Mail/News Performance Effort Underway
Friday November 2nd, 2001
Seth Spitzer today sent an update out about what the Mail/News team is doing to meet their goals for Mozilla 1.0. They'll be focusing almost 100% of their effort for at least the next two milestones (0.9.7, 0.9.8) on Footprint and Performance of the various parts of Mail, News, and Addressbook. Not only will they be focusing on it, they'll also be locking down their part of the tree and only accepting performance or footprint fixes. Very few exceptions will be made. Click the Full Article link to see Seth's full post.
#207 You are misinformed
by SubtleRebel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Friday November 9th, 2001 1:02 PM
You are replying to this message
1> The date that mozilla.org was organized has no relevance to your claim of 4+ years of development of Mozilla 1.0 because development of Mozilla 1.0 did not start on that day. Netscape did not release any code on that day. The code that was eventually released is not really the code that Mozilla 1.0 is being built from.
2> Mozilla.org was not given Netscape 4. Mozilla.org was given Netscape 5. Netscape 5 was not fully functional. If you want, I think you can still download it and check it out for yourself.
3> Codebase was for a suite.
4> The point of conception for the rewrite is when development of Mozilla 1.0 really began.
5> Without the other components, it would not have been a project that I would be very interested in. Several other people in this forum and elsewhere have expressed similar opinions. Really this is more related to #6 though.
6> If Mozilla had chosen to only develop a browser then it would not have received as much support from various companies and individuals. Without that support, the project would have been diminished. Ultimately, the quality of the browser itself would suffer. Part of the reason that you disagree is because you have this idea that no one uses the mail/news/chat/etc features of Mozilla; however, I believe that it is because of the inclusion of these features that Mozilla has been able to survive this long.
7> It is not at all hard to argue with the either point. You are basing your first claim on the assumption that if Mozilla scrapped the non-browser components then there would be signifigantly more people working on the browser component, but I do not see evidence to support that. People who have been working on the other components would not necessarily want to work on the browser. Some people who have worked on the browser might not have done so if it were just a stand alone browser. Also there are a limited number of people who can work on a given section of code at once anyway.
The second part about enhanced viability for Mozilla is definitely unfounded. The current pre 1.0 Mozilla is extremely viable; people have been declaring it dead for years but yet it survives. It is virtually indestructable. How could a stand alone browser be more viable?