MozillaZine

Suck Claims Mozilla Dead

Monday July 31st, 2000

Suck has yet another anti-Mozilla rant from Greg Knauss, website maintainer and TV critic.

Greg has gone about cataloging all of the extraneous features that are unnecessary to a modern day, competitive browser. Mail. News. XML. XSLT. MathML. In response to XUL, he writes, "Why? Who cares? The mere fact that it sounds sort of neat justifies its existence, and gives it priority over shipping something usable to the ninety percent of the population that has no use for the feature."

Why? Let's see. Could it be because at its heart is the ability to write the application to work on platforms other than just Windows? The ability to customize the application so that people like you can easily have "just a browser"? The ability to be prepared for the future by creating an application that's extensible and robust? The necessity of having a codebase that's easily ported onto emerging platforms? The ability to compete against a company who has turned their own browser product into a platform?

No, couldn't be any of those things. They're all just "cool shit", apparently. They're not important relative to having a browser that runs only on Windows that alienates 50% of the entire Netscape user-base because it doesn't have a Mail/News reader nor half the feature-set necessary to be a "just-a-browser" competitor.

Apparently cross-platform technologies such as XPCOM are a wasted effort; maybe coding the same browser independently for four or more platforms would be less of a waste of resources, Greg? Apparently cross-platform support isn't a sensible marketing strategy in today's monopoly-driven marketplace.

Greg indiscriminantly lumps third-party coders' work on such projects as XSLT, MathML and ColorSync [you must have delved into the archives to find ColorSync!] with the work of the main development effort, in an effort to prove his point that they're bogging down the process. Wrong. Those efforts are independent, and they'll only go into the first release if they're completed before the ship date. If you had been paying attention, Greg, you may have realized that.

The piece ends with a curious paragraph that begins, "Theater owes its advantageous position to picking its spots, exploiting its audience and making slow, purposeful strides, even if every step is second-guessed for its cost."

They don't call it Suck for nothing, I guess.

Maybe I should just give up on Mozilla. Maybe I should resign myself to a life of banality and security breaches using IE and Outlook the rest of my days.

I think I'll stick with it. I hold the Mozilla developers in higher esteem than I do any of their sniping critics.

UPDATE: There's a great comment in our forum from Alec Flett.


#58 rewrite of Mozilla, rewrite of the Web !

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday August 3rd, 2000 7:05 AM

You are replying to this message

"It did not require an entire re-write of every script and all of the HTML."

yes but... the web as we know it today is really crappy, because MS chose to develop its own features instead of cloning what NS had invented.

so, today, every script is split in two *slightly* different versions. and i'm sure that every wise web developer would like to be able to rewrite his scripts in a cleaner, unified, standardized way... you would like to, wouldn't you ?

the W3C standards and the next generation of browsers (even IE6, who knows ?) will give us the opportunity to rewrite all those crappy scripts !

let's rewrite the web just like Mozilla has been rewritten !!!