MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Update on Tree Plan for 0.9.4

Saturday August 25th, 2001

Asa Dotzler has sent in an update to what mozilla.org's plans are for the 0.9.4 milestone. Click the full article link for more info on this, and what you can do to help.


#1 Mozillaquest

by dave532

Sunday August 26th, 2001 5:51 AM

Reply to this message

As someone always mentions Mozillaquest, I'll confirm I've checked and he has written an article about 0.9.4 and that 1.0 has been pushed into 2002 but I'm not gonna provide a link and give him more hits.

Just take it from me it's more of the same rubbish. He posts a picture of the roadmap diagram and despite the fact it's always said on that graphic "When it's ready" he still hasn't grasped that fact.

#2 Re: Mozillaquest

by macpeep

Sunday August 26th, 2001 7:08 AM

Reply to this message

MozillaQuest may be the biggest pile of shit on the net and Mike Angelo is obviously one big loser with a very strange fetish for counting bugs. However that doesn't change the fact that it really does seem like Mozilla 1.0 won't be released until in 2002. Seeing as how the development began in early 1998, it means it will have taken *5 years* to get the browser out. And that doesn't count the development that had taken place before 1998 - including a lot of planning on NGLayout / Raptor / Gecko, Aurora - the sidebar, RDF etc. As much as I hate to admit it, Mike Angelo is right about the project being a dissaster schedule and quality wise.

#3 1.0

by unapersson

Sunday August 26th, 2001 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

Why is it relevant when 1.0 is released? We've already got a superb browser that surpasses every other browser out there as far as I'm concerned. I'm just glad this project actually places value on a quality 1.0 release, making sure it is as close to perfection as possible. The commercial releases from Mozilla are already available, Netscape 6.1 came out a few weeks ago. Mozilla isn't a final product, it's a base for other products, and as such should concentrate on quality releases, making sure every step on the way to 1.0 is good enough to used as the basis of a release product.

Mozillaquest can obsess over 1.0 as much as it likes, but thus far all the evidence suggests it will be ready when it's ready.

#5 Re: 1.0

by macpeep

Sunday August 26th, 2001 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

"Why is it relevant when 1.0 is released?"

Because it's what everyone but a handful of Mozilla fanboys will measure Mozilla's success by. That's what "will count".

#7 Re: Re: 1.0

by SmileyBen

Sunday August 26th, 2001 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

"Because it's what everyone but a handful of Mozilla fanboys will measure Mozilla's success by. That's what "will count"."

...and when they download the 1.0 version, all these people who previously didn't take much interest in the mozilla project but have decided to take a look at it, will be going 'Gosh, wasn't this project launched in 1998, and has taken 4 years to reach 1.0, which computer professionals tend to use to denote a first stable version, failing to meet a number of projected release dates, thus suggesting that the development method they used was flawed'?

I doubt it. I'd be more likely to bet on a response of 'Oooh, nice browser!', somehow.

#9 while others will say

by Riscky

Sunday August 26th, 2001 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

ewww what an ugly browser. This is a blattle I face everyday amoung my fellow mac user. Mozilla has a few tings good for it... and I think its the best broswer around (minus a few major problems under os x).

How ever many of my mac user now take a look at how shinny the product is (they would by an etsel). Right now the "top" mac os x browser is OmniWeb... sure it looks nice but its realitive slow but it looks nifty. It has problems with many webpages... plugin problems... well the list goes on.

I don't think many will say Ooooh, nice browser I think most will judge the browser on its inital look and that can be less than impressive.

(Yes I know an Aqua 'theme' exist.... I don't like it)

#19 Re: while others will say, mac theme

by Netvigator

Sunday August 26th, 2001 4:07 PM

Reply to this message

Riscky,

You can always use the mozilla mac os X theme developed by eric which can be found at <http://www.simweb.net/eri…&id=0&directory=2>

It is still under development, but provides an aqua theme with which many mac (and maybe windows!) users will feel happy with.

Netvigator

#49 while others will say

by Riscky

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 12:14 AM

Reply to this message

Yes I know... I mentioned that. Personally I find that UGLY... and modern has grown on me.

In fact the os x theme is really a theme for OmniWeb.... well the theme makes Mozilla look like it.

Im just saying many users will look at mozilla and say ewww ugly and drag it to the trash.

#58 skins as reason for deleting moz (silliness)

by Martyr

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 10:45 AM

Reply to this message

There are skins. It's not like there aren't any! It's easy to install them, too. And on top of that, that is one of the first things that new users look for!

#61 i don't think so....

by Riscky

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

I think many developers and wacked out people look to themes and 'skins' as the holy grail. However I must admit I HATE them. I have yet to see a really good 'theme' that wasn't shipped with a product. In fact most themes/skins that ship with produts are ugly as well.

People have, and will delete a product cause it looks ugly. It is a simple fact. You my find it silly well then fine. I said it was silly too. I know many mac users who will and have refused to use mozilla and netscape for an ugly non standard ui. I have been fighting for weeks now try to get my fellow mac users to give mozilla and netscape a try. However everything always ends up at the non standard UI and the ugly themes. It is a fact it takes skill to make a good UI.

Let me restate this one more time. You may think it is silly but it does happen... and happens more than you may care to admit to.

BTW: in my own view all mozilla themes i have seen are ugly, only modern is acceptable.

#10 Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by macpeep

Sunday August 26th, 2001 11:46 AM

Reply to this message

Of course math-impaired individuals like me will say it has taken 5 years. ;) But yeah, I bet they will say "Oooh, nice browser!" and then add something like "Better late than never!". And that's why it's so important that 1.0 *IS* great and ready. I doubt many people even care what the development model was like.. That still doesn't change the fact that it has taken way too long to get to the point that we are at now, and it will take another couple of months - at least - until 1.0 is reached.

#12 Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by Sparkster

Sunday August 26th, 2001 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

Peep... not you again. :)

Yes, it took long.. Yes, it took longer than expected...

WTF cares?

I'm not a Mozilla Fanboywhatever, but I still judge software by it's quality, not by any marketing crap. Mozilla is shaping up pretty nicely, why should I bitch just because I think it could be nicer. This is so boooooooring. Always the same "arguments". Just live with it, use it if you like it, use something else if you like something else. I'm happy that there is a browser of IE quality (when using Windows and Netscape 6.1 I sometimes even forget that I'm using Netscape and not IE). Sure, it won't get the market leadership back, cause most people still use Windows and the included browser (which is pretty good), so there is no reason for them to change. I don't see a problem. Mozilla is still great for a lot of other people and web standards situation is also coming along pretty good. IE is pretty close to the standards as are Mozilla and KHTML. That said I don't have any problems anymore when surfing the web. I'm currently using a KHTML based browser. The internet world has become better, Mozilla was very important for this. This is no war (although some people liked to call it the "browser war"). We all just should be interested in quality software, not this kind of marketing and marketshare crap. That's not our business. And as long as Netscape is not going out of business (it doesn't seem so, they do not belong too much on the browser business) and non-IE users are not handicapped in the www, everything is fine. Mozilla becomes better from release to release and that's nice. They should release a 1.0 when we all think it's ready. Relax... :)

#14 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by macpeep

Sunday August 26th, 2001 12:46 PM

Reply to this message

I think you weren't paying attention to the arguments. I agree that 1.0 should be "ready" rather than "early". But like strauss said, there needs to be a set date or companies and developers planning on using Mozilla won't be able to make plans. If I had decided to do a web pad using Mozilla 3 years ago, with a launch date of 1st of June 2001, I'd be screwed because Mozilla has slipped so badly! If I started making one today, I still couldn't plan the roadmap of my product because I would not know when the essential software for the product would be ready to use. That's unacceptable! Of course, since it's an open source project, nobody can demand anything from anyone.. That's very sad because a lot of potential users (not talking about end users now but "customers" of Mozilla.org, using Mozilla for commercial projects) will have / are having problems because of the inability to make and keep schedules.

"This is no war (although some people liked to call it the "browser war"). We all just should be interested in quality software, not this kind of marketing and marketshare crap."

I could not agree more! It's not about defeating the "opposition". It's about making a great product. I don't care if Mozilla has 0.01% or 100% market share. It's irrelevant. What matters is that it's a good product. The problem is that it's been so many years and it still isn't ready and there still is no known date or even ball park figure about when it will be ready. Nobody will commit to anything or even make guesses.

#16 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by SmileyBen

Sunday August 26th, 2001 2:21 PM

Reply to this message

"If I started making one today, I still couldn't plan the roadmap of my product because I would not know when the essential software for the product would be ready to use."

Oh - that's VERY simple. It's ready to use today. You have my permission to start your webpad development ;-)

#22 I think what he means is...

by sacolcor

Sunday August 26th, 2001 9:01 PM

Reply to this message

...that he's waiting for the APIs to freeze, so that third parties can develop for Mozilla without worrying about their products not working when the next milestone comes out. It's a valid concern. The tricky part is, once those APIs freeze, Mozilla has to worry about maintaining backward compatibility during new development, and that slows things down. I was reading a bug report the other day (can't remember the # offhand), and it noted that to properly fix one of the remaining HTML bugs, they'll have to make a tweak to the plug-in API.

Right now, the only answer is that things are settling down, and the APIs are becoming "more stable" each milestone, and so third parties should feel increasingly safer about using them. Eventually they'll get locked down completely, and 1.0 will come out.

There's also a chicken and egg here...the drivers are (I'm sure) aware of what major third parties are using the APIs, and the more they are used, the more care they'll take in keeping them stable.

#30 Re: I think what he means is...

by strauss

Monday August 27th, 2001 8:48 AM

Reply to this message

It's not just that the APIs get frozen, or that the bugs settle into a stable configuration, although both of those are important -- hitting a moving target is much more expensive than hitting a stable one.

It's also a matter of priority scheduling. Engineering effort is a zero-sum game. Anything that gets worked on at a particular time is something else that doesn't get worked on then. Supporting Mozilla two years early meant wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars (salary plus overhead) on something that was irrelevant to the business when we could have been doing something that paid for itself.

#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by SmileyBen

Sunday August 26th, 2001 2:19 PM

Reply to this message

But the people you seem to be suggesting need to think it's a nice browser aren't going to say 'Better late than never' because 99% of people won't have a clue when it was set to be released. In fact, if Mozilla 1.0 does get media coverage (as some hope) that'll probably be the first the vast majority of people hear of it. I'll say it again: if this came at a point when IE had sped ahead, they'd probably say 'This is nice - so what? IE's better', but since this hasn't happened I'm pretty confident they'll say 'This is nice', use it, and leave it at that!

#11 Re: Re: 1.0

by sleepy

Sunday August 26th, 2001 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

What Mozilla 1.0 should be is still very fuzzy (e.g. what features should be included? how many crasher bugs should be fixed?). So it does not make sense to predict when 1.0 will be released, nor does it make sense to say "I won't use Mozilla until it reaches 1.0!" Heck, Mozilla developers could lower their standards and release 1.0 tomorrow. At current state, Mozilla already surpasses many alternative browsers.

If people are so hung up on version numbers, maybe Mozilla should change the numbering scheme (e.g. use release date instead of version number). This will tell users that Mozilla is always in development. For stabilized "1.0" products, they can look for Netscape 6 or Galeon.

#21 Good for developers?

by leet

Sunday August 26th, 2001 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

I think one of the most incisive comments I have heard about Mozilla and its siblings (or are they children) is that most web developers seem to be wishing for the death of competition to IE so that they can and only have to design for a single browser. There are popular sites that work better now with IE than the standards-compliant Mozilla, because they use proprietary features. Now, surveys show IE penetration at over 85% or thereabout, which means that there are insignificant numbers of Windows users of non-Microsoft browsers. Unless Windows gets competition, there'll be few real browser competition, and when "browser war" completely dies down, few people would care about non-IE browsers, and when that happens:

AOL will no longer support Mozilla.

#23 Easier, but not better

by sacolcor

Sunday August 26th, 2001 9:20 PM

Reply to this message

To take this logic to its conclusion, it would be certainly be /easier/ for developers if every user used the same browser, operating system, and other technologies. You'd have one manual on "How to code the Microsoft way", and everyone would have to follow it.

Would this be a better world? I doubt it. De facto control over technological standards allows MS to keep competitors out of its markets. Without competition, there's no incentive for improvement. How much has IE really improved over the last year? How much will it improve over the next unless MS percieves Moz/NS as a possible threat? Much better, IMHO, to have the stanards open, and controlled by a noncommercial third party. Then the various companies can compete on the extra glitz and glitter, rather than creating incompatible versions that give everyone, developers and users, lots of headaches.

#45 Re: Good for developers?

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 9:41 PM

Reply to this message

Why do you say that AOL will no longer support Mozilla?

I can not figure out any reason for AOL to continue to support IE.

Complete dominance of IE would help MSN get a leg up on AOL because Microsoft could integrate the latest greatest features of a new version of IE into MSN before AOL even knew what the new features were. So AOL would always be behind the curve of web browser innovation.

Complete dominance of IE would also help Microsoft sell more copies of FrontPage. Right now DreamWeaver and GoLive are significantly better web development tools, but if Microsoft puts new features into IE then FrontPage will always be the first to integrate development of those features.

#13 Re: 1.0

by strauss

Sunday August 26th, 2001 12:21 PM

Reply to this message

Release date matters because developers need a reliable release date to do their own planning. Otherwise you get wastes of time and money like pushing for Mozilla support two years early, which happened to me last year. As it is, we spent a lot fixing the bugs of a product which turned out to be completely irrelevant to our business.

In addition, as time goes on, the IE monopoly gains strength. Positive feedback and network effects predominate in market share, and delayed projects have virtually no chance of competing effectively with entrenched products. What's the use of releasing Mozilla 1.0 at the point where IE has 95% market share? It's already all over then. Mozilla becomes a fringe cult browser that no one even bothers to test on.

#38 Re: Re: 1.0

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

I have never understood why people say stuff like "What's the use of releasing Mozilla 1.0 at the point where IE has 95% market share?"

Do you have any idea how ignorant that is?

Q: How much marketshare did IE have the day before it was first released? A: None.

It is just stupid to suggest that a product should not be released because another product currently dominates the market.

#39 Re: Re: Re: 1.0

by strauss

Monday August 27th, 2001 12:23 PM

Reply to this message

IE overtook Netscape because IE improved while Netscape stood still -- actually, it got worse.

Mozilla has no advantages over IE, so it's hard to see how an analogy could be made.

#43 Still confused

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 9:16 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has a lot of advantages over IE, but that is a moot point to this thread.

Regardless of which is better, your implication that development of Mozilla is a lost cause is still totally absurd.

For sake of discussion, lets say that you are right that Mozilla 1.0 will have no advantages over IE. Does that mean that Mozilla 1.1 also will not have any advantages? How about Mozilla 2.0?

IE is not perfect; the potential for a better browser exists, but if no one bothers trying to build it then it will never happen.

I do not understand why people continue to try to discourage competition with IE. Without competing browser development, IE development will stagnate and the only new features that we will be likely to see will relate to generating additional rvenue for Microsoft.

The reason why Mozilla 1.0 should be released regardless of IE marketshare should be obvious: if you never release any new browsers then there will never be a better browser.

#46 Re: Still confused

by strauss

Monday August 27th, 2001 9:47 PM

Reply to this message

Where did you get this weird idea that I'm against shipping Mozilla 1.0? I was answering the question of why its release schedule matters.

#62 Re:

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

The weird idea is all yours.

You said :

"In addition, as time goes on, the IE monopoly gains strength. Positive feedback and network effects predominate in market share, and delayed projects have virtually no chance of competing effectively with entrenched products. What's the use of releasing Mozilla 1.0 at the point where IE has 95% market share? It's already all over then. Mozilla becomes a fringe cult browser that no one even bothers to test on." And my response was that that makes no sense. The IE marketshare has absolutely no bearing on the usefulness of releasing Mozilla 1.0. It would not matter if IE had 100% marketshare and Mozilla were an inferior browser - there would still be good reason to release it.

#63 Re: Still confused

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

Perhaps it was incorrect to say that you implied that development of Mozilla was pointless, but your previous posting did indicate that you believe that a 95% IE market dominance would make a release of Mozilla pointless.

As long as there is a market for any web browser, it will not be too late to release Mozilla.

#68 Re: Re: Still confused

by strauss

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

>> As long as there is a market for any web browser, it will not be too late to release Mozilla. <<

Depends on your goals. If the goal is to be widely deployed compared to IE, it's probably already too late. If the goal is just to make the open source community feel good about itself, or to make Linux users happy, then 2005 would not be too late. What positive results do you expect from releasing Mozilla 1.0 in 2002?

#69 Re: Re: Re: Still confused

by SmileyBen

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

So let me get this straight: if Mozilla has no chance of being the majority browser, there's no point whatsoever in the Linux, Unix, BeOS, BSD, etc. etc. platforms having a good browser?

#70 Re: Re: Re: Re: Still confused

by strauss

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 2:10 PM

Reply to this message

Didn't say anything about Mozilla being the majority browser. I talked about whether Mozilla would have a significant presence compared with IE. For instance, a 15% market share is a significant presence. Your constant distortions have become tedious.

I personally have no concern with the less than 1% of desktop computers that run various flavors of UNIX or BeOS. If this tiny subculture continues to get handouts from companies like AOL, bully for it, but it's not important to me in any way.

#71 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still confused

by SmileyBen

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 5:01 PM

Reply to this message

Well in that case you ARE saying what someone else suggested you were - if a product has very low user figures there's no point carrying on developing them. You should have told Linus ten years ago not to bother, because nobody should develop the software that can make minority operating systems more popular - we should just hang about with the status quo.

The *whole* point of Mozilla is that regardless of whether people are using it on Windows, Linux, Mac, BeOS, Unix, every one of them is trying to use a minority operating system - called the Internet. But obviously 'you have no concern' with people trying to realise a vision where the internet / the browser can be the platform because we already have a platform with such a high market share that no other has 'significant presence'.

We're not constantly distorting - we're reading what you're saying, and trying to explain what the logical conclusion are. No new product will start with a 'significant presence' and only a 'one-size-fits-all' mentality suggests that percentage of market share is all that proves a piece of software should exist. Evidently Zeus shouldn't exist, because Apache and ISS have the lion's share of the market - god forbid that something trying to do things differently should exist (and prosper for it).

So yes, don't me so rude, accusatory and defensive - we're not distorting. If you mean something other that what we're reading, I strongly suggest you express yourself better.

#72 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still confused

by strauss

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 6:23 PM

Reply to this message

I fail to understand the hysteria over my simple observation that the longer the delay in shipping Mozilla 1.0, the less competitive it is against IE, and that the delay so far has already seriously jeapordized its competitiveness.

That's an obviously true statement.

Why do you keep adding things to it -- "you're staying it's pointless to develop things if they won't be dominant on day one!" etc. -- and then bashing the things you add? Is there something wrong with responding to the statement itself?

#74 Nothing obvious about it

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 7:31 PM

Reply to this message

Why does a longer delay make it less competitive?

The so called delays are because Mozilla is being improved.

Are you suggesting that a less capable Mozilla can gain more marketshare now than a more capable Mozilla can gain later?

Or are you suggesting that as time goes on that people will become so attached to IE that they will be less willing to use a new web browser?

I do not think either of these is true.

If you are suggesting something else, please explain.

#76 Re: Nothing obvious about it

by strauss

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 8:22 PM

Reply to this message

It's a well-known principle of economics that market penetration is dominated by time-to-market factors and network effects, and that it takes significant quality or pricing differences to overcome the positive feedback effects of early market entry. Are you questioning that?

#106 Short term vs Long term

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

I do not question the principle, but I do question its relevance to this discussion.

First of all, standard principles of economics tend to fall apart when applied to open source software. This is especially true when you are talking about time-to-market factors.

For a typical business, being early to market is important to profitibility as well as marketability. The longer it takes to get a product to market, the more deficit accrued due to extended development costs and general day to day business expenses. Also, once a consumer buys a product, they have a tendancy to stick with that investment even if it is not perfect rather than just throw it out in order to go buy a competing product. Of course, with free web browsers, profitibility is impossible and the consumer really has no expense related to switching proiducts.

For marketing purposes, it is nice to be "the original" and to have the others be compared as trying to copy. Of course, it is already too late for either Mozilla or ie to be "the original." The signifigance of being third vs fourth or seventh vs eighth is negligible.

#73 Re: Re: Still confused

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 7:23 PM

Reply to this message

"If the goal is to be widely deployed compared to IE, it's probably already too late. "

Another variation of your same "weird idea" that I first commented on. It is absurd to suggest that it will ever be too late to compete with IE.

Mosaic used to be the predominant web browser before Netscape came along.

Netscape had a huge marketshare before IE wormed its way to the top.

It is also important to note that the first few releases of IE sucked really really bad and were only able to obtain a very small marketshare consisting of the ignorant users who did not know how to get anything better.

No one can possibly believe that Mozilla has less potential than those early versions of IE. As long as Mozilla continues to develop and improve, it has the potential to become the most widely deployed web browser. It does not matter whether Mozilla 1.0 is released in 2001, 2002, 2005, or later. As long as people are still using web browsers, there is the possibility that Mozilla will obtain significant marketshare.

Nothing last forever. IE's dominance is no exception. Someday something is going to replace IE as the leader of the pack, Mozilla might be it.

#96 Mosaic/Netscape

by tny

Friday August 31st, 2001 8:33 AM

Reply to this message

<q>Mosaic used to be the predominant web browser before Netscape came along.</q>

Bad comparison. The dominant Mosaic was written by the same programmers as the dominant Netscape, of course. Remember that the company Netscape would have been the company Mosaic if UIUC hadn't objected (reportedly - Netscape folks or UIUC folks who come across this posting should feel free to correct me if necessary). When NS came out, everyone using Mosaic knew that Netscape was Mosaic with the sports package. Anyway, Mosaic was in many ways a proof-of-principle rather than a commercial product; one can speak of Mosaic competing with say Cello, but not of Mosaic competing with Netscape.

#97 Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday August 31st, 2001 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

You're right that NCSA Mosaic and Netscape were made by largely the same team and that Netscape Communications Corporation was originally called Mosaic Communications Corporation until the UIUC complained (you can still read the relevant press release <http://home.netscape.com/…sref/pr/newsrelease5.html> at Netscape's site).

I disagree with you when you say that all Mosaic users upgraded to Netscape because it was made by the same team. Netscape did have several advantages over Mosaic, notably that it was optimised for dial-up connections rather than the high-speed access available at the NCSA. Netscape made multiple connections to the server when downloading files (rather than Mosaic which would download the HTML then the images one by one) and displayed the text before the images had finisjed loading. It also supported JPEG images and didn't crash when it couldn't locate a host. Basically, it rocked.

Alex

#98 Mosaic/Netscape

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Friday August 31st, 2001 3:15 PM

Reply to this message

I do not think it was a bad comparison.

I know that a group of the Mosaic programmers created Netscape, but so what? Other Mosaic programmers went on to create other web browsers at the same time Netscape was being developed; do you consider all of those browsers to be equivalent to Mosaic? Since you say that Mosaic did not compete for marketshare with Netscape because some of the programmers were the same, does that mean that Netscape and Mozilla will not be competing for marketshare either?

Anyway, my point was about the transitions that have occurred and the fact that it is never too late to introduce something new. The history is that Mosaic dominated until Netscape came along and then Netscape dominated until IE became a legitimate web browser. The original Netscape developers knew they could make a better browser than Mosaic and so they did and they won the market. The Microsoft developers knew if they could make a halfway decent web browser that they could use Microsoft's position to topple Netscape and they won the market. Now we have the Mozilla developers building the most feature rich, most configurable, standards compliant web browser suite ever conceived of by man, and people like strauss say that if the 1.0 release is not out by the end of the year that it will not achieve significant marketshare.

Netscape would have taken over the market even if it had come out years later because it was years before there was anything as good as what Netscape was. IE would have taken over the market even if it had come out years later because the first several releases were crap anyway and Microsoft had the power to push it.

IE is eventually going to lose its dominance on the market. I can not say for sure that Mozilla will be the next on top, but it has as good a chance as any.

Why do I say IE is going to fall?

1) Nothing stays #1 forever (at least nothing I can think of) 2) IE has never been that great and it is not really getting any better. In some ways 6.0 has gotten worse. 3) Microsoft is losing their hold on PC manufacturers. 4) Microsoft is beginning to lose their hold on the desktop market. 5) There are several web browsers under development that are better than IE in various circumstances. 6) Web surfers have very little true brand loyalty. 7) IE is only available for Windows and Mac. 8) When Microsoft's profits start dropping, development of IE is either going to take a turn for the worse (whether that means that they decrease development or they just start adding user-unfriendly features that can generate revenue) or Microsoft is going to adopt and extend the Mozilla codebase.

#99 Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by strauss

Friday August 31st, 2001 3:36 PM

Reply to this message

>> 1) Nothing stays #1 forever (at least nothing I can think of)

Coca-Cola. McDonald's. Etc.

>> 2) IE has never been that great and it is not really getting any better. In some ways 6.0 has gotten worse.

Mature products are hard to improve. They're also hard to compete with, for exactly the same reason. When everything that's genuinely useful has been added, it's hard to add something better.

>> 3) Microsoft is losing their hold on PC manufacturers.

That's not even slightly true.

>> 4) Microsoft is beginning to lose their hold on the desktop market.

Also not true, at least not in this dimension of reality. Maybe on Counter-Earth.

>> 5) There are several web browsers under development that are better than IE in various circumstances.

None in any way that seems apparent from a consumer perspective. Opera and iCab have size advantages, but having had this advantage for a while now, neither has yet reached 1% market share.

>> 6) Web surfers have very little true brand loyalty.

That's true, but developers have concern for market share, which creates network effects.

>> 7) IE is only available for Windows and Mac.

Which just happen to be the only relevant desktop operating systems for the forseeable future.

>> 8) When Microsoft's profits start dropping...

Eh?

Still waiting for someone to tell me how Mozilla is better than IE in a way that matters in the market. The only way I see for Mozilla to compete is with a push from AOL leveraging its subscriber base. And they're not about to cut IE support.

#104 Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 2:34 AM

Reply to this message

"The only way I see for Mozilla to compete is with a push from AOL leveraging its subscriber base. And they're not about to cut IE support."

Why not? Bundling IE doesn't get them anything anymore. AOL agreed to use IE in exchange for a guaranteed place on the desktop of new PCs. The agreement has recently deteriorated, AIUI.

#107 Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by strauss

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 12:10 PM

Reply to this message

"[AOL's] not about to cut IE support."

>> Why not? Bundling IE doesn't get them anything anymore. <<

Except access for their subscribers to all the web sites that are optimized for IE. Removal of IE support in favor of mandatory Mozilla use would cause a drastic reduction in their subscriber base.

>> AOL agreed to use IE in exchange for a guaranteed place on the desktop of new PCs. The agreement has recently deteriorated, AIUI. <<

Yes, and another big reason AOL selected IE as their default browser is slso no longer applicable -- as the trial revealed, they selected IE in large part because of its embeddability and customizability, features then lacking in Netscape but present in Mozilla.

However, they do not now have the luxury of removing support for the browser that has become the de facto standard.

#108 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by SmileyBen

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 3:44 PM

Reply to this message

Erm, I'm not sure where you get this idea of total incompatibilities between browsers, but it's simply untrue. Moz / Netscape 6 can display virtually ever page designed for IE - the number of pages that actually cannot be viewed with these browsers (due to, for example, sniffing) make up a tiny (fraction of a percentage) of the Internet. People seem to imply that designers produce websites for a single standard 'IE' browser, when this isn't possible - IE 4 varies more in its interpretation of HTML from IE 6 than Moz / Netscape 6 do - so anyone that has done so has already cut out a chunk of the market.

Add to that the fact that the moment AOL swapped support to the Moz platform (if they were to) any designer worth a fraction of his pay would think twice about excluding half the market by sniffing for IE or using proprietary extension when they could easily provide pages that work everywhere but the oldest browsers.

#110 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by strauss

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 5:42 PM

Reply to this message

Come on. Even this pro-Mozilla board has lots of reports of sites not working with Mozilla. I triued surfing with it for a few hours on a recent build and lots of pages looked bad. I think there's some denial going on here.

AOL is not about to drop IE. That's a pipe dream.

#111 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by SmileyBen

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

Okay. Please clarify. Do you mean 'Sites not working with Mozilla' or 'Sites looking bad'?!? If you think the two are the same then there is obviously no point in having this argument. Sure some sites don't look great in Mozilla. Let's ignore the sites that don't look good in any browser (MozillaQuest, anyone? ;-)), and consider those that look good in IE5. Of those that use the 1% of markup that Mozilla and IE don't share, how many look bad in IE4? And IE6? And even IE3? In fact, you'll find (and I'm not going to qualify that, since it doesn't need it) that more sites designed for IE5 and especially IE6 I imagine in the future, work well in Mozilla than in IE 4. This is a simple fact about their shared standards. So yes, I don't see many people going 'OMG, this doesn't look perfect, I'm gonna dump AOL'. Probably as many as went 'OMG, that scrollbar in Mozilla is a pixel off, I can't stand it, back to IE'.

#112 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 11:22 PM

Reply to this message

>>>So yes, I don't see many people going 'OMG, this doesn't look perfect, I'm gonna dump AOL'. Probably as many as went 'OMG, that scrollbar in Mozilla is a pixel off, I can't stand it, back to IE'.

Actually, I think the number of people who would dump AOL would be a lot less. Dumping AOL, means changing email address and possibly various other hassles - especially for the level of user who uses AOL. Changing web browsers on the other hand is easy and is done a lot more frequently.

#115 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Monday September 3rd, 2001 9:17 AM

Reply to this message

I'm sure that given any browser, you can always find sites that don't work with it. There are enough sites out there that query the browser and refuse to work with anything that claims it's <insert your browser name here>. Likewise you can always find sites that look better on some browsers than others, for the same reason if not because of anything else.

There are however some fairly high-profile sites that don't look good on Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 - a good example would be <http://www.msnbc.com/news/default.asp> - though I don't know how many of them are because of Javascript or similar issues rather than HTML/CSS. I suspect a large percentage are JS related problems, but from the end-user perspective this is irrelevant; they don't have the expertise or the interest to identify why things don't look right. And as noted in other threads, appearance is VERY IMPORTANT in an end-user setting.

This is a big problem for the acceptance of Mozilla/Netscape 6.1 because it puts a lot of what needs to be done outside the control of Mozilla/Netscape developers. If a high-profile page won't look right when displayed with a standards-compliant browser, or even with a browser which isn't in some short "approved list" that the Javascript senses, the typical end-user won't blame the page designer but the browser if the same page displays properly on both NS4.x and IE.

Evangelism, anyone?

--Bruce

#117 MSNBC example

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday September 3rd, 2001 6:57 PM

Reply to this message

When I clicked on your example link using a recent version of Mozilla on a Mac (build ID: 2001082308), I only found a few minor cosmetic glitches. If that is as bad as it gets then I do not think it will discourage many people from using Mozilla -- especially not AOL users.

Also, if AOL makes a move from IE to Mozilla then even MSNBC will make an effort to make sure that their websites function properly for the millions of AOL users (as well as the Netscape/Mozilla users).

#118 'AOL declares war on Internet Explorer'

by SmileyBen

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 6:08 AM

Reply to this message

Perhaps all those that think the very idea of AOL doing the dirty on Microsoft is absurd should read this <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21449.html> article over at The Register. I know AOL's browser is based on IE embedded (isn't it?) - but it would be a relatively invisible change if they were to swap that to Gecko. Who knows? AOL might do it purely out of spite, regardless of any benefits...

#120 Re: MSNBC example

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 7:40 AM

Reply to this message

It _might_ not discourage some users, but in my experience end-users tend to be very intolerant of the least little cosmetic glitch. I don't think it would discourage very many "techie" users but, given the non-technical audience that we're talking about, I quite frankly think you're wrong on this point.

Obviously if Mozilla/Netscape can win back enough market share then more web sites will make an effort to be compatible with it. But this is sort of a chicken-and-egg proposition: you'll need a lot of those non-technical users in order to achieve that, and this kind of thing will scare them off before you ever _get_ that kind of market share.

--Bruce

#124 Re: Re: MSNBC example

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 9:09 AM

Reply to this message

From my experience, AOL users (who tend to be very non-technical) think AOL is great. When they have problems with a website, they never blame AOL for it.

When AOL screws up a website's graphics by converting them to ART format, AOL users might say the graphics look bad, but they do not realize it is AOL's fault.

When AOL's cache system fails to allow AOL users to view dynamically updated websites, they question whether or not the website is being updated, but they do not question whether or not AOL is working properly.

Because AOL users are not typically technical, they do not know how to determine who they should blame. They are not likely to try viewing the website with a different browser; many AOL users do not even know that there are different browsers. If they can not view or use a website properly then they just assume that website is not working. As long as AOL is working for some websites and they can get their email, most AOL users will not blame AOL for difficulties with a specific website.

Besides, even if the user decides that it is AOL's fault, few of them will switch providers. They might go back to using a previous version of AOL's software, but cancelling AOL is not likely.

Most ISPs are cheaper than AOL, but AOL users stick with AOL anyway.

Most ISPs provide higher speed access than AOL, but AOL users do not switch.

AOL's software bombards users with lots of annoying ads, but AOL users do not quit.

AOL's web browser eats up a lot of extra screen real estate when viewing web pages, but AOL users use it anyway.

With all the exisiting issues with AOL, why would a few small glitches with a few websites cause AOL users to stop using AOL?

#127 Re: Re: MSNBC example

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

Just thought I'd share a recent experience that I had with an AOL user.

This man owns a small company with about 18 employees. His and two other employees computers had access to the Internet through AOL, but no one else had access. He decided that all the computers needed access and wanted me to give him a quote for installing and configuring modems for 13 computers that did not have them. After talking to him about it, we decided it would be better to get a router and a DSL Internet connection (the computers were already all on a LAN). After getting the line in, I installed the latest Netscape and latest IE on every workstation and made sure that the Internet access was working. About a week and a half later, he gave me a call because he had some concerns. Apparently, after I had left, he had gone around installing AOL on all of the computers because he thought they still needed to sign on AOL to access the Internet. He was upset though because I had told him that multiple users could access the Internet at the same time, but AOL was only allowing one person to sign on. He was also worried about all of his employees having his AOL account password. I was unable to convince him over the phone that AOL was not necessary to access the Internet, so I went over to his office. After 2 hours of showing him on their computers, he still was confused. Fortunately various other employees did understand; in fact many had already been using the Internet access with the web browsers that I had set up for them. Although I did eventually convince him that it was all working as I had promised, he and the two employees who were using AOL before, still continued to sign on to AOL to access the Internet. So one day a few months later, he called to say that something was wrong with the DSL line. When I got there, I found out that the DSL line was fine, but something was wrong with his AOL (corrupted file I think) because it was unable to sign in. I reinstalled the AOL software and it worked again. When I tried to explain it to him, he insisted that the DSL line must have messed up his AOL software because he had never had that problem before. As far as I know, he and some of his employees are still signing on to AOL to access the web.

This experience is TYPICAL of my experiences with AOL users.

#109 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mosaic/Netscape

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

>>>Except access for their subscribers to all the web sites that are optimized for IE. Removal of IE support in favor of mandatory Mozilla use would cause a drastic reduction in their subscriber base.

So you are saying that AOL users would switch to another Internet provider if some web pages did not display correctly with Mozilla based AOL software?

Get real.

Your typical AOL user thinks AOL is great and so if a web page does not work properly with AOL then they blame the web designer -- they do not get mad at AOL. If AOL users quit AOL because of incompatibility with web pages then AOL would have already lost those users.

Besides, as SmileyBen pointed out, websites designed for IE 5.x generally work just fine in Mozilla.

Another relevant issue is that Microsoft has now introduced IE 6 which does some things differently than previous versions of IE. If AOL sticks with IE, will they make the move to IE 6.0? There are some vary Microsoft centric features of 6.0 that AOL probably does not want, but if they stay with IE 5 then it will be hard for them to implement new web features. Since AOL owns Netscape, it would make a lot more sense to switch to Netscape than switch to IE 6 or stay with IE 5.

#119 MSNBC Example, AOL Declares War on IE

by tny

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

1. MSNBC looked OK in Mozilla - and the dropdown menus even worked. Just one comestic glitch which could probably be fixed easily if MSNBC wanted to fix it. Someone should file an evangelism bug on it.

2. Come on, one nitwit who doesn't want to do his customer support job doesn't necessarily reflect the whole AOL mindset. I've had dingbats do things like that to me, too. ("You aren't allowed to use Windows 2000 - that's only for servers.")

My point with the Mosaic/Netscape thing was that in effect Netscape was a productized Mosaic. I imagine a lot of users thought of Netscape as "the new Mosaic," despite the fact that Mosaic continued to be developed inside NCSA.

#123 Re: MSNBC Example, AOL Declares War on IE

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 8:10 AM

Reply to this message

MSNBC does NOT look "Ok" on Netscape 6.1 or Moz 0.9.3. I haven't tried it on a recent build, but once 0.9.4 is out I intend to try it on that. The dropdown menus do work properly, but it has a fairly significant glitch in the middle top of the screen, where the display scrolls and splits up in an unintended way. Our customers demand a refund for much less than that; as I said, my experience is that end-users tend to be very intolerant of the least little cosmetic glitch. Granted that I'm not sure whether the problem is Moz or MSNBC - my suspicion is fairly strongly that it's the latter, the site has a lot of JS that does a lot of "clever" things (as in "too clever by half"). However it displays as intended on both IE and Netscape 4.*. I don't know whether there's anything reasonable that Moz can do to display this page "better" without breaking standards, it may be something that needs to be taken up as an "evangelism" topic.

But my point is that since both IE and NS4 appear to handle this (and various other sites) properly, Moz/NS6 will be blamed by many people *EVEN IF MOS/NS6 ARE DOING THE "CORRECT" THING AND IE/NS4 ARE NOT*. It may not be fair, but that's what's going to happen. If this were some obscure oddball site, the web designer for that site might justly get the blame, but this is one of the more visible sites on the entire net.

--Bruce

#128 Re: Re: MSNBC Example, AOL Declares War on IE

by tny

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 10:33 AM

Reply to this message

<quote>MSNBC does NOT look "Ok" on Netscape 6.1 or Moz 0.9.3. I haven't tried it on a recent build, but once 0.9.4 is out I intend to try it on that. The dropdown menus do work properly, but it has a fairly significant glitch in the middle top of the screen, where the display scrolls and splits up in an unintended way.</quote>

When I first looked at the page in Mozilla, this glitch wasn't present; there was only a small hole in the dropdown menu where I assumed (wrongly, as it turned out) there ought to be a graphic. A few minutes later, it's a mess. Why?

Looks like there's a table cell with multiple divisions that are being swapped by some javascript. It works in Netscape 4, but not in Moz. The namespace is <html xmlns:ie>, so Moz should go into quirks mode. Anyway, the table cell height isn't being respected (it's set to 78 pixels in the HTML, but it's not set in the css; possibly setting it to 78px in the css would fix the problem), and both of the swapped texts are being shown. I assume something similar is happening with the banner ad at the middle, causing the gap I noticed and thought was OK.

So, here's the script:

var aCms=document.all.cms; aCms[iMarqOld].style.display="none"; aCms[iMarqCur].style.display=""; cov_MarqTimer(3500);}

Notice the use of "document.all.cms"? This might be it. I'm guessing that both are being shown because neither is ever hidden by the script.

If I'm right, someone should report as an evangelism bug.

#131 Re: Re: Re: MSNBC Example, AOL Declares War on IE

by strauss

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 3:04 PM

Reply to this message

Want to point out here that the issue is not so much with MSNBC per se, but with the fact it will take a significant amount of time (and market penetration) after Mozilla 1.0 is released for the web in general to be tuned to be compatible with it. That's why AOL is not about to just drop IE support in the forseeable future. MSNBC is just one example.

#133 Re: Re: Re: Re: MSNBC Example, AOL Declares War on

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 9:16 PM

Reply to this message

Quite true, but if the sites that had problems with Mozilla were obscure sites the issue would be moot. I doubt that very many users would care if the sites that were broken were a few sites along the lines of J. Random Hobbiest's web site on her collection of red wooden Swedish horses. It's the fact that some of these sites are highly visible that creates the real problem for Mozilla.

--Bruce

#60 Re: 1.0 (and user psychology)

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 12:48 PM

Reply to this message

One point about that magical number 1.0 is that end-users often don't want to run anything that they perceive as being in any way "pre-release." Running "pre-release" or "beta" software is something that techies do but not end-users, generally. MozillaQuest actually has much the mental attitude of the end-user - that magical number has *significance* to them in a way that it doesn't to the techies, who are going to be more concerned with, well, more technical issues. But to the end-users that number is often more significant than what's under the hood, so to speak.

... But then you also have to consider that most of this mass of the great unwashed haven't even heard of Mozilla, or only in very vague terms. They aren't aware of Mozilla version numbers, they know about IE and Netscape, maybe Opera and so forth. They aren't aware of the latest technologies unless there is some kind of marketing that shoves them in their faces.

--Bruce

#75 Names and numbers

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 7:48 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, so how about releasing Mozilla 1.0 as something other than "1.0" ?

If I remember right the first release of IE was a number higher than the then current version of Netscape. So how about Mozilla 7.0? Then Netscape can also release a Netscape 7.0 based on Mozilla 7.0 and AOL can release an AOL 7.0 utilizing the same.

Microsoft does this kind of number jumping all the time. Why not Mozilla?

Or how about Mozilla 2002? (even if it comes out in 2001 -- ie Microsoft Outlook 2002)

Of course Microsoft's latest trend is to not use numbers at all. If we really want to upset Microsoft, how about calling it Mozilla XP? That way Mozilla could really take advantage of all the XP hype.

Or we could combine them into something really confusing like Mozilla 2002XP v7.0 (similar to Mac OS X 10.1).

#78 Re: Names and numbers

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 8:48 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. In any event, my point was that the numbering is VERY IMPORTANT from an end-user perspective. Yes, it's a marketing game, but your examples tend to reinforce that statement.

But on the other hand Mozilla is well below the radar for the typical end-user. They're aware of Netscape, which continues to use the old Netscape numbering scheme. The typical end-user doesn't know about and doesn't care about Mozilla numbering schemes. I don't know whether this is good or bad, but that's the reality. The question is, should the Mozilla community care?

--Bruce

#82 Re: Re: Names and numbers

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday August 30th, 2001 1:39 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla.org provides binaries for testing and development purposes. Market share is a marketing game and mozilla.org does not have or want a marketing department. We are focused on the code. We count on vendors of Mozilla-based products to get the useragent to the masses.

--Asa

#88 Re: Re: Re: Names and numbers

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Thursday August 30th, 2001 8:28 AM

Reply to this message

This is an entirely reasonable position. But then you effectively lose the right to complain about the version number obsession of people like Mike Angelo (which will probably include most of the end-user community IMHO).

Though of course you don't lose the right to complain about his factual distortions or his obsession with raw bug counts without any attempt to consider what the bugs might mean in actual use of the program.

--Bruce

#136 Re: Re: Re: Names and numbers

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Wednesday September 5th, 2001 10:43 AM

Reply to this message

Asa -- I thought you were mozilla's marketing department (g).

You make the point that one reason mozilla.org exists is to provide a base for external developers (such as Netscape) to build products. And that's where the *real* complaints about the scheduling are coming from. Now that you are in the .9x series, there's realistic assessments about when the thing will freeze, but that wasn't always the case -- We all know that Netscape got fed up and blew their load early on NS 6.0, but I know of another company that got heavily involved during the M1x milestones. It took them several months to figure out that Mozilla was a long away from anything and kill the project. AFAIK, they haven't come back.

Lots of people are flaming here, but sometime in 2002 *is* probably a realistic assessment of when 1.0 will ship. That might not matter to Joe Websurfer, but it does matter quite a bit to mozilla.org's real customer base.

#100 Agree/Disagree

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Friday August 31st, 2001 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

I do not think your post that I responded to said anything that I really disagree with, but I do not see why people are so worked up about the signifigance of the 1.0 label.

It is just a version number.

I agree that that version numbering is important to many ignorant end-users.

However, I do not see any reason why that should be such a concern right now. I do not see how it is going to hurt Mozilla in any way.

Netscape will continue to build off of Mozilla and their number will not be 1.0; if Netscape 6.x gains marketshare then that helps Mozilla as much, if not more, than if Mozilla 1.0 gains marketshare for itself.

Anyone who is worried about Mozilla's marketing, or lack thereof, need only put out their own version of Mozilla and market it to their hearts content. For example, when Mozilla 1.0 is released, I can take it, add my own little touches, and release "Rebel Browser 2002 XP 7.0" if I want and all the idiots who stay away from 1.0 releases just because they are 1.0 releases will not know the difference. Unlike Netscape, my version of the browser would probably not be very different than Mozilla 1.0 because I really do not care for all the extra baggage.

Mozilla will gain marketshare despite the 1.0 number because other developers will be spreading it under their own monikers and numbers.

#6 Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by SmileyBen

Sunday August 26th, 2001 9:36 AM

Reply to this message

You can't count. 1998 - 2002 is 4 years! ;-) ;-)

I really don't see what all this 'this browser is late' crap is about. Fine, it hasn't met the release schedule that (perhaps once Netscape but now just) random people have decided it should have, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. If you mean 'While Netscape have been sitting on their arses, the rest of the browser world have zoomed ahead, leaving Netscape in the dust' then that's simply untrue. Whilst IE4 might be better than Netscape 4, IE6 is near as damnit identical, with a few minor additions (P3P etc.), and yet another interpretation of web standards.

This whole moan about mozilla's lateness would be okay if there weren't already good (though not perfect) products based on it, but there are, and if during this time the rest of the world had moved on. As it is, mozilla when it is 1.0 will achieve parity (and go far beyond in many respects) its leading competitors. When you consider that IE6 will have taken nearly 8 years (is it?) to write, what mozilla.org has achieved in that time is really impressive.

Please explain where I've gone wrong...

#83 Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by cyd

Thursday August 30th, 2001 1:50 AM

Reply to this message

> You can't count. 1998 - 2002 is 4 > years!

Depends on how you count:

1998: 1 year 1999: 2 years 2000: 3 years ... 2002: 5 years

or

1998 - 1999: 1 year 1999 - 2000: 2 years ... 2001 - 2002: 4 years

So it will be between 4 and 5 years :-)

#85 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by SmileyBen

Thursday August 30th, 2001 4:11 AM

Reply to this message

"> You can't count. 1998 - 2002 is 4 > years!

Depends on how you count:

1998: 1 year 1999: 2 years 2000: 3 years ... 2002: 5 years

or

1998 - 1999: 1 year 1999 - 2000: 2 years ... 2001 - 2002: 4 years

So it will be between 4 and 5 years :-)"

You're right. So it's 4 years if you count correctly, or 5 if you're mad! ;-)

And ANYWAY, what we're all forgetting is the MozillaQuest is talking crap! It is looking like it will be 3.n years. To be 4 years 1.0 would have to be released in early 2002 and all indications are that it will come before that. Of course, nobody is going to make definite predictions, but the basis on which MQ decided it would be 2002 (misunderstanding milestone predictions) was flawed at best.

So here's another counting method: let's think about whole years - in which case Mozilla will have only taken 3 years! Not bad IMHO! ;-)

#24 Why can no one seem to count?

by jesusX <jesus_x@mozillanews.org>

Sunday August 26th, 2001 9:46 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, NS released the would-be 5.0 code on March 31, 1998. But the CURRENT project was started from scratch in october 1998. That means it's not even 3 years old yet. 2 years, 10 months. Not 5 years.

#25 Re: Why can no one seem to count?

by macpeep

Sunday August 26th, 2001 11:39 PM

Reply to this message

That's not entirely accurate. NGLayout / Gecko was already in development when the source code was released on March 31st 1998..

#28 Re: Re: Why can no one seem to count?

by tny

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:45 AM

Reply to this message

Inclusive counting. They're counting 1998 as 1, 1999 as 2, 2000 as 3, 2001 as 4, and 2002 as 5. Like the 3 days between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Inclusive counting is often used for this sort of thing (like saying that a particular ball player played for three decades becasue he started in 1969 and retired in 1981).

#44 Easter

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

Just a small point here. Christians have never claimed that there are 3 days between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

The Bible does not say that Christ died and then arose 3 days later; it says that Christ died (on day one) and then arose on the third day.

#59 Re: Easter

by tny

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 11:22 AM

Reply to this message

You're overreading my analogy. Read the Greek. Then see the dicussion of inclusive counting in Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World. Then get back to me.

#56 Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 9:56 AM

Reply to this message

>Seeing as how the development began in early 1998, it means it will have taken *5 years* to get the browser out.

Internet Explorer had at least a 2 year headstart on Mozilla, and Mozilla is already surpassing it in many areas.

My only point is that "1.0" is not the end-all of browsers. Mozilla will continue to evolve for many more years, as will the web itself.

#57 Damage?

by Martyr

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 10:42 AM

Reply to this message

Who does more damage, Mozillaquest, or Macpeep, both who are behind quite a few of dust-ups on Mozillazine messageboards? Both post notoriously wrong and incomplete information. Both ceaselessly dog Moz. Both post the same recycled arguments endlessly. Both claim that the project is an unqualified disaster. You tell me. I don't blame MQ because its owner has no grasp of the technical issues at hand. MacPeep, you ought to know better. MacPeep says that that a 5-year development effort to develop a multiplatform, standards-compliant, open source browser, XML renderer, composer, mail and newsgroup reader mostly from scratch is unrealistic. MacPeep demands that Moz both be the best and first to the finish line, knowing that speed and quality are inherent tradeoffs. I won't regale you with how processes and QA work out here in the real world, but his expectations reveal that he knows nothing about the software industry. I'm dead serious. Moz is a highly-usable product that works almost all the time on many different platforms and is standards-compliant to boot. That's a stunning achievement for an open-source effort, indeed, for any effort at all. But progress judged by reality doesn't impress MacPeep. No, what impresses him is simply conforming to his whim and desires, like the best Dilbertesque upper-level manager. In short, MacPeep constantly says, "I WANT MY TOY NOW!" Real people either help out or shut up, and don't whine because they didn't get their cookies when they wanted them.

#67 Re: Damage?

by macpeep

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 10:30 AM

Reply to this message

You're being silly. I'm not claiming any of the things you're accusing me of.

I'm not saying that Mozilla is "an unqualified disaster". I'm saying Mozilla is behind the schedules and claims that were being presented two years ago and that MozillaQuest, despite being a joke as a news site, actually has a valid point about the schedules slipping. A lot of progress has been made in the past years and while I was very far from considering Mozilla usable as my first choice browser & email client six months ago, it's now quite close to the point where I'll toss out Netscape 4.7x for email and IE 6.0 for browsing. That's not some kind of "macpeep stamp of approval". I'm just saying that I consider the product (Mozilla) quite close to "very nice" now - something I didn't do six months ago. The quality is way behind in schedule, but in absolute terms, it's starting to get pretty decent.

I'm not saying that a 5-year development effort of all the things Mozilla are is "unrealistic". I'm saying it's behind the schedules that have been suggested, directly or indirectly when the product was launched and subsequently.

I'm not demanding anything - like you claim I am.

Also, I work as a lead programmer (for a quite well respected game company) so don't assume that I don't know the processes of large scale QA work and software development in general. I bet I've read all the books on topic that you have, and then some. To claim that "[macpeep] knows nothing about the software industry" is incorrect, laughable but also insulting.

Don't read into my statements more than I actually write. Don't assume that you know things about me and my opinions that you don't. Don't extrapolate from my posts. And please, think through before you make personal attacks like that again.

#87 MacPeep is right

by generaltao

Thursday August 30th, 2001 8:16 AM

Reply to this message

I've been following Mozilla development and installing milestones since M4. Boy oh boy was I excited about Mozilla.

Some time around M9, I got sick of it and went back to NS4.x. It was MUCH faster (The UI) and much more stable, and it rendered pages correctly. (I know it fails the Box Acid test, but my web experience was totally unaffected.)

Last week I downloaded and installed the Solaris build of the 0.9.3 milestone. I used it for 20 minutes before I got sick of the slowness and buginess and moved back to NS4.7. Not even Slashdot or Mozillazine rendered correctly!!

I was a Mozilla evangelist, and now I am trying desperately not to become a Mozilla nay-sayer.

#17 Re: Mozillaquest

by SmileyBen

Sunday August 26th, 2001 2:22 PM

Reply to this message

Choice quote from the MozillaQuest article (he doesn't have advertising revenue, so who cares about putting more load on his servers?):

'Sadly, the Mozilla Organization does not seem to grasp just how far behind schedule is the Mozilla Project and just how buggy is the Mozilla browser-suite.'

Quite ironic considering who's talking, eh?

#20 Ooo - "Mike Angelo -- 25 August 200" (nt)

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Sunday August 26th, 2001 6:28 PM

Reply to this message

:)

#27 Re: Mozillaquest

by rkl

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:40 AM

Reply to this message

What makes me laugh about Mike Angelo and his Mozillaquest Web site is:

a) It's like a broken record. He finds very little different to say about Mozilla with each of his articles - it's either "it's got more bugs", "it's being released late" or both. Never mind what new features have gone in or if topcrasher bugs (which are the *important* ones) have been fixed.

b) This guy never actually comments on what it's like to actually use Mozilla in a regular browsing session. He keeps claiming it's too buggy but does he have any real-life examples ? E.g. is Mozilla failing to load (or badly render) one of the Top 100 sites ? Is a regularly-used operation in the browser badly behaving or crashing ? Does the mail client eat his messages or corrupt them ? Not *once* have I seen him actually say that he's used the browser and seen major problems with it. Users consider a browser "buggy" only if they can see the bugs (crashes, bad rendering, misbehaviour) on a regular basis. When I use Mozilla (nightly builds or 0.9.3), I don't seem to have a problem with the sites I visit, so you've got to wonder if Angelo even bothers running the latest releases for more than a few minutes.

c) There's a total obsession with the "1.0" release. This *only* matters for developers really (where we'd see an API freeze). For end-users, it's only pyschological reasons why you'd not use a "0.X" release compared to a "1.0", particularly in such a late stage of Mozilla's "pre-1.0" development as we're in now. It's not as if you "can't" use the 0.9.X releases, which is almost indirectly what Angelo is implying. The fact Mozilla 0.9.3, for example, is already as good as almost every other browser out there (I'd say that start-up speed and memory bloat are the only two bad marks against it now and we know they're being worked on) seems to have been ignored by Angelo.

d) The fact that it's got a parody site at <http://www.mozillaquestquest.com/> surely tells you something's up with the "original" site :-) BTW, anyone else noticed that the parody site serves up text/xml MIME type, which only NS 6.X and Mozilla can load and render inline :-)

#33 Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

"BTW, anyone else noticed that the parody site serves up text/xml MIME type, which only NS 6.X and Mozilla can load and render inline :-)"

I did notice that. I saw that MozillaQuestQuest's design is achieved using lots of cool CSS (for example, the embossed panels at the side are created with CSS and aren't graphics). I decided to load it in Netscape 4 to see if it fell to pieces. I went to the site and it asked me if I wanted to open the text/xml file in Netscape 6.1.

I guess it's to keep the joke exclusive to Mozilla users.

Alex

#35 Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by stfh

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

Yep, and load it up in IE5.5 and you see the xml code displayed in their default expando-tree thingie. Funny.

#42 Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:42 PM

Reply to this message

Bwaaahaha. You should see it in IE 5.5. It's just the XML source. Lovingly rendered as an expandable tree with colour syntax highlighting, of course.

Yes, IE 5.5 works to all standards!

Netscape 3.04 (Windows) renders it as plain text. Like the Web in 1994. Once you tell it it's able to.

Netscape 4.76 (Linux) just wants to save it as a file.

Konqueror 2.1.1 (Linux) tries to render it but fails. Also keeps flashing up alerts that "This page is untrusted but it contains a link to your local file system."

#47 Re: Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by macpeep

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

"Bwaaahaha. You should see it in IE 5.5. It's just the XML source. Lovingly rendered as an expandable tree with colour syntax highlighting, of course. Yes, IE 5.5 works to all standards!"

Hmm.. It's XHTML. What's the mime type for that? Not text/xml I bet. No wonder IE shows it as an expandable tree. If you'd actually send the file with the correct mime type, maybe IE 5.5 *would* display it nicely. Just a thought.

#51 MQQ

by _Lewellyn

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 3:27 AM

Reply to this message

According to the W3C (the last I checked), the correct MIME type for XHTML is still text/html. But IE5 Mac tries to render it nonetheless. (I don't think it even has that silly XML tree thing that the Windows version does...)

Thing is, it gives it a good try. It fails still. Look at <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-…arning=1&profile=css2> for my guess as to why. It *is* worth finding a friend with a Mac to take a look at the page. Just don't scroll... ;)

--Matt

#52 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mozillaquest

by Stargazer

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 5:04 AM

Reply to this message

The mime type "text/html" can be used but I think the recommended is "application/xhtml+xml"

/Filip

#36 Slashdot

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:57 AM

Reply to this message

It seems someone posted <http://slashdot.org/artic…es/01/08/27/0125214.shtml> the MozillaQuest story to Slashdot. Luckily Asa's been putting everyone right (have a look at this <http://slashdot.org/comme…sid=20947&cid=2220121> and this <http://slashdot.org/comme…sid=20947&cid=2220179> if you're in a hurry).

Alex

#37 Re: Slashdot

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:58 AM

Reply to this message

Or just this: <http://slashdot.org/~asa/>

Alex

#53 he's a troll but there's some truth in his stuff

by jilles

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 5:57 AM

Reply to this message

He's a troll but there's some truth in his stuff. I recall discussions about mozilla 1.0 dating back to early 2000. At the time saying that a 1.0 would be a year away was seen as pessimistic (in retrospect it turned out to be overly optimistic). When netscape released 6.0 in august 2000, it was generally believed that a 1.0 was long overdue and probably close.

We're a year past that now and still no 1.0. The roadmap has been updated a few times since. The current one predicts that a 1.0 release is close. However, I'll believe it when I see it.

The current milestone is actually pretty usable. I would call it worthy of a beta and I disapprove of netscape using an even older build for a release. It's just not ready.

I think the mozilla developers agree with me on this (otherwise they would call it a 1.0). In the past there have been discussions here on what is alpha/beta. As I recall beta qualifies as feature complete with a reasonable level of stability. That's mozilla right now.

So, what is the importance of a 1.0?: - Communicates to the outside world that it is ready for usage. Only users who know what they are doing are willing to use pre 1.0 builds of software. - Gives the developers room to start working on a 2.0 version. Right now any new code that breaks current code is discouraged, this slows down progress. - Gives third party developers something solid to build on instead of a relatively stable build with an unclear status. It would be nice to see stuff from mozdev maturing, a 1.0 release is needed for that.

Right now mozilla does all it is supposed to do, it just needs to do it a bit better and more reliable.

My advice to the mozilla developers: After 0.9.4 call a complete feature freeze and take three months to eliminate bugs, polish the GUI, document the project and do some hardcore quality testing. Then call it a 1.0. When close to the release, have release candidates and advertise their existence so that you get lots of feedback.

Realistically, you need that amount of time to release a properly tested product of this size. If you take less time you end up with another "it may work for you but you're on your own" type of build.

After 1.0, plan 1.0.1 (e.g. a month after release 1.0), 1.1 (e.g. 6 months after 1.0) and next versions and allow for similar testing periods before a final release. And for heaven's sake, produce a roadmap that is actually realistic rather than a "we'll see what happens" list of meaningless versions.

I suggest a similar release schedule as the linux kernel would be appropriate: odd numbers for development and even numbers for releases.

#54 Don't forget Moz's promises...

by sacolcor

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 8:25 AM

Reply to this message

One other important prerequisite...in fact, perhaps the /most/ important prerequisite for the 1.0 release is that Moz have complete and correct support for HTML 4.01, CSS 1.0, and DOM 0/1. These are the things that the project has promised since day 1, and right now, there are still a number of bugs. If possible, it would be nice to get a "statement of certification" or somesuch from the W3C confirming our conformance prior to the final release.

#102 Promises?

by Gerv

Saturday September 1st, 2001 8:43 AM

Reply to this message

Those promises were made by Eric Krock for Netscape 6.0, and then by other people on behalf of mozilla.org for Mozilla 1.0 when Netscape didn't deliver. Although mozilla.org would like those things for 1.0, it never promised them.

Gerv

#103 Re: Promises?

by sacolcor

Saturday September 1st, 2001 11:44 PM

Reply to this message

My mistake then...however, it seems to me that (whether officially promised or not) there has always been an understanding that compliance with that set of standards was a prerequisite for release. I think that releasing 1.0 without completing them would be a blow to the reputation of mozilla.org, and might even be taken by some as an indication that the W3C specs are unimplementable. After all, if mozilla can't get it quite right, even with its strong emphasis on standards and lack of commercial pressures, then what hope for other entities?

#116 Re: Re: Promises?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday September 3rd, 2001 2:17 PM

Reply to this message

" After all, if mozilla can't get it quite right, even with its strong emphasis on standards and lack of commercial pressures, then what hope for other entities?"

If Mozilla can't get it all right for 1.0 that doesn't mean it can't get more of it right by 1.1 or 1.5 or 2.0. The standards are a moving target. No one will ever have them all right at any given time. You (and many others) seem to think that at 1.0 we all just pack up and go home. If Netscape or IE would have packed up and gone home at 1.0, 2.0 or even 3.0 then we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion.

--Asa

--Asa

#122 Re: Re: Re: Promises?

by sacolcor

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 8:08 AM

Reply to this message

I'm not under any such illusions, and I hope the Mozilla project has a long and successful life. However, my expectation (and those of many others, I think), was that compliance with HTML4, CSS1, and DOM0/1 was part of the requirements definition for the Mozilla 1.0 release, and I would prefer to delay declaring that milestone until compliance with those standards has been completed, even if it means going through 0.9.42 in the interim. For the post 1.0 releases, we could then focus on polishing CSS2, DOM2, SVG, XSLT, and other newer standards.

Regarding the standards being a moving target...they shouldn't be. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that these are mature specifications, and that it is well past time to adhere to them. Sure, there may be some cases where something in (e.g.) CSS2 contradicts CSS1, and those might lead to WONTFIX bugs when we do it the CSS2 way. But other than those, I think Moz should really focus on getting these last few bugs cleared up before declaring 1.0. Otherwise, I fear that the tree will reopen to major new features, and the temptation will grow to "just put those last bits of standard support off for next release" again and again. We're close. Closer than any other browser to date. Let's keep the pressure on to get these last few kinks out.

#55 Why do we keep complaining about him?

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 9:06 AM

Reply to this message

Just ignore him, it seems we keep going in circles and talking about the same thing(s).

#4 As long as it is stable, but...

by NeilPryde

Sunday August 26th, 2001 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

"and to help moderate risk as we approach a Milestone that is going to be very important for several customers"

Well that must be a huge group of customers or a very important customer then isn't it?

Asa, can you mention specific bug numbers?

#18 Re: As long as it is stable, but...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday August 26th, 2001 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

I believe that the enterprise (Netbusiness) version of Netscape 6.1 (codenamed eMojo) is going to be based on 0.9.4 (but I'm not certain).

Alex

#40 Hm,

by Gorgeus <georgmeyer@loop.de>

Monday August 27th, 2001 1:02 PM

Reply to this message

what has the Netbusiness what the normal version doesn't have? (Except a better Mozilla) ? Shoudn't they do a 6.15 as well to have same version numbers for netbusiness and normal people ? I might find myself updating to Netbusiness "just" because of a better Mozilla underneath.

George

#41 Re: Hm,

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:13 PM

Reply to this message

I think te main difference is better LDAP support.

Alex

#8 Chatzilla

by WillyWonka

Sunday August 26th, 2001 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't downloaded the latest mozilla in a couple weeks, because it started getting unstable after 0.9.3. After downloading todays build, I must say that Chatzilla is really getting nice.

#29 unstable

by archen

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

yeah, the nightlys have been sort of unstable lately (although quite usable). I've been downloading them trying to get ftp to work (since it doesn't work for me on .9.3) and it still doesn't work for me, and now it crashes more often too!

I think many people want 1.0 to come out sooner not because they think that it's lagging so much, but because they're impatiant like me and want the perfect browser NOW =)

#26 Where is the actual plan

by sdestoop <sdestoop@netscape.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 5:35 AM

Reply to this message

Where is the actual plan ? Not just when release "0.9.x" will be ready, because who cares about number x being ready or not, if one doesn't know what x will bring ? The plan should say what feature to expect when. That is what planning is about and I haven't found this yet ...

#31 Re: Where is the actual plan

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Monday August 27th, 2001 10:47 AM

Reply to this message

There actually is a document, I've seen it, can't seem to find it again though. But anyways, virtually all the features that are in now, is what 1.0 will consist of, plus anything in bugzilla marked as mozilla 1.0 (or less). But most importantly 1.0 is the target of API stability. Which we will have to be backwards compatible to from now on. Which so far, has been impossible, with the amount of major overhauls in the system. Things are stabalizing and cleaning up real nice, we should have something that can be frozen in no time. Then one must consider all the silly feature request for 1.0, many of which will probably get bumped to 1.01.

#34 Re: Re: Where is the actual plan

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:15 AM

Reply to this message

"There actually is a document, I've seen it, can't seem to find it again though."

Is this it?

<http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html>

Alex

#50 1.0Def needs keyword update

by kb7iuj <ajvincent@hotmail.com>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 12:31 AM

Reply to this message

I was looking at this draft definition just last week. The mozilla0.8 and mozilla0.9 columns are effectively dead links; Bugzilla has deprecated those keywords. 8(

#48 Re: Where is the actual plan

by Gerv

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:47 PM

Reply to this message

The current plan is that there should be no new features before 1.0. If you see the 1.0 document someone else linked to, you will see that all the landings specified there have landed.

Gerv

#32 O/T : a quick question..

by beebebebebe

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:00 AM

Reply to this message

I made some changes in the toyfactory theme of NS 6.1 so that it works for nightlies now... but is it legal to do so? Am I hurting someone?

Thanks in advance.

#64 Re: O/T : a quick question..

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 2:30 PM

Reply to this message

Well its definatly perfectly legal to make any changes you want to it. To redistribute those changes may not be, I could not find any licensing terms on it, as an its not included with mozilla you can't assume its MPL, you will have to assume it falls under standard copywrite. So do with it what you want, pass instructions on to people on how to modify it. I doupt they want it working with mozilla though, or they would have released it that way (they want to encourage users to use netscape commercial over open sourced)

#65 Re: Re: O/T : a quick question..

by SmileyBen

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, presumably it does work with 0.9.2.1 (haven't got it - can anyone confirm this?)

Isn't there a saying that you shouldn't put anything down to conspiracy what you could put down to incompetence? Actually, I don't think this even works in this case - it's not incompetence that themes don't work across pre-1.0 versions, it's just not making the effort to make things work across the XUL changes (which would seem a lot of work for no reason)...

#66 works

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 8:40 PM

Reply to this message

it works fine with the latest milestone, except for a couple of cosmetic glitches.

#77 Re: Re: Re: O/T : a quick question..

by beebebebebe

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 8:40 PM

Reply to this message

"...it's just not making the effort to make things work across the XUL changes..."

Oh, it might be the case.. The theme breaks mainly because it uses the attribute "align", which has been changed to "orient" in the XUL specification.

(sigh.. I even replaced the Netscape logo with Mozilla's. Feeling bad with this but just couldn't resist!)

#86 Great, where can I get it?

by jonik

Thursday August 30th, 2001 5:48 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know about legality, but since I like the Toy factory theme, and use the nightly builds, I'd really like to get the modified theme..

Simple instructions to make the changes would also be fine.

Otherwise I'll just have to see if Netscape will ever fix the theme...

#91 The changes I made

by beebebebebe

Friday August 31st, 2001 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

Replaced all align=vertical with orient=vertical in global\scrollbars.css and global\scrollbars-mini.css.

Commented out "margin: 0px 3px 0px 0px;" under .autocomplete-history-button in navigator\navigator.css.

I can't remember what else I've changed to fix the urlbar... or where can I upload the file?

#79 Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 8:53 PM

Reply to this message

I think some of the Mozillazine posters must be working for MozillaQuest because every topic on this site eventually refers people to that site. There should be something on this site that filters any posts with "mozillaquest" in it, if that is possible. The title, "mozillaZine" at the top right of these webpages should be a link to the homepage. Internet Explorer 6 has been released and, since Microsoft has chosen to further cripple Netscape by obliterating Netscape plugins, anybody who cares about Netscape should be thinking about how to deal with ActiveX.

#80 Re: Comments

by stfh

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 9:38 PM

Reply to this message

>There should be something on this site that filters any posts with "mozillaquest" in it

Whoops, guess your post would have been filtered then! ;-) Doh, and mine too since I quoted you! Aaack!

>The title, "mozillaZine" at the top right of these webpages should be a link to the homepage.

Uh... it is. Last time I checked, which was... now. ;-)

> anybody who cares about Netscape should be thinking about how to deal with ActiveX.

Curious what you mean by "deal with ActiveX."

#81 Re: Re: Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 11:59 PM

Reply to this message

"Whoops, guess your post would have been filtered then! ;-) Doh, and mine too since I quoted you! Aaack!"

"If the filtering was in place then my comments would not have contained that string."

"Uh... it is. Last time I checked, which was... now. ;-)"

When I typed "top right," that should have been "top left." That will be corrected in version 1.0 of my comments, which should be released in 2002.

"Curious what you mean by 'deal with ActiveX.'"

I mean find a way to handle the situation that benefits Netscape. Consider how Microsoft dealed with Netscape plugins. Netscape had the dominant position so Microsoft chose to make its product compatible. Now that Microsoft has the dominant position, it has chosen to make its product incompatible, which places Netscape in the position Microsoft was in originally. To me, Netscape programmers seem against supporting anything that was not created by their former company or dictated by the W3C. I suppose it is normal for them to be against something that has been proven to be effective for attempting to gain a dominant position.

If compatibility is not an option then Netscape is going to need an enticing equivalent to ActiveX or to eliminate the need for ActiveX. I doubt they can create an enticing equivalent for ActiveX because I have witnessed their enticing equivalent for Internet Explorer. So I think the only good option remaining is to eliminate the need for ActiveX. I think the only way they could do that is to build support for all popular mime types into the browser or include them by default. Then they will not have to rely on companies to create Netscape plugins for their file formats, and they will not have to rely on website designers to direct people to sites for downloading Netscape plugins.

#84 Re: Re: Re: Comments

by macpeep

Thursday August 30th, 2001 3:38 AM

Reply to this message

Building in support for popular "formats" such as Flash, Shockwave, Java, QuickTime, MPEG etc. is definitely an interesting idea but it would add a lot of bloat to Mozilla, be hard to maintain and also I question if it would have any impact at all on Microsoft / ActiveX. After all, it's just as hard to maintain built in support for a technology in Mozilla as it would be to maintain a proprietary plugin for Mozilla.

Keep in mind that ActiveX is not just about "plugins" in IE. It's a much broader technology that is used throughout Windows and Windows applications. ActiveX is the Microsoft component model - the equivalence to XPCOM in Mozilla. There's very little anyone can do to "undermine" its position.

#89 Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday August 30th, 2001 10:15 PM

Reply to this message

"Building in support for popular 'formats' such as Flash, Shockwave, Java, QuickTime, MPEG etc. is definitely an interesting idea but it would add a lot of bloat to Mozilla"

I think the bloat of "built-in" support is less than the bloat of plugins. Maybe the plugins could share existing resources in Mozilla. The setup file allows people to choose which components they want. Adding options for support for various media formats probably would not add much bloat. If people did not want those features, they could uncheck their checkboxes as easily as I uncheck that stupid Chatzilla thing and that worthless crash-reporting thing.

"I question if it would have any impact at all on Microsoft / ActiveX. After all, it's just as hard to maintain built in support for a technology in Mozilla as it would be to maintain a proprietary plugin for Mozilla."

While maintaining built-in support could be as difficult as maintaining plugins, providing built-in support may eventually be easier than convincing people to create Netscape plugins. Also, expecting people to make their sites use the embed tag may eventually be as difficult as getting them to "optimize" pages for Mozilla.

"Keep in mind that ActiveX is not just about 'plugins' in IE. It's a much broader technology that is used throughout Windows and Windows applications. ActiveX is the Microsoft component model - the equivalence to XPCOM in Mozilla. There's very little anyone can do to "undermine" its position."

In this case, Netscape does not have to completely eliminate the need for ActiveX in Windows. It has to eliminate the need for ActiveX in web browsing. If all of the popular "rich media" formats require ActiveX controls then eventually it will seem that Windows is a critical component of the Internet. If that happens then the Internet will become the Inter.Net.

#90 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by SmileyBen

Friday August 31st, 2001 3:37 AM

Reply to this message

"I uncheck that stupid Chatzilla thing and that worthless crash-reporting thing."

Isn't it nice to be reassured that people don't like various people on this forum purely out of petty spite because they say negative things about Mozilla, rather than because they're offensive wankers (sic), eh?

#125 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 9:36 AM

Reply to this message

Stop playing with yours and read the rest of my typing.

#92 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by tny

Friday August 31st, 2001 7:01 AM

Reply to this message

<q>If people did not want those features, they could uncheck their checkboxes as easily as I uncheck that stupid Chatzilla thing and that worthless crash-reporting thing. </q>

What do you download Mozilla for if you don't want to report crashes?

#93 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by SmileyBen

Friday August 31st, 2001 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

"<q>If people did not want those features, they could uncheck their checkboxes as easily as I uncheck that stupid Chatzilla thing and that worthless crash-reporting thing. </q>

What do you download Mozilla for if you don't want to report crashes?"

Oh come on! It would be really unfair of him to bitch without downloading it first! ;-)

#105 Her (n/t)

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#126 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

I download it for web browsing. I think the Mozilla people should wonder why somebody who is trying to think of uses for Mozilla would only think of crashing computers.

#129 Re: Comments

by tny

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 10:40 AM

Reply to this message

> I think the Mozilla people should wonder > why somebody who is trying to think of uses > for Mozilla would only think of crashing > computers.

Huh? For one thing, I'm not trying to think of uses for Mozilla, I have plenty of things to do with my time. For another, my understanding is that the Mozilla nightlies at least are provided primarily for testing purposes. Mozilla isn't ready yet; that's why it's 0.9.x and not 1.0.x. So if you download the builds on a regular basis (i.e., the nightlies), you should contribute by providing crash information, etc.

#132 Re: Re: Comments

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 7:21 PM

Reply to this message

In the past, I submitted bug reports and submitted information using the error-reporting thing. Most of the bugs, which affected me, have been fixed, marked as "WONTFIX," or marked as "WORKSFORME." As I mentioned before, newer versions of Mozilla crash my entire computer system so I am unable to use the error-reporting thing. That is why I no longer install the error-reporting component. I have not filed a bug report about the crashing because it seems very random and they will probably mark the bug as "WORKSFORME."

#135 Re: Re: Re: Comments

by macpeep

Wednesday September 5th, 2001 6:13 AM

Reply to this message

If only even that was as bad as it gets.

I reported a bug about the focus area for the mail & news thread pane being wrong on initial loading. The focus area seems to think that there is a scroll bar, when there really is none.

When I added a dependency to the "bugs that make evangelism harder" meta bug, my bug was closed as "INVALID". I asked what was up and why it was closed as invalid. I also added a screenshot showing the bug. I was then flamed for reporting "the most useless and trivial bug in the world" by a QA person. My bug, while very visible, was not assigned to anyone, got no milestone target and the most trivial severity.

Luckily, I later found out that it was a duplicate and that the other bug had the correct severity plus a target milestone etc. Very professional...

#101 Re: Re: Re: Comments

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Saturday September 1st, 2001 1:39 AM

Reply to this message

It would be nice to have many of the existing Netscape plugins installed by default. Why is it that this is not already the case?

As it is now, every time I download a new Mozilla build, I have re-setup my plugins. This gets really annoying as I increase the frequency that I download nightlies.

Since there are still a lot of people using older versions of IE, Netscape, etc, I think that development of Netscape style plugins will continue for some time yet. Macromedia, Apple, etc are not going to immediately jump on the ActiveX bandwagon and tell everyone that they need to use IE 6.0 in order to use the lastest Flash, Quicktime, etc.

#94 Downloads.com statistics...

by thoffman11

Friday August 31st, 2001 7:45 AM

Reply to this message

N6.1 at 78% approval, iE6 only at 71%. A lot of the negative comments for IE6 not that Netscape does things better and IE6 doesn't do much different than 5.5.

Also, related to the skins thread above, negative comments on IE6 were that it looks nothing different than older versions.

#95 Re: IE6/Moz 0.9.3.x statistics...

by tny

Friday August 31st, 2001 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

I found that IE6 made my system unstable as all get out for the first day. Now after a few reboots, reinstalling office, running WinDoctor things seem (note - SEEM) to have settled down some. Really makes one appreciate that it might not be such a good thing for the os and the browser to be too tightly integrated, unless the browser is updated only with the os. Gee, IE seems to work best on Mac OS9 [5.1 version] ;-) . . .

As of right now, Moz is almost as fast as IE6, and a lot more stable, on my Win 98 system. Wednesday while browsing a Flash demo I found that I had lost track of what browser I was using: everything ran well, but it was Mozilla . . .

#113 Re: Re: IE6/Moz 0.9.3.x statistics...

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Sunday September 2nd, 2001 11:39 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, IE has a couple of bugs. Speedwise, Moz is almost there, it is indistinguishable on fast systems but painfully slow on my home pc (amd 300 mhz).

And, of course, I won't mention start-up speed

#114 Re: Downloads.com statistics...

by chrisbolt

Monday September 3rd, 2001 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

And Netscape Communicator 4.76 is at 84% approval... interesting...

#121 Re: Downloads.com statistics...

by tny

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 7:43 AM

Reply to this message

One more comment: the "IE6 doesn't look any different" comments are reaction to MS's marketing. MS is marketing the XP look of IE6, which is startlingly different, and users are disappointed when they see the W98 look. I think MS may be using IE6 mainly as a marketing tool for XP. (Which, like it or not, seems to be a decent product.)

I suppose a Luna theme would be out of the question?

#130 2 be or not 2 be here at all

by NeilPryde

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

Shit man, this looks more like a war against mozillaquest then an update on the tree plan for mozilla 0.9.4

#134 Yeah. This happens quite often, but why? (nt)

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Wednesday September 5th, 2001 1:25 AM

Reply to this message

a