Salon on Mozilla

Tuesday March 12th, 2002

A number of people have submitted this article, and while it's not really news, it's just another example of how Mozilla is starting to win people over. This is also beneficial to the evangelism efforts going on.

#99 Re: Offensive vs. Defensive

by SubtleRebel <>

Sunday March 17th, 2002 11:28 PM

You are replying to this message

What would have been the point of me posting a response to the post that you linked to? By the time I read any of this thread there were already several posts by mpt, mozineAdmin, Asa, strauss, yourself, and others. It would be a pointless waste of time for me to respond to everyone even if I wanted to. Besides, you should realize that the conflict that led to that post pre-dates this whole thread; not much that I can do about that, so I just stay out of it. I do not get into pointless flame wars with anyone.

Regarding your post and Tanaaln's reply, again I must point out that I did not enter this discussion until Friday the 15th. As I am sure you are aware, niner appropriately responded to Tanaaln by saying that your arguments were right. By the time I read the thread 2 days later, that whole thread branch had died off. Why would you expect me to make a post repeating niner's defense of your post?

Regarding the whole debate about determining the length of development, I have to disagree with you about resetting the clock. If it were a race like you and mpt have suggested and the winner was to be determined by who got to the finish line in the shortest amount of time, then you both might be right to say that it is unfair to reset the clock, but this is not a contest to see who can get to the non-existant finish line in the shortest time. This competition is about building a better browser; it is not about building a browser in the least time. If someone wants to discuss how long it has taken for to develop Mozilla 1.0 then it is NOT fair to start counting before was formed. The fact that some of the developers worked on developing web browsers before "the Great Rewrite" is pretty much irrelevant because "the Great Rewrite" sent Mozilla down a different path than the project had been before and that path would require practically everything to be rewritten from scratch. I wrote my first sort routine back in 1983, if I were to contribute a patch that contained that sort routine, would it be fair to say that Mozilla 1.0 was started in 1983?