrible job of trying to prove that point. It's just an ignorant article.

#64 XUL actually cuts dev time

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:38 PM

Reply to this message

...because the layout engine can be reused as the UI.

#20 Here's the point...

by dfy

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

<p> Here me out. WaSP doesn't seem to be blasting Mozilla or it's developers. They're echoing thoughts I've been having for a few weeks now, and been thinking a LOT about, since the Galeon browser was released. </p> <p> Netscape 4.x is a crap browser. Why can't Netscape take the mozilla 16M `kernel` and use visual C++ 6 to quickly slap together a GUI for it, and call it Netscape 5? It shouldn't take too much code tweaking to port it to MacOS and Linux after that. Then they can still do their Netscape 6, when the bugs are completely gone. A Netscape 5 like this, would put them on the playing field again (as well as be a MAJOR improvement over the 4.x), until Netscape 6 gets released. This would also give time for XUL to be perfected (I remember reading somewhere that XUL is still going through some changes). </p> <p> Do you know what I'm trying to say? Think about it. Any thoughts on this? I'm sure I've overlooked something... but I thought I'd bring my view to the table. </p> <br /> <br /> <p> just so you don't write me off as someone who knows absolutely nothing about what I'm saying (tho, i'm certainly not claiming to be the best). </p> <p> <b>My background:</b> web design (html 2-4, xml 1, js, css 1-2, some DOM), web programming (php, perl, python, js), and some C/C++. I have used some visual editors, but I mainly use notepad or vi. I've been doing this for two years.. </p>

#82 Re: Here's the point...

by riddley

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:35 AM

Reply to this message

What's stopping YOU from doing that?

Also, I think you mean "Hear me out."

#112 Re: Here's the point...

by thelem

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

How about access to the Netscape 4.72 source? I believe what he was proposing was switching the Netscape 4 rendering engine with the Mozilla one, so you could keep the Netscape 4 gui until mozilla was finished.

Shame it wouldn't work.

#141 Why not?

by dfy

Monday July 24th, 2000 4:55 AM

Reply to this message

Why wouldn't it work? Doesn't it make sense?

#140 Re: Re: Here's the point...

by dfy

Monday July 24th, 2000 4:54 AM

Reply to this message

I have *some* c/c++ skills... I'm still learning. Besides, I'm not very fond of using visual code editors...and I'd have NO idea how to market it or get it any attention. Then there's the argument that I'm not the one trying to keep *my* company from being forgotten...whereas, Netscape is. Besides, I'll just use Opera until something better is released for Windows (i like to use lynx in my linux). Sorry if I offended you. They were *just* my opinions ;)

#21 Regretful Agreement

by tellarhk

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

I hate to admit this, as I have always been an ardent Netscape supporter among my friends, who succumbed to using IE several months before I myself finally did.

Netscape 4.x is crap. The standards compliance is pathetic, the load times are frustrating, and the output that is compliant, just doesn't seem to be as smooth as what IE offers. Is IE's domination of the market due to the Microsoft monopoly? Yes and no. Yes, IE 4/5 has a -far- greater distribution network than Netscape, being on every Microsoft OS released since 98. Yes, Microsoft drove Netscape under by giving away the browser. But, no, Microsoft has gained at least my use, by actually working. I haven't had IE crash and take out my whole system in a month or two, the last time I tried to use Netscape 4.73, it hosed half my processes. Was it -definitely- only Netscape's fault, could it have been IE being bitchy? Possibly. End result is the same, IE winds up as a more stable product. And, sadly, a more standards compliant one.

The WSP's complaint isn't simply the fact the browser is late. It is a final gasp, a grasping out for some hold on the promised salvation. Like they wrote, Netscape was the product they touted as the best, the brightest, the purest. It is the releasing of all the tensions, the stress, and the hurt, incurred by what they see as salvation denied. What Netscape has produced so far, is unreliable, bulky, and just plain broken. I want Netscape 6. I want it finished, I want it done -right-. But with IE having an estimated 84 percent of the market now, Netscape is the one playing serious catchup. And I don't think, having seen what I have of Mozilla, that it's capable of doing it.

#113 Re: Regretful Agreement

by thelem

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

Please don't blame Netscape for taking the system down, it is not Netscape's fault. No application should be able to do that.

And with Win2k that is exactly what happens, the OS hasn't crashed since I installed it over a month ago.

Lemming

#25 I agree with everything said

by aengblom <aengblom@gwu.edu>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:42 PM

Reply to this message

I agree with everything said, but the mistakes were not made in 2000 or 1998, but in 1996/7, when Netscape Corp. failed to realize that Communicator would need a massive overhaul. Clearly, in order for Netscape to design and implement a program to meet standards and render quickly/efficiently/etc., the project (aka mozilla) needed to be well under developement while Navigator 4.0 was just being published. In Netscape's defense, no one could have imagined that Netscape's browser would be so out of date so quickly, so important to such a large number of people, and put in a head on battle against the Multi Billion dollar warchest/petty cash of Microsoft. Microsoft developed IE 1/2 (blah) 3 (not bad) (4 pretty good) (5 spectacular for the user). Very few companies can go head to head with MS and survive. But far fewer will survive when MS picks the battle. Netscape clearly was not developed with a long term view. Netscape sprinted to get their Communicator OUT OUT OUT! They sprinted, but now, when it suddenly became apparent that we're in a marathon and not the 100 meter dash, Netscape was out of breath and needed a complete overhaul.

Get the browser out folks, but it's been to long already to take the early entry advantage--sorry but we're stuck with getting the best browser possible :).

-Drew

But really we shouldn't have too much fear

Net Users: 400 million World : 6000 million :)

#26 Angry Letters

by misuba <misuba@gibberish.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:44 PM

Reply to this message

The WSP needs to learn (or remember) something simple that my parents taught me: when you're angry, write a letter. Then, write another draft to make sure you've said everything you want to say. Then, put it in an envelope, seal it, and DON'T SEND IT.

Words written in anger will be around long after the anger is gone, and this editorial was obviously written out of mere frustration and impatience. They will be kicking themselves for it in a month or so.

#27 Working Browser? HUH?!?

by kostya

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

<p>OK, say what you want, but here I go ...</p> <p>Working browser? Huh? Mozilla WORKS. Really. I should know because I've been forced to use it. Yep, I HAVE to use Mozilla. For some bizarre reason, Netscape 4.x will not run on my laptop. Something is wrong somewhere, but I don't know what. I found it easier to just use Mozilla.</p>

<p>So I install the PSM for Mozilla, and I get a pretty solid browser. Sure, it disappears every once and a while, but for the most part, it runs about 3 or 4 hours before it has any problems. Sure, I can't see java, but that is generally not a problem.</p>

<p>So, compared with Netscape 3 and early 4 stability, Mozilla (as of June) is pretty solid and feature rich. Download and try it. AS for me, I seem to have no choice (and I'm ok with that, since Mozilla is just getting better and better).</p>

#28 Leave it to me ...

by kostya

Friday July 21st, 2000 12:54 PM

Reply to this message

... to not read the instructions. I think I'll go by that big black RTFM mug from think geek :-)

#29 Wasted effort

by FattMattP

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:00 PM

Reply to this message

In the time that it took them to write that complaint, that contributed exactly zero to anything, they could have been using their 'vast' web standards knowledge to help create test cases for open bugs on the Mozilla project.

#30 Here's the point...

by dfy

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:11 PM

Reply to this message

<p> Here me out. WaSP doesn't seem to be blasting Mozilla or it's developers. They're echoing thoughts I've been having for a few weeks now, and been thinking a LOT about, since the Galeon browser was released. </p> <p> Netscape 4.x is a crap browser. Why can't Netscape take the mozilla 16M `kernel` and use visual C++ 6 to quickly slap together a GUI for it, and call it Netscape 5? It shouldn't take too much code tweaking to port it to MacOS and Linux after that. Then they can still do their Netscape 6, when the bugs are completely gone. A Netscape 5 like this, would put them on the playing field again (as well as be a MAJOR improvement over the 4.x), until Netscape 6 gets released. This would also give time for XUL to be perfected (I remember reading somewhere that XUL is still going through some changes). </p> <p> Do you know what I'm trying to say? Think about it. Any thoughts on this? I'm sure I've overlooked something... but I thought I'd bring my view to the table. </p> <br /> <br /> <p> just so you don't write me off as someone who knows absolutely nothing about what I'm saying (tho, i'm certainly not claiming to be the best). </p> <p> <b>My background:</b> web design (html 2-4, xml 1, js, css 1-2, some DOM), web programming (php, perl, python, js), and some C/C++. I have used some visual editors, but I mainly use notepad or vi. I've been doing this for two years.. </p>

#31 - Positive Spin -

by metacosm

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:16 PM

Reply to this message

I believe that this article has a good core, possibly said in the wrong way. I believe that if we do not create get a browser out soon, thier may be no market left to fight for. Remember, web developers are the key, right now, we (web developers) are forced to develop for IE, due to its strong market share. Every page we design for IE makes it harder for Mozilla to get in the door. I believe that Mozilla is a great product, and needs to be released as a 'browser' and nothing more than a 'browser' ASAP. Let the web developers have an excuse to develop stanards compliant pages. My boss literally says 'everyone' uses IE, and I have been advised NOT to develop standard pages. If we can get mozilla out, make it SMALL and FAST, people WILL use it. If you bloat it up, and refuse to release a useable product, it will die. I hope people can read that article and go 'yeah, maybe it has been too long' and attempt to release the 'core' component of mozilla wrapped in a light GUI according to the platform it is running on. But the time is now to release it, not in a year.

#62 Re: - Positive Spin -

by tny

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:17 PM

Reply to this message

You boss is a stupid ass. If you use all the stuff that was supposed to be supported by IE 5.0 according to the early publicity, your pages would be unreadable. The only safe way to design pages is to design standard pages.

That said, face it: folks are just frustrated at how long Mozilla is taking. Some of this is due to the nature of open source development: developers in an open source environment develop for themselves and other developers, not for mere users. Thus you have a Moz IRC client.

#179 Re: Re: - Positive Spin -

by Dan6992

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

"Some of this is due to the nature of open source development: developers in an open source environment develop for themselves and other developers, not for mere users."

Plus open source developers only work when they have time. They are not bringing in a pay check for working on Mozilla like the internal developers are, so it's harder for them to justify devoting large portions of their time to Mozilla. If AOL wanted to get Mozilla out the door sooner they would need to devote many more paid developers to the project.

Dan

#32 Still Need Navigator for 16 bit OS

by nickdebord

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:19 PM

Reply to this message

I know Netscape Navigator 4.08 is out of date and not compliant, but I run 16 bit apps on WFWG 3.11. SO ditching Netscape 4.08 is NOT AN OPTION, unless of course, someone wants to port Mozilla to 16 bit.

IF ever Mozilla is perfected, I promise to upgrade to WIN 9x. In the meantime, I'll stick to Netscape (standalone) Navigator 4.08 and Pegasus and never worry about Active X or VSB.

Nick

#83 And a C=64 version too!

by riddley

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:40 AM

Reply to this message

Don't forget my 64k beast!

I wouldn't hold your breath man.

#177 Still Need Navigator for 16 bit OS

by nickdebord

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 2:07 PM

Reply to this message

Aside from RealPlayer and MP3, I don't need any of the "benefits" of WIN9x.

Seriously, hardware limitations make running anything newer painful.

And I take cash donations. One hundred dollar bills only, please. ;-)

#153 Re: Still Need Navigator for 16 bit OS

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:56 AM

Reply to this message

DUDE.. I've heard rumors about people like you. So its really true, you accually still run 3.11 as your primary operating system. So, tell me what has motivated you?? What type of computer do you run, and what mailing address can we send donations too :)

#35 ack

by arielb

Friday July 21st, 2000 1:29 PM

Reply to this message

if it wasn't for the WSP, Netscape 5 would've shipped already. Instead Netscape decided to listen to the WSP Petition, scrapped NS5 for NS6 with the gecko engine and they have the nerve to complain? Write some code before complaining

#135 Re: ack

by Luddite

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 8:15 PM

Reply to this message

Once AOL bought Netscape the handwriting was on the wall. AOL doesn't give a damn about the browser on PCs.

Which is a shame since only Mozilla (or some completely standards browser [sans e-mail and page constructor]) can prevent mostly/total Windows-only networks.

AOL's actions or nonactions speak louder than open source advocates IMHO.

#137 nonsense

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 1:03 AM

Reply to this message

Like they were going to push 4.x? Sure, okay. NOT! Wait until 6 comes out. Until then you don't have an argument. They've been waiting for TWO YEARS on this product. Why you think they would push 4.x, which Netscape itself treats as a walking corpse, is beyond me.

#161 Pleeeease

by Luddite

Monday July 24th, 2000 6:40 PM

Reply to this message

"Wait until 6 comes out."

I've been hearing (and saying until recently) this for 2 years.

And I am not referring to AOL pushing Netscape 4, but Mozilla. If AOL wanted Mozilla out they'd have let the open source people work on the *browser* and let the e-mail and web page maker, IM etc either wait or move it to other paid developers.

I want a friggin' browser not an independent app that is really a web platform.

Mindless conformity and excuses no longer are god enough for me.

#164 Then go away

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 10:41 PM

Reply to this message

I'm sick of hearing all this whining about "just the browser" yada, yada, yada. You don't like Mozilla as a platform, go use IE. Whining won't change a damned thing.

#165 Re: Then go away

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

Kovu,

While not really relevant to your just prior post... I respect you greatly for your 'Back the Amiga Cause' agenda... but you do need to wake up to a few facts that are, more often than not, overlooked by the folks wearing the same style of boot as you.

I'll refer you to an article written by some folks that certainly have no 'love of Microsoft'...

<http://www.radsoft.net/re…ources/rants/20000628.htm>

You have got to drop the 'Mozilla can do no wrong' kinda attitude.

The users are the ones that will dictate the success of Mozilla... not what the Moz developers, web developers, etc... think.

-B

#172 Re: Re: Then go away

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 8:34 AM

Reply to this message

Look, no matter what arguments you've come up with, the fact of the matter is, Moz is more than a browser AND IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Whining about doesn't do ANYBODY any good, and it certainly won't change the last two years of work, period.

#171 re: IE

by dash2

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 6:32 AM

Reply to this message

>I'm sick of hearing all this whining >about "just the browser" yada, yada, >yada. You don't like Mozilla as a >platform, go use IE. Whining won't >change a damned thing.

ER, gee, that's what 86% of web users are doing. Maybe you don't care about that but the WSP quite rightly does.

#173 So go use it

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 8:36 AM

Reply to this message

WSP is useless at this point. Their article is just whining about being impatient. And in case you didn't know, Netscape 6 has a browser-only option.

#38 Face Reality

by drewsine

Friday July 21st, 2000 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

Development by commitee does not work for large projects unless there's no competition on the target platform. Microsoft like it or not delivers (Albeit not perfect) good products relitively quickly. Also, why is IE the best browser for the MAC. ***WHERE IS MS's MONOPOLY/TYING TO OPERATING ANDVANTAGES ON THE MAC PLATFORM.*** Business leaders are starting to wake up to reality. Deliver now or die.

#39 Face Reality

by drewsine

Friday July 21st, 2000 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Development by commitee does not work for large projects unless there's no competition on the target platform. Microsoft like it or not delivers (Albeit not perfect) good products relitively quickly. Also, why is IE the best browser for the MAC. ***WHERE IS MS's MONOPOLY/TYING TO OPERATING ANDVANTAGES ON THE MAC PLATFORM.*** Business leaders are starting to wake up to reality. Deliver now or die.

#40 Re: Face Reality

by FrodoB

Friday July 21st, 2000 2:29 PM

Reply to this message

IE is the leading browser on the Mac for two reasons.

1) Apple and Microsoft's agreement in 1997 guaranteed development of Office and related products in exchange for making IE the default browser in MacOS. The fact that Netscape still comes on the MacOS CDs is a testament to just how healthy Apple is now, because they don't have to succumb to one of Microsoft's deadend licensing deals that prohibits distributing Netscape (which Windows OEM companies are just now starting to lash out against).

2) For some reason, Microsoft and Apple's joint IE for Mac development team seems to understand the Mac and the Web better than the IE for Windows team understands Windows and the Web. IE for Mac is light years ahead of IE for Windows in terms of the sorts of stuff people want from Mozilla. In fact, most of Microsoft's Mac offerings are now better than their Windows counterparts, because they actually feel like Mac applications for the most part, while Microsoft's Windows offerings constantly redefine look'n'feel.

Honestly, I'll be surprised to see Mozilla win on the Mac, given IE 5. It would be the height of irony if IE lost on Windows but won on Mac. :)

#41 the real problem...

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

...as someone else mentioned, is XUL. Very interesting technology indeed! - for Netscape 7 maybe. Right now it is bogging down both Mozilla and the Mozilla project as a whole. Almost every major bug I've seen in the last few months in the nightly builds, including the menu display problems of this week, have been XUL related display problems. Not only that, but XUL also seems to be responsible for most of Mozilla's performance woes. Gecko seems reasonably fast and solid to me, but since it must do double duty in laying out both the web page AND toolbars, menus, etc., it has become terribly slow. The article about the Galeon web browser from earlier this week convinced me - at long last - that we a need native interface and GECKO. How long would it take to implement that? I have no idea. But probably not as long as trying to work all of the bugs out of XUL. XUL is good technology, and I'm sure it can be done right, but PLEASE - it's not worth it. For now.

#45 A red herring

by mozineAdmin

Friday July 21st, 2000 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

XUL is what is allowing Mozilla development on platforms other than Windows. Do you want Mozilla only for Windows? Because that's what you'd get if you got rid of XUL. This from the developers who are working on the program.

Tell me, do you really think that outside programmers would port Mozilla for Macintosh? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

#48 Re: A red herring

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 4:47 PM

Reply to this message

I understand the justification for XUL, and I've already said I believe it to be a good technology. I just don't believe that it's worth delaying Mozilla as much as it has and continues to do, even if it means that only a few platforms get the browser soon. Let's get it out on Windows, Linux (with either GTK, QT or both), and Macintosh. The other 1% of the world can wait for the XUL version. Besides, if a Linux version is provided, then presumably that means that FreeBSD, Solaris, and other Unix platforms that claim to be able to run Linux binaries will be taken care of as well.

#110 A sugestion

by drwho9437

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 4:53 PM

Reply to this message

The browser's core has been good for some time now I think. Netscape could branch and make a Windows version really quick that would be ok but I think that it is really better to wait. We have waited 2 years what is a few more months. The people who still use netscape use it for some very good reason. At this point I do not see any reason the think that market share will fall anylower (except by new PC buyers). And also Christmas is just around the corner most people after say Augest if they are thinking about getting a computer will wait until then so as long as Netscape 6 is out by then I do not see a problem. Stick to the plan I think, the grass is always greener on the other side and you don't change which path you will take when climbing a mountain just because it looks better from afar.

#52 Re: A red herring

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:24 PM

Reply to this message

That is pure bologna... native UI's are a snap to make... a breeze... a piece of cake... no problemo!!!

-Bruce

#54 Re: Re: A red herring

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

Well then what happened to yours?

#56 Re: Re: Re: A red herring

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:36 PM

Reply to this message

Just to clarify... are you referring to NavigatorX?

-B

#59 Re: Re: Re: A red herring

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:05 PM

Reply to this message

Well, I'll just assume you're referring to NavigatorX since it was the only one directly related to Mozilla.

What happened? Nothing... nothing at all. I made a near-perfect clone of the Netscape 4.X UI that acted as a wrapper for Adam Locks AX Mozilla control.

The UI wasn't the problem... like I said before... native UI's are a piece of cake to make. In fact, much of the resources came right from NS4's own resdll.dll.

The problem was that the project was undertaken way before it's time. Mozilla was still way too buggy for NavigatorX to even be of any use... and it made further testing and development a real bitch, too. In addition, if I remember right, at the time there was no support for context menus within the browser space.

So... it was just put on the back burner indefinitley and told myyself I won't continue it until Moz is actually released.

The native UI though? Piece of cake...

-B

#65 Re: Re: Re: Re: A red herring

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:45 PM

Reply to this message

Sure, it's a piece of cake. But you were only writing it to run on one platform--Windows. If you had to write it for Mac, Linux, BeOS, Amiga, etc. as well, you'd find that it would take a lot more time. The APIs are radically different.

#68 Not true...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday July 21st, 2000 7:13 PM

Reply to this message

Native UI's are a piece of cake to write on any major platform... and a hell of a lot quicker than farting around with XUL... that is for sure.

#70 Re: Not true...

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:32 PM

Reply to this message

Then do it. Word on the street is that mozilla.org is accepting patches. I'll give you a list of platforms that Mozilla runs on, and you can code the ui for each one natively. And of course, because creating native UI's is so simple, you'd have all the features of the mozilla ui, and more... Good luck.

#101 Re: Re: Not true...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 1:55 PM

Reply to this message

I'd love to... but I'd only make a Windows version since that's all I use and know.

But hey... 90%+ of the market is pegged right there.

#195 Re: Re: Re: Not true...

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday July 28th, 2000 7:46 PM

Reply to this message

Well, since you only have experience with Windows, how can you say the other APIs are just as easy? Try X Windows (yeah I know Un*x-Moz uses GTK, but that's only a slight improvement).

#74 Re: Not true...

by Anon

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:25 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe in Visual Basic, but it's still a lot easier to 'write once, use anywhere' (oops).

#102 Re: Re: Not true...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

Visual Basic!

I wouldn't recommend using something like...

M$ Visual C++, Borland C++Builder, or even Borland Delphi for that matter... would produce much leaner and higher-performing code.

#80 Re: Not true...

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:25 AM

Reply to this message

I eagerly await your native wrapper. How about noting down the length of time it takes for you to develop it from scratch to having the same feature set as Mozilla?

#103 Re: Re: Not true...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Let me put it this way... it's so incredibly easy that when I put it on the back burner in awaiting a final release of mozilla... I didn't even bother saving the code.

As far as 'feature set'... the 'feature set' UI wise is that of Communicator 4.X which plenty of people like... including me.

In fact, I hear quite often that the main reason people still use Netscape 4... use it simply because they like it's UI.

#108 Re: Re: Re: Not true...

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

In some ways, Communicator 4.x has more features than Mozilla. I'd still be interested in knowing how long it takes you to do your wrapper when you do it. Keep us informed.

#115 Re: Re: Re: Re: Not true...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:42 PM

Reply to this message

Sure thing, Ben... In fact, I'll make a point of it. :)

And for the record, I certainly don't mean to downplay the significance or efforts required to develop a UI straight from scratch. On the contrary, a good solid and consistent UI requires a *lot* of time and effort to develop.

It's just in this case none of that applies. We're talking about the mere cloning of an existing tried and true user interface. I don't have to worry about the kinds of UI elements to use, what their function will be, the names/functions of the menus, ad infinitum. Even the bitmap resources such as button glyphs, folder icons, etc... I don't even have to worry about... they are already there and contained in resdll.dll.

In fact, the only thing that was really challenging about the whole thing was making clones of the non-standard UI elements, i.e, Toolbar Buttons, Collapsable Toolbar, etc... none of which already exist in, say, comctl32.dll.

I had used Delphi 3.02 at the time so I had to derive some new classes from TGraphicControl... and change the default vertical orientation of some bitmaps in resdll.dll to be horizontally oriented.

Anyways, I just wanted to clear that up... developing a completely new UI straight from scratch can be quite a task.

-B

#90 give it up, genius

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

We had this argument ages ago and you overwhelmingly lost, under about 8 different pseudonyms even, if I recall properly. XUL is the way Mozilla works, LIKE IT. You act just like a two-year old with this gibberish.

#104 Re: give it up, genius

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

Oh Kovu... no need to be mean.

Overwhelmingly lost, my ass... maybe in the eyes of the 'regulars' here... but whether you choose to believe it or not... or whether you want to accept it or not:

One of the *biggest* bitches on the web regarding Mozilla is it's *UI*... whether it be performance, look & feel, ad infinitum.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

#117 Once the UI is done, THEN complain

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 8:33 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry, that came off a bit bad, I just happen to think the UI is fine, and any issues you have with it will be taken care of in the next few months with optimization.

#122 Yeah, I'll chill, just the broken record thing n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#121 Re: Re: give it up, genius

by Tekhir

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 9:40 PM

Reply to this message

"One of the *biggest* bitches on the web regarding Mozilla is it's *UI*... whether it be performance, look & feel, ad infinitum."

Maybe people complain about the UI because they rest is so damn good.

BTW guys dont let this thread get out of hand. Its just a piece of software.

#131 Re: Re: Re: give it up, genius

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 2:37 PM

Reply to this message

"Maybe people complain about the UI because they rest is so damn good."

Right... and maybe they complained because there was a full moon.

I have to wonder, though, how many of those never really give the browsing engine itself a fair shake because of their initial bad first impression of the UI.

#136 your opinion

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 1:00 AM

Reply to this message

As a matter of fact, I've had people go "Wow!" looking both at Modern and Classic themes. Anyway, I refuse to get into this argument again. Anyway you have absolutely no ground to stand on until a real product is done.

#139 Re: your opinion

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 4:49 AM

Reply to this message

Oh Kovu!!

There's nothing to *argue* here... only something for a very small percentage of folks to *deny*.

But hey... I'm all for hoping the Mozilla.org folks make some serious changes from their current course before final release.

-B

#144 Re: Re: your opinion

by antony <antonym@optushome.com.au>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

Like, enough already. I don't know about everyone else but we all get your point, and frankly I (and I'm sure most other people) are fed up with your petty whining.

Go do something productive, or go elsewhere..

#145 Re: Re: Re: your opinion (2nd time lucky)..

by antony <antonym@optushome.com.au>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:34 AM

Reply to this message

Urgh, lemme try that again:

Like, enough already. I think I speak for most other people here in that we get your point, and we're sick of hearing it making up half the posts on this topic.

Go do something productive, or go elsewhere..

[There, I think that's a bit more coherent.. yuck. I need sleep.]

#148 Nice flame bait, again... (2nd time lucky)..

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:55 AM

Reply to this message

Oh please... why is it that 'Mozilla Advocates' are always the first to falter.

#149 Re: Nice flame bait, again... (2nd time lucky)..

by antony <antonym@optushome.com.au>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:18 AM

Reply to this message

Everyone falters. I'm just stressing over exams and greatly needing sleep. ;)

I just think the point has been made, both sides get the idea, it's time to move on instead of "beating a dead horse with a stick" as you so nicely put it. hehe.

#151 Re: Re: Nice flame bait, again... (2nd time lucky)

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:31 AM

Reply to this message

Fair enough...

Here's to hoping you ace your exams. :)

#146 Nice flame bait...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

If ya can't handle the heat... then ya best get out of the kitchen.

But... I will concede that there's no point in beating a dead horse with a stick.

#152 Keep waiting...better, hold your breath n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:50 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#79 Re: the real problem...

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

Before you point fingers, how about producing some numbers to back up your claims?

In most cases, performance issues have been traced to issues in core gecko and other places, rather than XUL itself.

#42 The real problem...

by edstrom

Friday July 21st, 2000 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe the real problem is that the standards committees are too greedy. All they have to do is dictate how things should work ideally. Maybe they should make an effort to stipulate standards more incrementally, with some care as to how much of a burden they are laying on the people who have to comply with these standards.

#43 WSP feeling threatened?

by Waldo

Friday July 21st, 2000 3:03 PM

Reply to this message

Browsers like Mozilla give WSP their relevency. They must feel pretty much ignored to write a letter like that.

W

#119 Yeah, d'ya think?

by ess

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 9:16 PM

Reply to this message

I agree. The continuing survival of the Web despite the absence of 100% compliant browsers makes them look pretty foolish, too.

Also supporting your point is the fact that they of course haven't produced anything useful in the "two whole years" they complain about in their acid-trip editorial. Practical expression of their picky ideology must come from others -- they are, as their inane demand that Nav 4.x be somehow magically removed from "the market" clearly shows, impractical by preference.

Here's another tack: the WSP's self-determined role is to shoot the wounded. They've tired of riddling the corpses of browsers past, and now demand a new target to snipe at.

The mindset behind the WSP editorial must make for an interesting family life: "You're worthless! I love you! You're pathetic! I need you!"

#44 sliver of sunshine

by pohl <pohl@screaming.org>

Friday July 21st, 2000 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

I just wanted to say, since this article is fairly depressing, that the i386-Linux daily build that I grabbed this morning is rock-freakin'-solid. I've been surfing and using its NNTP newsreader all day long with zero crashing or wierdness. I can even ALT-L to open a new location and the location textfield has focus automagically. Somebody lemme hear ya say 'Woo-HOO!'

#88 Re: sliver of sunshine

by dladiges

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 9:19 AM

Reply to this message

I have to agree there, I grabbed the wintel daily build on Friday and it was the first rock solid build I have used. Didn't crash at all, and had only minor problems with Composer and preferences.

#46 Just the browser...

by gillo

Friday July 21st, 2000 3:32 PM

Reply to this message

It's true.. people need a new, fast, compliant to standards, non-crashing browser. Gecko can do it! Instead the moz community, our community, is trying to devlop the ultimate Internet tool, which is a great idea! But people on the web don't need that now, they just want a replacement for IE (or maybe not)

I hope someone will listen and start taking out the right pieces for it, and, btw, I thing that the WSP critique was more directed to Netscape (as AOL) as opposed to Netscape (the open-source Mozilla project)

G

#77 Re: Just the browser...

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:21 AM

Reply to this message

> they just want a replacement for IE

You mean for NS4, and real compatition for IE.

#47 article note

by soybomb

Friday July 21st, 2000 4:14 PM

Reply to this message

"Even according to your piece, the masses don't know standards compliance from a hole in the ground."

But they do know a working browser from a broken one. If both browsers worked on the same HTML, the effect would be transparent. We could all write standards based code and no one would be the wiser. But when we do now, and NS 4 chokes beyond belief, then you have a problem. Not only with the average user, but with companies, agencies, their clients, and anyone else trying to make sites that work in all browsers. So when IE 5 does more things while breaking less then developing sites becomes an issue of making a "crippled" site for Navigator and an "enhanced" one of Explorer -- the same thing that causes a user base to shift in the first place. Which is what the WSP letter was about in the first place: The longer without Mozilla, the more the split increases, and if Mozilla fails in the end, it becomes an example of how web standards DON'T work, and that'll screw up the industry for years to come...

#50 They're right. Mostly.

by fougasse

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:09 PM

Reply to this message

OK, some of the things that the WSP says are silly. Taking Netscape 4.x off the market isn't a possibility, for several obvious reasons.

But many of their points make sense -- much more sense than the response here, at least. Can you honestly believe that IE's dominance over Netscape is a result of monopoly control exterminating an inferior product? Netscape 4 sucks, pure and simple. Its rendering engine is hopelessly buggy; its support for basic standards is awful; it uses proprietary and equally awful things (like LAYER) wherever possible. It's slow, the interface is clunky, and it crashes often. I use IE exclusively, and standards are in fact a main reason for my doing so.

Two years IS forever in computer terms. There's no argument there. And Microsoft has certainly not "coasted" after releasing version 4. (Are you saying, seriously, that the difference between IE 5.5 and 4.0 is the same as that between Netscape 4.72 and Netscape 4.0? The timeframe between the two is about the same.) IE 5.5's standards support is much better than 4's. Much. Sure, it isn't great, but if we're comparing it to Netscape, it's wonderful.

The area where you're not understanding the WSP is summed up here: "The WSP underestimated what it would take to produce a browser that could run on any of the major platforms, with a limited number of developers." It's the "limited numner of developers" that's the issue. The WSP is taking issue with the fact that AOL just ain't trying hard enough to get Mozilla out. AOL is not a struggling, cash-strapped startup. If getting a good browser out quickly was a priority, there would not be a limited number of developers.

Some other points: - Microsoft did not turn the browser into a revenue-less commodity. Yes, Netscape used to be shareware, but the evaluation versions were evaluation versions in name only: 99% of Netscape users never paid for it. Many didn't even know that they were supposed to. - A browser integrated into the shell is a useful feature. Yes, if Microsoft was motivated by kindness and altruism, they'd have designed it so that the rendering engine was a replaceable component. Hopefully the antitrust suit will force this to happen. But for evidence that integrated browsers are not monopolistic and useless but useful and essential, just look at the primary Linux desktops, built without a thought to monopoly: KDE and Gnome (2.0, admittedly).

The WSP is supporting standards-compliance. They've been supporting it for ages. They're angry at the fact that, after all these ages, Netscape has still not produced a usable, standards-compliant browser. (During the same time, Microsoft HAS done this with IE5/Mac, and Opera has come quite close.) Sure, the anger is a little extreme, but it's very much justified.

#61 They're silly. Mostly.

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:15 PM

Reply to this message

> OK, some of the things that the WSP says are silly.

Some? You are kidding right?

> Can you honestly believe that IE's dominance over Netscape is a result of monopoly control exterminating an inferior product? Netscape 4 sucks, pure and simple. Its rendering engine is hopelessly buggy; its support for basic standards is awful; it uses proprietary and equally awful things (like LAYER) wherever possible. It's slow, the interface is clunky, and it crashes often. I use IE exclusively, and standards are in fact a main reason for my doing so.

It may be your main reason for doing so, but for many, IE is used exclusively because it came with their OS, no, their Computer! NS4's standard compliance is terrible, but that is not why they have been loosing market share.

> Two years IS forever in computer terms. There's no argument there. And Microsoft has certainly not "coasted" after releasing version 4. (Are you saying, seriously, that the difference between IE 5.5 and 4.0 is the same as that between Netscape 4.72 and Netscape 4.0? The timeframe between the two is about the same.) IE 5.5's standards support is much better than 4's. Much. Sure, it isn't great, but if we're comparing it to Netscape, it's wonderful.

IE 4 was MS's browser rewrite, IE 5.5 is an upgraded IE 4. The difference is that IE4 / IE5 is more modular than NS4.

> The area where you're not understanding the WSP is summed up here: "The WSP underestimated what it would take to produce a browser that could run on any of the major platforms, with a limited number of developers." It's the "limited numner of developers" that's the issue. The WSP is taking issue with the fact that AOL just ain't trying hard enough to get Mozilla out. AOL is not a struggling, cash-strapped startup. If getting a good browser out quickly was a priority, there would not be a limited number of developers.

Blame AOL for limited number of developers? You're kidding me again? Mozilla.org's primary goal is, among others, to produce a standard compliant browser, AOL's primary goal is not. Another thing about this argument is that are you sure that having more developers on this project will really speed it up? Don't get me wrong, more developers will help, but does it nessasary speed up the development of the browser?

> Some other points: - Microsoft did not turn the browser into a revenue-less commodity. Yes, Netscape used to be shareware, but the evaluation versions were evaluation versions in name only: 99% of Netscape users never paid for it.

Many NS browsers were branded and distributed by ISPs. Those were paid versions.

> Many didn't even know that they were supposed to. - A browser integrated into the shell is a useful feature. Yes, if Microsoft was motivated by kindness and altruism, they'd have designed it so that the rendering engine was a replaceable component. Hopefully the antitrust suit will force this to happen. But for evidence that integrated browsers are not monopolistic and useless but useful and essential, just look at the primary Linux desktops, built without a thought to monopoly: KDE and Gnome (2.0, admittedly).

What are you talking about? We have no qualms about MS integrating IE into MSWin, just they did it in such a way that it cannot be removed.

> The WSP is supporting standards-compliance. They've been supporting it for ages. They're angry at the fact that, after all these ages, Netscape has still not produced a usable, standards-compliant browser. (During the same time, Microsoft HAS done this with IE5/Mac, and Opera has come quite close.) Sure, the anger is a little extreme, but it's very much justified.

Very true, NS has NS4 (usable but not standard compliant), and NS6 pr1 (standard compliant but not usable). So? I'm more surprised that AOL has not shutdown NS's client development department, but WSP getting all worked up over netscape not producing a product soon? LOL

#51 WaSP

by brobinson

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

I'm guessing the WaSP's community has started to like IE's proprietary features and would like Netscape to give up so they'll only have to code for IE and not have to worry about anything else.

#53 WaSP sux

by slm

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:26 PM

Reply to this message

...

#57 bah

by Ben_Goodger

Friday July 21st, 2000 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

Yes Netscape needs to ship a product.

But, if Netscape and Mozilla had chosen to ignore the WSP, it would have shipped a browser of competence comparable to Internet Explorer 5.0 last year.

#154 Yeah, RIGHT!

by leafdigital

Monday July 24th, 2000 10:20 AM

Reply to this message

You really think they could've shipped a version of Mozilla comparable to IE5, last year? Mozilla *still* isn't near IE5 on usability and end-user features. (It's getting there, but there's a long way to go.) Of course, on standards compliance, it's a little better, and the themes thing is cool, and being open source is neat (for me - I'm a programmer, most users don't and shouldn't give a damn about that).

Even if they'd abandoned XUL and built a native (Win32, possibly Mac) browser-only core for Gecko (which I do think would've been a good move for Netscape 5, perhaps it might even have been possible to reuse some of the Navigator 4.x UI code, but that needed to be done a year ago), I doubt it would have competed significantly with IE5 on a technical/UI level.

As for the article (which I didn't bother reading)... yawn. So Netscape and Mozilla are taking a long time to ship. Who cares, by this time there's nothing else that can be done - let's just be patient and wait for a proper release next year of a working, standards-compliant browser.

--sam

#58 IE has earned at least some of its share.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

I understand that IE comes prebundled with all Win98 systems. But it isn't fair to say that all of its market share came from preinstalled systems. I've switched from NS4.5 to IE5 simply because I grew sick & tired of NS crashing on regular basis, not displaying the pages properly, etc...

In addition, Netscape 4.x still comes with many systems - just take a look at the PCs at your local Circuit City.

As far as WSP insistense on removing NS4.x off the market, I understand that it is impractical for AOL. However, for me as a software developer and a web developer, it is a gigantic pain to write a page for IE and NS, just to find out that neither one works in Mozilla.

Anyways, what should have been done is this: the entire team should have worked on the layout engine (Gecko) and finished it. Then they could deal with issues like mail client, XUL, Chat Client, Cookie Manager and other stuff. This would allow 3rd party developers to write custom browsers based on Gecko. In fact, I did produce a small browser (based on Adam Locke's ActiveX control) that I used for a while. Unfortunately, the underlying engine was too buggy to be used. On top of it all, Mozilla team misled everyone when it placed engine completion to be at M9.

Anyhow, what's done is done. The team should now focus on squashing the remaining Gecko bugs as their highest priority and then deal with Netscape 6 Beta 2 issues (it is not a Netscape project, after all).

#60 IE has earned at least some of its share.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

I understand that IE comes prebundled with all Win98 systems. But it isn't fair to say that all of its market share came from preinstalled systems. I've switched from NS4.5 to IE5 simply because I grew sick & tired of NS crashing on regular basis, not displaying the pages properly, etc...

In addition, Netscape 4.x still comes with many systems - just take a look at the PCs at your local Circuit City.

As far as WSP insistense on removing NS4.x off the market, I understand that it is impractical for AOL. However, for me as a software developer and a web developer, it is a gigantic pain to write a page for IE and NS, just to find out that neither one works in Mozilla.

Anyways, what should have been done is this: the entire team should have worked on the layout engine (Gecko) and finished it. Then they could deal with issues like mail client, XUL, Chat Client, Cookie Manager and other stuff. This would allow 3rd party developers to write custom browsers based on Gecko. In fact, I did produce a small browser (based on Adam Locke's ActiveX control) that I used for a while. Unfortunately, the underlying engine was too buggy to be used. On top of it all, Mozilla team misled everyone when it placed engine completion to be at M9.

Anyhow, what's done is done. The team should now focus on squashing the remaining Gecko bugs as their highest priority and then deal with Netscape 6 Beta 2 issues (it is not a Netscape project, after all).

#69 8 years in 2

by drwho9437

Friday July 21st, 2000 9:54 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is doing to work of 8+ years in two years. Once it is out I think a large part of the market share will come back, these are the days of 1+ GB mp3 collections if it turns out better than IE in the end people will download an 8 MB browser. The comment about 'if we had know it would take 2 years...' if you had known what would you have done switched to IE start another browser, what absoutly nuts. If you don't like how long it is taking use the thing and help. It is 8 years work in 2, and the parent company is not intested in useing it in AOL until the Antitrust action is done hence the lack of "effort" plus who the #*$& said this is Netscapes browser it is Open source if anyone wants to help they can.

#71 Hmmm

by nowiski <sw_mozine@wpool.com>

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:35 PM

Reply to this message

I would really like people's comments about my opinion. So here goes:

Netscape should release Mozilla not when they feel it is good enough, but simply the moment when it is a better browser than 4.x is now.

Oh wait, that would be about now, huh? ;)

#156 Re: Hmmm

by tny

Monday July 24th, 2000 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

Development doesn't work that way. You add features, and then you fix bugs, then you add more features, then you fix bugs, etc. Moz has I believe stopped allowing folks to add features as of M17 (if I'm remembering and understanding the Milestone chart correctly - anyone who knows better feel free to correct) and will now be bug hunting until NS 6 comes out.

#72 From a WSP member

by rainerlda

Friday July 21st, 2000 11:52 PM

Reply to this message

NOTE: I'm not an influencial WaSP person at all. The problem I see with the WSP's aproach is that there will never be a commercial browser that can support W3C specs. Microsoft is too concerned about its clients that use proprietary intranet apps, and Netscape has its problems, too. The only way a browser which truly reflects the spirit of the web could ever be produced is if either the Mozilla project continued, or another project spun off from Mozilla, and released under the GPL. Don't be discouraged, hackers of the Mozilla project! Keep fighting the good fight! :)

#84 yes there will

by dfy

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

IE 5 for the Mac is up to W3C spec's from what I hear. Mozilla, or Opera aren't far behind.

#120 Spirit of the Web?

by ess

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

100% compliance with arbitrarily complex standards isn't the spirit of the Web. The Web works today. It worked years ago, before the current batch of apparently-oh-so-crucial-to-comply-with standards had even been written.

#73 Fantasyland.

by drmemory

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:05 AM

Reply to this message

Unfortunatly, Mr. Nelson's response only serves as an amazing demonstration of why people are so frustrated with Netscape. A brief sample:

"The reason for Netscape's declining share is nothing more than Microsoft's monopoly control over the browser marketplace. "

Horsefeathers. No, it didn't help matters that Microsoft was able to bundle IE with Windows, but that was merely the icing on the cake. Microsoft Money gets bundled with basically every OEM system out there, and you don't see Quicken hurting for sales. IE beat Navigator because IE was by FAR the superior product. Not based on its compliance with a suite of empty (ie: referenceless) "standards", but on the simple grounds that it was faster, easier to use and crashed a hell of a lot less often.

As long as Netscape pretends that what happened to Navigator was anything other than a massive engineering and management failure on their part, they will have no chance of ever making up the difference, no matter what happens in any antitrust trial.

"I would venture that half of the "86%" of users who are using IE now have never even seen Netscape's browser."

We can only hope so. Because that may be Netscape's only prayer for a comeback at this point, as it's for damn sure that anybody who has seen the current product is never in a million years going to think it's worth their time to evaluate version 6.

#76 Re: Fantasyland.

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:10 AM

Reply to this message

> Microsoft Money gets bundled with basically every OEM system out there, and you don't see Quicken hurting for sales.

Not a very fair comparison. It is true that NS4 sucks, but with IE being bundled with the OS ( not just some OEM system ), it didn't have a chance to be seen at all. I mean most IE users today have not even tried NS4.

> but on the simple grounds that it was faster, easier to use and crashed a hell of a lot less often.

On my system I had both browsers crashing alot until recently ( when both seem to have decided to play nice, after many updates and reinstalls and whatnot ). NS4 is buggy, and so is IE. I use NS4 because I'm used to it, and I use IE because it came on my system, not because either of them crash less.

#78 Re: Fantasyland.

by mozineAdmin

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 5:13 AM

Reply to this message

"Horsefeathers. No, it didn't help matters that Microsoft was able to bundle IE with Windows, but that was merely the icing on the cake. Microsoft Money gets bundled with basically every OEM system out there, and you don't see Quicken hurting for sales. IE beat Navigator because IE was by FAR the superior product. Not based on its compliance with a suite of empty (ie: referenceless) "standards", but on the simple grounds that it was faster, easier to use and crashed a hell of a lot less often."

Your attempt to conflate the two entirely different marketing and bundling strategies of Money and IE/Outlook sure makes for interesting reading, but it's not a really good basis for a reasonable argument. Why not argue the facts, instead of making inferences?

Regarding IE being a "better" product, IMO that's just plain wrong. IE/Outlook is the most insecure product on the market, and it has caused more harm to the economy through the horrible bugs exposed in its system (uh, can you say Melissa? Can you say "Love bug"?) than practically any other product on the market. How many man-hours did *Microsoft* lose when Melissa hit its system? I'm sure they'd never quantify it for you.

And you call it a better product?

IE is simply a different product, but in the long run, absolutely no better than Communicator 4.x, even at this point. Its CSS might be better, its DOM might be better, but neither is COMPLIANT, so I don't care whether it's 50% better or 100% better than Communicator. It doesn't matter - the WSP says as much - if it's not compliant, it's harming the market just the same.

Faster? Enough to cause a majority of Netscape users to switch? I don't think so. I think you'll find the majority of IE users have never seen Communicator.

Now, you can complain about Netscape's crashes all you want. IE crashes more on my machine. When Netscape crashes, 9 times out of 10 it's due to the Windows Media Player running. Surprised? I'm not.

#81 Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:29 AM

Reply to this message

that's opinion. here's mine:

Since version 5, IE has kicked the crap out of Netscape Navigator 4.x on every system I've run. I use it as my recreational browser because it works faster on modern sites and saves me time.

(I don't believe Microsoft has yet proven itself capable of making a decent email client however, all the Outlook versions are horrible, Messenger being the strongest part of Netscape 4.x and a reason to have it installed)

#85 Re: Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by mozineAdmin

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

I'd trade a few seconds of speed for system security any day.

#86 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by thales

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

Amen! IE and Outlook are the biggest security holes known. At least I don't have to install Lookout. As for IE, I only have 2 uses for it. One is Windoze update which dosen't work with anything else. The other is as a check when I'm looking at a HTML related Mozilla bug.

#124 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 1:22 AM

Reply to this message

You're telling me Netscape doesn't have security bugs? HAHAHAHAHAHA. There have been just as many Javascript glitches in NS as there have been in IE.

IE fixes them without putting out a new version. WindowsUpdate. NS requires people to download 15 megs so AOL can sneak on more crap like Shop@Netscape and WinAmp.

And I don't think it's a "few seconds". I work at a web development company. We had a page that used lots of complex tables. On a P3-667 on a LAN, IE took less than a second. Netscape 4.73 took 30 seconds to render the table. The whole browser was locked while it rendered. A Mozilla M17 nightly was just a tad slower than IE.

#89 Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

I think, it is plain dishonest to say that IE is not a better browser than NS.

I've switched simply because I got tired of crashes. In addition, IE's implementation of DOM, CSS and HTML 4.0 is simply superior, so the pages viewed in it are far richer in functionality.

The only NS feature that I now rate above IE's is its integration with the Mail & News client. Once the app is loaded, it is fast.

As far as IE security goes, it has never really affected me personally or any company I have ever worked for. I know it affected others, but we are talking about usability virtues here.

#99 Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by drwho9437

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

You hit the nail on the head you simply can't integrate things closely with the OS and not have security problems. Isn't the whole principle of NT/Windows 2000 isolation so that if one thing crashes nothing else does. What is Mircosoft doing trying to make things less stable, sure it make things slightly faster but it isn't worth it. I use both IE and Netscape on my computer. When netscape crashes I lose 20 seconds that it takes to reload and just use the history to get back to what I was doing. When IE crashes everything gets unstable or requires a couple of Ctrl-Atl-Del s and a 2 min restart. It is just not worth it so I stick to NS most of the time the only reason I have IE is because I have to and I need to see what it will look like (because I don't know what the hell it does without standards) for the wbepages I write.

#123 Re: Re: Re: Fantasyland.

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 1:16 AM

Reply to this message

Bollocks.

#91 Sorry, wrong answer

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 10:25 AM

Reply to this message

"Horsefeathers. No, it didn't help matters that Microsoft was able to bundle IE with Windows, but that was merely the icing on the cake."

That's just gibberish. Tell that to the judge that BROKE THE FUCKERS UP.

"IE beat Navigator because IE was by FAR the superior product."

Also total crap. IE may be a bit better than 4.x now, but that's because 4.x is two years old. I use 4.x still over IE, cause THEY'RE NOT THAT DIFFERENT but IE is a security nightmare. 4.x doesn't crash on my machine, much less "far more often." And IE is only faster because it's integrated with Windows. DUH!

"As long as Netscape pretends that what happened to Navigator was anything other than a massive engineering and management failure on their part,"

If you think that, get off the channel, quite honestly. You obviously have no clue what Mozilla has accomplished in the last two years, nor any inkling of its potential as a Web application platform. Your loss.

#126 Re: Sorry, wrong answer

by fougasse

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 2:16 AM

Reply to this message

"That's just gibberish. Tell that to the judge that BROKE THE FUCKERS UP."

Whether or not Microsoft is considered a monopoly is irrelevant -- Judge Jackson certainly never said that Netscape was a superior product to IE.

Yes, IE has security problems, but Netscape 4.x has had its large share too, including large holes which allowed reading/writing of local files. Also, security holes in browsers are exploited quite rarely -- you have to visit a malicious page to be a victim. I know of nobody who has been a victim of an IE security bug, and considering that 86% of Internet users use IE, that says that it's hardly a major risk to users.

"Also total crap. IE may be a bit better than 4.x now, but that's because 4.x is two years old. "

This is, of course, subjective, but the great majority of people seem to agree: no. I used Netscape starting with version 1.x. I used it steadily until IE3 came out, when I began switching between Netscape (first 3.x, then 4.x) and it. When IE4 came out, I started using only it: it was just better, period. IE5 only solidified that lead.

"And IE is only faster because it's integrated with Windows. DUH!"

Not "DUH!", but rather, "I don't care." This is irrelevant. As a user, I don't care WHY a product is faster, I care that it's faster. Besides, I wouldn't be so certain that this "Windows integration" is what gives it speed. Certainly, loading the rendering engine at startup helps start times, but this isn't something which Netscape is forbidden from doing. I'm fairly sure that IE doesn't run in kernel mode; when IE crashes, the rest of the operating system stays running nicely. Plus, I'd say Opera is about as speedy as IE. For that matter, Gecko (but not, alas, the full Mozilla) seems only very slightly slower.

#127 Re: Re: Sorry, wrong answer

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 2:48 AM

Reply to this message

I agree with what you say for the most part, but... the IE integration does play a rather crucial role as far as 'load' times are concerned:

Netscape 4.X loads damn near just as quick as IE on a ROM system. The main problem is when it comes to closing... NS require a few seconds to complete it's shutdown.

The irony behind all of this is that the process netscape.exe is actually waiting (the majority of the time) for processes create by MFC to shut down.

MFC, known to most as 'Microsoft Foundation Classes'... is known to those who know better as 'Microsofts Fucked-up Classes'. ;-)

-B

#158 I'll run with that definition :) n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 24th, 2000 3:01 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#75 Mixed Response:

by mused <mused@firstworks.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

I've been waiting a long time for Mozilla too. As non-compliant browsers dominate the market, web standards become less relevant. Microsoft knows this very well and web standards organizations are feeling very threatened.

The WSP should not have released this particular article. It's almost comical how ignorant they are, and of so many things. The article also demostrates how poorly they stick to their vision under pressure.

But, I've been waiting for a while to hear someone say what they said. I agree in principle with some of their points.

On the other hand, Mozilla promises to be a powerful platform for both end users and developers. The project has broken a lot of good ground and will deliver on some lofty promises. It should continue along it's current path to fruition.

But, a mistake has been made. End users have wanted a fast, compliant browser to compete with IE on Windows for a long time and end users drive the browser market. Netscape needed to deliver a gecko-based Netscape 5 to meet the demand and didn't. Why not? Only they can answer that question, but it needs to be asked and answered. And everyone needs to learn from the answer.

The bottom line is that the longer it takes for Mozilla to reach prime-time, the harder it's going to be for it to attract end user attention and succeed in promoting the standards it implements. Microsoft's market share has steadily been creeping up. The reasons (though foul) are irrelevant. Netscape, the Mozilla developers and the OpenSource community at large should all learn from this incident rather than simply dismiss it.

Dave Muse <mused@firstworks.com>

#92 I use to support Mozilla

by offwhite <mozilla@offwhite.net>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:01 PM

Reply to this message

I supported Mozilla and then (as a mac user) I started to use IE5 for the mac, which is very nice and very standards compliant. I am amazed with it and the fact that I Netscape had a couple major failings I could not longer use it.

I wish I could use a completed Gecko based browser, but month after month I can only hope and that hope has run thin. Opera has a better chance than Mozilla. At least that have a product out there. Jamie Zawinski was right. Release something now!!!

#97 We _don't_need_ a suite

by localman

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:38 PM

Reply to this message

You said, "Why would Netscape produce just a Web browser and hope to compete? I'd love it if someone explained that logic to me."

I have been _dying_ for the past two years to have a solid standards based browser. I have never used any of the suite stuff for IE or Communicator. _Everyone_ I know is in the same boat. I've worked at three internet companies in those two years and the majority of people used a text editor to create pages, pine or hotmail for mail, and Netscape or IE for browsing.

Sure, an all-encompassing suite is nice for some users but it is not a pre-requisite for releasing a good browser. End of story.

#100 Why treat Mozilla different from any other product

by antony <antonym@optushome.com.au>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 12:54 PM

Reply to this message

I'm surprised at the way in which both the WaSP and a number of posters here treat Mozilla as though it's a totally different thing from a product made by any other business in any industry. What gives them the right to dictate to Netscape when they should release theri browsers? Netscape have been doing them a favour by creating Mozilla as a totally standards compliant browser. Yet they have the nerve to act like a spoilt little child because they can't have what they want when they want it (i.e. right now or else).

You don't release a product out onto the market when it's unfinished, much less when you're aware that there's still faults which need addressing (see Bugzilla..). What kind of crack are these guys smoking to suggest that kind of a business plan for a company? One would take it that they're obviously not anywhere in management, because they haven't the slightest clue about conducting business. Would you demand that an automotive manufacturer release a car when the brakes were periodically known to stop working? Or Sony release a stereo system that occassionally went haywire? Of course not. These kind of practices would drive a company into the ground if practiced repeatedly. So what exactly are you proposing to achieve by demanding that Netscape release their browser 'now or else'? Are the WaSP seeking to kill Netscape so all they really have to care about is IE? Who knows..

This whole thing reminds me a bit of the recent ado with the Ford Falcon out here in Australia.. In 1998 the "AU" model was released, with a radical change in body shape and appearance to previous models. It was largely unpopular, but the company couldn't just abandon the design when it had nothing complete to replace it. The next model Falcon isn't due out until around 2002/2003 I think, and so as an interim measure, they released the "AU2" this year which addresses some of the biggest criticisms of the early model. Similarly, Netscape brought out their 4.x browser which wasn't quite as well favoured as the IE counterparts (later on, at any length), and so there have been a few releases to fix the most common 'criticisms' that could be fixed without too much expense or effort (mainly security fixes I would suspect) until such time as their new browser is released. A car and a browser mightn't be exactly the same thing, but there's similarities in these circumstances (from my point of view at least ;)..

Other tidbits:

OPERA: "Opera has a better chance than Mozilla" - does it? In this day and age, where users expect browsers to be something which ship free of charge, how many people are honestly going to pay for a browser?

IE5.5: I'm not sure quite what was going on here. The only significant differences I've noticed is the new Print Preview feature, and the fact that it crashes about 5 times as often as IE5.0 did. Maybe that's what the ".5" is supposed to reflect...

NATIVE UI: And then every time someone wants to port Mozilla to a different platform, they have to re-write the UI for that platform. Just to make life even more difficult and make the code base harder to maintain..

And with that I think I've ranted and raved to make 5am a nice bed time..

#105 tyranny of standards?

by shelleyp <shelleyp@yasd.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:06 PM

Reply to this message

Standards (or recommended specifications as the case may be) were never meant to be a weapon used to bludeon companies until they gave in.

I've worked with (and written about) the differences in IE's and Netscape's implementations of "standards" since JavaScript 1.1. I've been more than frustrated at times with having to deal with cross-browser and cross-version differences.

However, I've respected the amount of work that's gone into making the very complex applications that we now call "browsers".

Mozilla is more than just a browser (as much as this ticks off some folks). The application development effort has demonstrated new paradigms in project management, as well as new and innovative (in a good sense) uses of XML, user interface design, and other technologies.

I'm anxious for Mozilla's release, but not at the cost of dealing with bugs that need fixing. Hopefully, the architecture of the product is stablizing, and most effort now is spent on creating a robust, usable product.

In the meantime, perhaps the folks at WSP should consider more constructive ways of showing support for standards.

#106 Re: tyranny of standards?

by shelleyp <shelleyp@yasd.com>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

"bludgeon" not "bludeon". Sorry.

#107 Another perspective

by badrozd

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

For the past 3 years I have been a tech coordinator for a school district. During that time I have promoted the use of Netscape in my district, encouraged our teaching staff to use it, and taught all of my Internet-based classes using it. I have watched and waited, tracking the process of mozilla and hoping that Netscape would release a superior product soon. But let's be realistic here-At what point does this loyalty do a disservice to the teachers and students? At what point does their teaching and learning experience suffer, because Netscape cannot handle the content that they need? I admire what they are doing. But someone earlier brought up a good point: With all of the resources available to AOL/Netscape, why must it take so long? And another point: Why not release a browser-only version and a full suite? Do they really have anything to lose by doing that? People in my position have a responsibility to provide the best services to our users. When Netscape 6 finally does arrive (and works!) I'll promote it until I'm blue in the face. But IE5 is the better choice at the moment. The WSP's impatience is understandable; their mistake is in how they chose to express that impatience. They are lashing out as if Netscape is their last hope, lest their message (and standards) be buried under the weight of Microsoft. The WSP should be worried. The typical home user, far from caring about standards, mostly cares about the program working when need it to work. Until they get burned by IE's security issues or they can't do what they want to do, Netscape will not be an option. And unless Netscape has something better to offer them, they'll stick with the devil they know. If Netscape can produce a browser that doesn't detract from the learning and teaching experience in my district, I'll go back to it, but to do so now would be an act of nostalgia rather than common sense.

#109 Netscape loosing market share because...

by markb

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 4:35 PM

Reply to this message

The reason that Microsoft defeated Netscape in the browser war has nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly. The reason is that Internet Explorer is a reasonably good product, while Navigator 4.x is a steaming pile of shit. Perhaps Mozilla will change that...

#114 Impatience is Becoming a Hallmark of Mozilla

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 6:23 PM

Reply to this message

As Badrozd said earlier, the WSP article is a genuine display of impatience in a blustered vessel.

But heres the bind. In many, many quarters IE is the de facto standard and the WSP I suppose are fearful that the W3C standards are in danger of being marginalised as the ever growing band of "IE Developers" start to splurge out page after page after page of document.all.bullshit.

we all know how Micrsoft work. If they get 90+% of the browser share, they could easily turn around and tell the W3C to piss off and justify this by pointing at their market share. I tell you now what the reaction would be. -> Standards advocates who go into a rage and flame the net to buggery -> Half the worlds developer's would publicly cry foul play and privately breath a sigh of relief as they no longer have to figure out how the fuck to get Netscape to do half the things possible in IE5.X. -> The other half of the world's developers would publicly applaud and then get back to working spewing more ActiveX shite into the world. ->Mr and Mrs Joe Average user would stumble on blindly clicking those naughty attachments in Outlook, oblivious to the death of standards of which they are totally ignorant. -> The rest of use will wionder where it all went wrong.

Personnaly I totally share WSP's frustration with the lack of Netscape 6. I understand a lot of the reasons but that don't stop me from being miserable waiting. I want a Gecko based browser so the net will once again be a cool place instead of another puerile, boring, regimented Microsoft product. Microsoft.Net tm says it all...

#116 Mozilla & WSP

by brista

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 8:05 PM

Reply to this message

The guy from WSP who wrote the original article, must have been on crack. The last I checked Mozilla and the WSP should be on the same side. Also there are myriad of OS's that Microsoft will never support because it might chip away at their OS dominance. I say down with IE with or without WSP's support. It's there reasoning and thinking that started this. That guy was not thinking logically.

#118 WSP is a hypocrite bunch

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Saturday July 22nd, 2000 8:38 PM

Reply to this message

It just seems to me that the WSP is just an arrogant and hypocrite bunch. How much of *anything* have they produced that's actually useful? All they do is whine about others to do this, or do that, and once they do it, it's still not good enough. Yet instead of helping anyone reach the goals they're preaching about, they do nothing but whine about their efforts not being good enough. And then, to make matters worse, instead of nicely telling others know what's bothering them, their letters are the exact incarnation of what would be called 'flamebait' everywhere else. And rightly so, because that is exactly what it is; much like any Windows vs. Linux flamewar would start. Instead of polluting the web with this garbage they should make themselves useful and help develop Mozilla, or any other standards complain browser, even.

#143 Re: WSP is a hypocrite bunch

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Monday July 24th, 2000 6:12 AM

Reply to this message

whoop, 'compliant' I meant of course, not 'complain', in that last line :)

#192 Re: WSP is a hypocrite bunch

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 11:43 PM

Reply to this message

Are you sure you are not talking about the W3C?

#125 WSP irrelevant.

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 1:26 AM

Reply to this message

Who cares? Who actually listens to these freaks? Let's just shut up and get a damn fine Mozilla out the door :)

At work, I use a nightly as my main browser. We use Exchange as our mail, so I can't use it for company mail, but Moz is set to check my personal POP account. Moz Mail rocks as much as the browser :)

Haven't touched News or Composer yet, though.

#142 Re: WSP irrelevant.

by dfy

Monday July 24th, 2000 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

Nice attitude :)

I can't seem to get any of the Mozilla builds to work with my pop3 account without crashing whenever I try to grab my mail...but, you seem to be more focused than a lot of us.

#128 Mozilla. Forget it!

by bongo

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

If Mozilla had shipped 6 months ago it might have still had a chance. Not now baby. No one is going to bother switching over from IE now. What for? Not because it's faster. Because it ain't. Not because it supports standards. Because the public doesn't give a rats about those. And certainly not because it's prettier. Because the interface is butt ugly.

#133 Re: Mozilla. Forget it!

by Dan6992

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 5:47 PM

Reply to this message

"Not because it's faster. Because it ain't."

The current builds have a lot of debug code in them that slows them down. However the final release version should be as fast if not faster then IE.

"Not because it supports standards. Because the public doesn't give a rats about those."

I do agree that the public doesn't care about standards, but web page designers do. And if web page designers start to make standards compliant pages that IE chokes on then people may be compelled to give Mozilla a try.

"And certainly not because it's prettier. Because the interface is butt ugly."

The Mozilla UI is skinable so the user has a choice on how it looks. There are even a couple of skins available that mimic the IE UI and should make the transition easier for IE users.

Dan

#193 Re: Re: Mozilla. Forget it!

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 11:46 PM

Reply to this message

Why would web designers want to make pages that cause Internet Explorer to "choke"?

#181 Re: Mozilla. Forget it!

by Martyr

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 3:45 PM

Reply to this message

There you go, O blind one. Mozilla doesn't have a chance. Better tell those developers and bug hunters to stop wasting their time. After all, god Microsoft is truly the best, and everything he does is worthy of our ultimate praise..a pretty shiny happy UI and a handholding interface and a wonderful OS...so we never have to learn or wonder or dream...

#185 Re: Mozilla. Forget it!

by Martyr

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 6:03 AM

Reply to this message

There you go, O blind one. Mozilla doesn't have a chance. Better tell those developers and bug hunters to stop wasting their time. After all, god Microsoft is truly the best, and everything he does is worthy of our ultimate praise..a pretty shiny happy UI and a handholding interface and a wonderful OS...so we never have to learn or wonder or dream...

#129 Stuff

by Tanaaln <olympictram@yahoo.com>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I just downloaded the latest nightly, and it seems to be running ok, aside from a few weird 'refused connection' messages. ;) The reaction I get about the UI is "it's kinda weird, but cool..." of course, this is from other high school kids who can hardly remember life without the internet. ::grin:: It really isn't that hard to figure out if you have much experience with the net, and I doubt that a ton of people without that experience would be downloading a new browser anyway. Also, I still use navigator 4.6, and it rarely crashes, and I use ie5 for some stuff, and it also rarely crashes. I use netscape because I like the logical layout and easy access to bookmarks, etc. mozilla also has these features, but I don't use it too much because of those little quirks it still has. (I'm using the latest 7/23/00 build now) Anyway, as far as these things go, I'd say that it's all a matter of personal preference. Oh, and I'm using WIN 95, and I can remove IE... is the integration a win98 thing? I know it's used instead of windows explorer to find files and stuff in 98... oh well. Well, ya'll have a great day!

Tanaaln/Scott

#132 What idiot wrote this piece of work?

by jfergason <jfergason@iname.com>

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 3:44 PM

Reply to this message

What is wrong with the WSP? Do they just not want a standards compliant browser? Is microsoft paying them off?

While it has and is taking a long time for Mozilla to get to market it is the ONLY project even attempting to achieve standards compliance. Unless, of course, there is some secret project going on that none of us know about. People should stop complaining about the amount of time it is taking to get this thing off the ground and start coding / bug fixing / what ever too speed thing up. Complaining only make people mad at you!

I hope that whatever idiot wrote this beautiful article finds his office belongings in the back alley and a new guy sitting in his chair on Monday morning!

#134 I must say I somewhat am tired too!

by hassan

Sunday July 23rd, 2000 7:10 PM

Reply to this message

Ok,

I use Linux 95% of the time, so I really have no choice of using netscape or mozilla builds. If it weren't for lack of Java (as far as I know) and astounding mail/news bloat, I'd have ditched netscape a while ago and went the mozilla way.

Just to give you an idea of where I am now. Under windows, I have erased netscape and all its subfolders a loong time ago and that wasn't because Microsoft included IE, but because IE5 is so much better at just about anything. Resizing is a breeze, and you can view just about anything out there on the web.

That's what we should keep in mind. Most users won't switch back to Mozilla/Netscape whatever Mozilla does! The reason is simple: why would anyone want to do it. And it will get worse with time, whether I like it or not.

Anyway, as a Linux user I can feel my impatience and as a 5% Windows user I don't give a damn.

To conclude. As much as I believe developing following one's own schedule is great, I also happen to think some pressure is good. And I hope this will felt as pressure and not taken lightly.

Good luck to everybody and I hope I can see any working Linux browser soon.

#138 Another naysayer

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday July 24th, 2000 2:31 AM

Reply to this message

just took the chance to put up an article to get more hits:

<http://www.osopinion.com/…Manley/MontyManley11.html>

I'm wondering if Mozilla fails to gather enough users, can all this "bad press" be blamed?

#147 Re: Another naysayer

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Monday July 24th, 2000 7:48 AM

Reply to this message

Bah, they have no vision :P

But blaming the press if Moz fails is just a copout. No need for that at all ...

#150 AOL's IE contract hasn't expired yet

by briansmith <briansmith@iname.com>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:20 AM

Reply to this message

I doubt that AOL cares much about shipping NN6 right now. It is obligated to use IE5 and it works fine for AOL users. When their contract expires they will need a replace that works about as well as IE5.

They also need XUL as a replacement for their current GUI-definition format. Their current format is similar but not XML based like XUL.

In the end, the AOL 7.0 client and the NN6.x browser are likely to be the same product. People download NN6, and if they want to sign up to use AOL, they just type in their credit card number and it works. Downloading AOL is easier than ever because you already have it.

#155 Netscape 4.74

by matt

Monday July 24th, 2000 10:30 AM

Reply to this message

Hey Thought I would add that Netscape 4.74 is a lot faster then 4.73. Crappyiness notwithstanding.

#157 Moz getting there

by Netvigator

Monday July 24th, 2000 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

1st I'm no expert but i sometimes use the nightly builds which are getting better and better. I wonder if all these people complaining about moz use them?

2nd Anyhow I'd rather wait a bit than get an uncompliant, unstable, unsecure browser. IE doesn't even support the https protocaol at some points. I'm forced to use IE at work and it crashes every time it attempts to enter a secure site

Finally the WSP should rather encourage mozilla than dismiss it. Why can't they encourage filling bugs related for standards support for instance. That would be far more useful than writing flaming comments

3r

#160 Big hit

by uksi

Monday July 24th, 2000 4:32 PM

Reply to this message

You know, I look at Mozilla and I realize that it doesn't matter whether Netscape 4.x lost the market share. It doesn't matter that 86% are using IE5, because when Netscape 6 is finally released, it is not going to be just an upgrade.

All the revolutionary technology in Netscape 6 (and all other Mozilla distributions), combined with standard compliance, cross-platform outreach, and open source will make Mozilla look like a new kid on the block--and a bad-ass one.

It seems to me that Netscape 6 won't be an old browser trying to regain its market share. Mozilla has awesome technology that screams: "I'm a new product."

And I think that this new product, Netscape 6 and other Mozilla distributions, will have a great impact and will regain plenty of market share.

We must not forget that the percentage of Windows users is steadily decreasing. Other operating systems, including Linux and BeOS are slowly growing, and they desperately need a good browser.

#174 Re: Big hit

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

Number of Windows users is steadily decreasing? Where do you get your info?

#163 What if....

by richard <chrome@iwatch.itgo.com>

Monday July 24th, 2000 9:19 PM

Reply to this message

What would happen if Microsoft decided to become fully standards compliant?? Is the mozilla community living on the belief that this will never happen and that Bill and his friends will continue to frustrate developers with partial compliancy. I was once a 'Netscape only' user but I like many others have had to make the switch, (except in linux). I just hope that Netscape 6 is released before Microsoft decides to become compliant.

#166 More positive articles

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

#167 Re: More positive articles

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 2:47 AM

Reply to this message

In regards to link #1...

"Erik Severinghaus: is an 18-year old Linux nut who is going to be a freshman at UNC next year."

In regards to link #2...

"Linux Today"

Enough said.

-B

#175 Re: Re: More positive articles

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 11:17 AM

Reply to this message

Umm.. what are you trying to say here?

#170 WSP is right

by dash2

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 5:22 AM

Reply to this message

I'm sorry but I think that the WSP has it exactly right. Netscape 6 is going to be standards-compliant, but noone is going to use it because Internet Explorer has taken 90% of the market and therefore is the de facto standard. There's not much that Netscape/Mozilla can do about this now - they obviously can't release the product yet. They just took too long to ship a new browser. Sorry guys, you lost. Noone is going to download Netscape when Internet Explorer is good enough and all sites are designed to work with it (not to mention the fact that Netscape takes about 25M of RAM). I wish it were otherwise, I really do.

#178 Re: WSP is right

by Dan6992

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

"Noone is going to download Netscape when Internet Explorer is good enough"

First of all that can't be true because Netscape 4.x is "good enough" (I use it every day), and people still spend hours of their time downloading IE! I do agree that Netscape would have been in a better position if they had released something earlier on, but I think they still have a chance. Plus, like someone mentioned above, once AOL's deal with MS is up Netscape 6 will be in the hands of 25 Million AOL users and will seriously tip the statistics scale in Netscape's favor.

Dan

#176 A full gecko only release???

by narbey2

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 1:03 PM

Reply to this message

I posted to 2 mozilla newsgroups regarding the feasability of making a gecko only release (some sort of gecko 1.0) before doing a full mozilla release. It was yesterday and I have not seen a response yet. If it's possible I think it would do a whole lot of good. This would allow programmers and other companies to already start integrating the rendering engine instead of waiting for the whole mozilla release.

In the past neoplanet had shown interest in using gecko. Getting a stable rendering engine out there would be a benefit.

What are the realities of development in mozilla that would hold back such a release?

narbey

#184 Re: A full gecko only release???

by narbey2

Tuesday July 25th, 2000 9:13 PM

Reply to this message

Just to follow up to my own post...

Adam Lock from netscape had this to say about the idea of a gecko release:

"It will probably happen the other way around - the SDK won't appear until Mozilla 1.0/Netscape 6.0 is out of the way. Naturally you can just develop against what's there already, but you'll likely need to make modifications from time to time since things aren't frozen by any stretch."

narbey

#186 Let's take a clear look at facts

by Kennywins

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

See, guys, this is the deal, as I see it, and as I see it, the WSP was mostly right. The frustration was evident, but really, if anyone here knows anything about business, it is obvious that Netscape has entirely forsaken its customer for the sake of an as of yet unrealized vision that may now explode in their face. Cause you know, here is the deal. As someone else has pointed out, average Joe Browser User doesn't care if his browser is one hundred percet standards compliant. All he cares about is going into the net, and being able to browse his pornography without having the computer crash. Now, if you will be perfectly honest with yourself, you will agree that IE is leaps and bounds better than Communicator. It's true. And it may be for all sorts of evil handed Microsoft sucks reasons. But once again, noone gives a shit.

Personally, I think a standards compliant browser would be great. But in browsers, like in everything else, timing is everything. Netscape has tarnished its name beyond belief, and its gonna take a miracle to save them.

#188 Re: Let's take a clear look at facts

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

Hey! Most of what you say may be true, but the WSP was the one who once convinced Netscape that a browser 100% compliant to Web Standards is the only way.

#191 Maybe. but...

by Kennywins

Wednesday July 26th, 2000 10:32 PM

Reply to this message

That may also be true, but then it raises the question: If Microsoft can pull off an sketchy standards compliant browser for Windows and Mac, why can't Netscape? Because I still think it may be acceptable if your browser isn't standards compliant, as long as it behaves, well, like IE. But Communicator, Lord help me, can't do a damn thing right. And it hurts to see it get only marginally better with every release. If anything, they could try at the very least to emulate IE until version 6.0 comes out.

#194 Re: Maybe. but...

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Thursday July 27th, 2000 3:28 PM

Reply to this message

I agree that NS5 using Moz Classic could have done part of what you are saying (except for the IE part, NS4/MozClassic will not be able to emulate any significant part of IE), but 100% was what WSP asked for 2 years ago.

<quote>

The Web Standards Project, an international coalition of leading Web developers and Web experts, today launched a public campaign to encourage Netscape to make sure its next version of Navigator includes software that would reportedly make the browser 100 percent compliant with two major Web standards.

</quote>

<http://www.webstandards.org/ng.txt>

#196 a browser is a browser is...

by webmeist

Saturday July 29th, 2000 5:37 PM

Reply to this message

i think Mr. Zeldman (et. al.) has/ve done much to support the fostering and creation of the community that we now know of as the Internet. He just recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of his site on the net. As someone who works daily with the hassles and workarounds to get pages/sites to as wide a community as possible, he is, I believe, simply expressing his frustrations with this seemingly endless and labyrinthine crusade. Especially when across platform and OS. Not that I would speak for him. As someone *trying* myself to master the desperate act of learning the peculiarities of all varieties of generations of browsers, dhtml, css, script, w3, etc., I can commiserate. It seems to me that a very effective method that many "bleeding edge" publishers have taken to get their message across in a uniform and unproblemmatic way is to employ something like Flash to design their entire site, largely bypassing and ignoring many of the promised browser multimedia & interactivity features. This may become more telling a direction in the future; when common bandwidth & cpu increases truly allow a realtime media experience, astonishments such as text style or mouseover animations will be passe. A browser is to, uh, browse.