mozilla.org releases Mozilla Milestone 0.9.4
Friday September 14th, 2001
#165 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0 is in
Wednesday September 26th, 2001 4:57 AM
You are replying to this message
That's the thing. It's fair enough saying the Opera and Konqueror don't have a large enough share to justify developing *for* them, but that's the thing - you don't have to. It is enough that you develop to the w3c standards, and then, by the magic of having standards, you website will work in them. And what's even better, if it doesn't, they'll work really hard to make sure it does. I agree there's no point developing for one standard rather than another if they have equal standing (though in fact, in this case, I'd still say designing to the standard that Microsoft, Netscape, and everyone else agreed upon, rather than the one that Microsoft only did would be a more positive community step, but ignore that, that's just me ;-) ), but thing is it doesn't matter how small the share of other browsers there are - there will always be people in niche situations, and the great thing about standards is that all of these small projects are aiming for the same thing. So don't waste money developing for Opera and Konqueror, develop for standards and you get Mozilla, Netscape 6+, Opera, Konqueror, Galeon, K-Meleon, etc.. Thing is, if standards really get their foot in properly, suddenly we won't have to think 'Are they using IE or Netscape?' because people will be able to use their slim, superfast browsers, or their ultra-stable-at-the-expense-of-some-functionality browser, or their 3D browser, or, eventually, XML metabrowser / information finder. That will be a good world, IMHO...
I don't think Microsoft dominating browsers has much of an effect on whether they compete with you, but I do think, certainly in a .NET world, it has an effect on whether they succeed.
As for your complaint that open source projects aren't good for users, I presume we don't include, say, Apache in that, which seems to work with no trouble out of the box. I know what you're saying, but I seriously think it all comes down to what we define as 'suitable for general use'. I think Code Red / Sir Cam / Nimda prove that products which have had the most money spent on them aren't 'suitable for general use'. If you simply mean are easy to use, that is DEFINITELY something that can be added later a good deal easier than adding stability, security, and simply intelligent architecture. Considering that Linux has only really been thinking about desktops in the last two / three years, I think they're doing remarkably well, and I certainly think they got their priorities right (in fact inadvertantly, since nobody ever made a good software / users choice). When they catch up with Windows 95, say, in terms of usability it'll be better both in terms of stability, security and architecture as well as usability. Just give them a little time (five years grace isn't really much in these terms...).