mozilla.org releases Mozilla Milestone 0.9.4
Friday September 14th, 2001
#53 Re: I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad...
Saturday September 15th, 2001 1:15 PM
You are replying to this message
I don't think MozillaQuest is _good_ by any means, and in the last month it's become increasingly crankier, perhaps because of the increasing tide of personal attacks against Angelo here and on /. -- which according to a message downthread, have included email to his boss attempting to get him fired from his unrelated day job. (Nice work, guys. Jeez.)
In any case, while not exactly defending MozillaQuest, again I am finding that most of the response to him here seems even more mistaken than he is.
>> * It's "very buggy" (this claim is purely based on [incorrect] bug counts and not actually on user experience of the browser. <<
The bug counts appear to be correct, as always. As for users, significant bug reports started rolling into both MozillaZine and SlashDot as soon as the stories were posted. Response to this build has not been enthusiastic.
>> Because 0.9.4 was delayed a week... he accuses Mozilla.org of "poor program management" and making "inappropriate concessions to AOL/Netscape". <<
He says bugs and those two reasons are his main suspects for reasons for the delay. I'd have to agree on all three fronts. Saying you don't have a release schedule, failing to evaluate incoming bug reports, forcing releases out on an accelerated schedule when their targeted bugs aren't fixed -- these are all issues relating to "bugs, poor program management, and inappropriate concessions to AOL".
>> He's been claiming that Mozilla.org has been keeping the identity of who would be using the branch to create a commercial Mozilla-based release "a closely guarded secret". Er, what ?! AOL/Netscape are obviously those people..., but Angelo now claims Mozilla isn't a "true open source project" because of this non-existent "secret" ! <<
It's a valid issue. Asa has also refused to answer the question, and it's not obvious that AOL is who he was talking about. There is a conflict between having secret arrangements with commercial vendors and being "open." It's one of the more interesting issues facing the open source community today and is coming up on a number of projects. When is open not open?
>> In a show of paranoid delusion, he is convinced that -turbo is the one of the biggest evils in the universe. <<
No, he's not. He's saying that enabling turbo by default was not a good idea, and he gives specific reasons -- it slows down Window launch, it eats resources even when you're not using it, and it keeps buggy code running in the background, which is a risk. We've seen half-a-dozen people say the same things about turbo on MozillaZine without them being accused of "paranoid delusion."
>> He complains that there isn't a non-Talkback installer. <<
That is a legitimate privacy concern.
>> More paranoia - "we recommend your disconnect your computer from the Internet when installing 0.9.4". If that isn't the biggest load of drivel, I don't know what is ! And what reason does he give for this suggestion ? Answer: none whatsoever (it's not even tied into his crazy Talkback rant). <<
Yes, he does give a reason. "The installer version of Mozilla presents some potential privacy breaches, which we shall address shortly in another article. In the meantime, we recommend that you disconnect your computer from the Internet when installing mozilla-win32-0.9.4-installer.exe so that you can adjust your security and privacy preferences before taking Mozilla 0.9.2 [sic] online for the first time." While he says he will go into more detail on the privacy issues later, he does state them as the specific reason -- and given the removal of non-talkback builds, this seems like a legitimate concern.
Go ahead and call me an insane idiot now, but it continues to appear to me that Angelo is far more correct than most of his critics. He is being flamed without apparent regard for the facts of the case, and pranks like trying to get him fired from his day job do his critics no credit.