Friday March 29th, 2002
The mozilla.org Status Reports was updated, and included some information on what email@example.com are up to, and what's coming up:
#39 Re: You\'re missing my point!
Monday April 1st, 2002 12:06 PM
You are replying to this message
My point was that mozilla.org has a use for the binaries it produces. While the code they produce is *not* a direct end user product, it needs to be tested as if it were. They will only grow a large enough external testing community to do this by producing binaries.
But besides that, you are only arguing that binaries not be released for 1.0. What good does that do if binaries are available for all other versions of the code produced? (Especially nightlies.) As I said, work will still be done on the 1.0 branch after it is released, so there\'s a need to be able to test that branch. Since a large mozilla QA community exists outside of Netscape, that means these binaries must be publicly available.
Besides, how do you argue that mozilla code could *never* meet the standards an end user expects? Yes, Netscape has some whiz-bangs they add to mozilla before they create a release. But most of the rest of the work they do is QA of the codebase. (Most of which *is* relevant to improving the base code of mozilla itself.) Is the open source of Mozilla much more polished because of this, I believe so. Does it continue to move in the correct direction? Yes. Is a Mozilla release different from a Netscape release? Yes. And the end users who would rather have IM than a QA menu *do* still go to Netscape for their releases. Those who would rather the QA menu are the ones most likely to file bugs within bugzilla. Which was the whole purpose of creating some binaries.
Not having a spellchecker or PGP plugin at the moment does not make Mozilla any less likely to grow to meet end user expectations. Mozilla is not perfect yet, but it is still growing up. 1.0 is *not* the be all and end all of development. A spellchecker is only the beginning of the polish Mozilla will recieve in the coming months and years. It may not meet al the requirements now, but how much closer is it than a year ago? Where will it be a year from now? And how much of this is form the ideas and people who have been attracted to the project by having a simple binary they could download and view the promise of?
So to recap my point, I don\'t believe that Mozilla is actually seen as an end user product. The real end users are the ones who have never even *heard* the name Mozilla, but would use Netscape in a heartbeat. While there are a vocal minority who argue that Mozilla is already an end user product, refusing to produce binaries won\'t quiet them. They will look at the small tangible difference between Netscape and a compiled Mozilla and draw their conclusions from that.