Full Article Attached Towards Mozilla 1.0

Tuesday June 26th, 2001

Gervase Markham recently posted his feelings on what a 1.0 release of Mozilla would be. Gerv has sent us the follow-up to that posting, including much of the feedback he received. To read it, click the full article link. Once you have read through it, we welcome you to post your feelings on what you think a 1.0 release would have. [As Gerv says, please don't post your favorite list of bugs, only the criteria for choosing what bugs to fix.]

#108 Re: Re: Re: Cut the bull or put the bull in?

by Gerv

Thursday June 28th, 2001 12:49 AM

You are replying to this message

My point has always been not that it is hard to set goals, but that any goals you set will be totally arbitrary. If I say "Why IE 5.5?" and you say "Why not?" then I'll say "then why not Netscape 6" and we can do all our performance criteria relative to that.

"Why don't we start with the download size?"

Which download size? Mozilla has a net-based installer so you just download what you want. Full download? Mozilla includes far more than IE. Just the "browser"? Mozilla's "just-the-browser" contains a bunch of stuff IE doesn't touch (RDF, for example) and does a whole lot more - it would support arbitrary XUL-based apps.

Comparisons to IE of this form are the same as saying "Mozilla is a browser. Any other stuff we do must be accomplished without decreasing speed, increasing footprint or increasing file size." That's not feasible.

"Just because they're not running an OS with Windows doesn't mean that they should accept a browser that is slower than IE5.5 on a comparable win/mac system."

--> "Sorry, Linux user, we aren't declaring Mozilla as 1.0 software because it's not as 'fast' as some program you never use on some operating system you hate."

"If you say "startup time should be as fast as IE with the -turbo option" then you hit it. If you decide to set your goal differently, then you do so."

That's a pointless point. The entire reason for this discussion is to set the goals and have a rationale for the ones you set. Merely saying "set one" doesn't help.

" "Do you take into account that Mozilla may be doing far more with a page (supporting <LINK>, doing hover correctly) than IE?" Do you take into account that IE supports other features that Mozilla does not?"

Right, then we'll do all our benchmarking against Netscape 6 again.

" "If we only _try_ to hit it, what's the point of having it at all?" What's the point of having any guideline? Are you really going to freeze the API's? (probably not)"

Yes. Mozilla will not be 1.0 software until we have a good API freeze story. This is one of the key requirements.

"Are you really going to achieve 100% > Good Net-Keeping Award? (probably not). "

The point of having this discussion is to see if it's feasible or not.

"might ask)? Since they're not going to hold the release for all the bugs! "

1.0 is different. As Ben Bucksch said, "we're busy" is not an excuse for 1.0 bugs, because the response is "if we think this is necessary for 1.0, delay the declaration of 1.0." " never, in the beginning, promised a 1.0. " promised full support for html4 dom0/1 and css1 in the first release. This is well-known, and has been for ages.