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.]

#223 Apparently illiteracy really is running rampant

by gwalla <>

Saturday June 30th, 2001 7:42 PM

You are replying to this message

"I see that you understand the GNKSA in your own way. What you don't understand is that saying my opinion is wrong is like me saying that you like chocolate is wrong. Wow, what an I opener, thank you for clearing up my opinion, for a second there, I thought it was my opinion, but apparently my opinion is wrong."

Bullshit. Saying "the GNKSA is just for preventing spammers" is not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of fact, and can therefore be shown to be wrong. It's not like saying "I like chocolate", it's like saying "Francis Bacon was the first President of the United States".

"I read the GNKSA document, I don't know if you have, but my opinion is that the GNKSA is not something worth achieving as users aren't going to care."

By that logic, it would be fine if Mozilla sent threatening emails to the President using the email addresses of server admins, since the user would not know and therefore would not care.

"Was, or is Mozilla's 1.0 goal ever to promote software that doesn't cause problems for other people?"

That's pretty much the idea behind standards compliance.

Of course, if you're saying that you prefer sociopathic software, that would be a statement of opinion and I would simply have to say that I do not.

""Finally, I think people would be somewhat miffed" - so you agree that GNKSA is going to miff users, but you still want to push it? "

How the hell did you get that interpretation from what I said? The full quote was:

"Finally, I think people would be somewhat miffed (actually, some people already are, if you read the comments in that bug) if their newsreader refused to post a crossposted message for no legitimate reason (which is what the "overzealous blocking of crossposts" bug is about)."

I said that users would be miffed if their newsreader failed to post a crossposted message, which is behavior that *violates the GNKSA*. According to the GNKSA, a newsreader must support crossposting, and the bug is about certain times when Mozilla does not properly post crossposted messages. I was saying that users find that particular GNKSA-violating buggy behavior unpleasant. How did you come up with "users would be miffed if we followed the GNKSA"?