Full Article Attached Independent Status Reports

Friday April 12th, 2002

The status reports for this week include updates from Beonex, mozdev, and Optimoz. Click the Full Article link to check them out.

#1 I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by johann_p

Friday April 12th, 2002 4:36 PM

I dont say it isn't there, I just dont see it: what is really the difference between their release and the mozilla milestone build? I mean, what added or changed features or stuff will be there? Why should I use it rather than Mozilla? Mozilla is luckily available for a couple of platforms while Beonex is planned only to get released for linux, win32, and osx, so whats the point?

#2 Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by tack

Friday April 12th, 2002 4:48 PM

My understanding is that Beonex is targetted towards end users, whereas Mozilla is not.


#6 Re: Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by macpeep

Saturday April 13th, 2002 2:03 AM

But that wasn't the question. The question was what the difference is. What features does Beonex have that Mozilla doesn't (or maybe, what features have Beonex removed from Mozilla)? If there are only added features then why can't they be in Mozilla?

The "features" page of lists the following things: XSLT, MathML and IRC client. ChatZilla is already in Mozilla. I can't speak for XSLT or MathML but eventually at least XSLT should be in Mozilla.

The page also talks about higher level of security. Surely that should be in Mozilla!

#9 Re: Re: Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex rel

by benb

Saturday April 13th, 2002 6:35 AM

> The page also talks about higher level of security. > Surely that should be in Mozilla!

Yes, but Mozilla somemtimes doesn't want that, but prefers compatibility, testing coverage or similar.

#10 PGP? Debs?

by sab39

Monday April 15th, 2002 3:06 PM

Two questions about Beonex 0.8...

1) Will Beonex include PGP support (eg through integrated Enigmail)? 2) Will .debs of Beonex be available officially? (I might be able to put these together if nobody else can, but I can't commit to doing it in any particular strict time period, and I don't know a whole lot about deb development...)

#3 Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by roro

Friday April 12th, 2002 4:48 PM

you need to compare beonex to netscape, not mozilla. netscape and beonex are mozilla distributions for end-users, and in many ways I think that beonex does a better job than netscape has so far :

* "support" for platforms moz runs best on, slow release cycle * it's _intended_ for end-users, debug/qa menus are removed, etc * the profile dir on Linux is "~/.beonex", unlike netscape's "~/.mozilla" * they don't come with all the ads that netscape does

A big point is that you can pay Beonex for support or features, and they will contribute any features back to mozilla ( if mozilla will accept them ). I don't think Netscape does this, at least not for end-users ( maybe for partners ).

Mozilla is for developers, not end-users. You can file a bug, but I doubt that sending a little money to a developer will get you support for a problem in your current version ( or get a patch out just because you asked ). The Mozilla way is to file a bug and wait, or fix it yourself, or hire someone ( like Beonex ) to fix it for you.

What if I want to install Moz as the standard web browser enterprise-wide on Linux smart client workstations? Personally I would not use Netscape, too many ads and annoying things to turn off and no source code. My choices would be :

custom mozilla distro ( personally I'd prefer this ) use beonex/galeon ( if I couldn't provide adequate support, this would be a viable option. I could also pay them to work on features for me, which I may want to do even if I do my own custom distro ).

Hope that helps. I've checked out their last release on Linux, I think they did a great job, compared to Netscape. Just my opinion of course :)

#4 hmmm

by johann_p

Friday April 12th, 2002 5:14 PM

well I agree, I too would prefer Beonex over NS wouldnt I just use Mozilla :) My question was really about *what the differences in the dist* really are, for people who just donwload and use a dist. You gave me some hints, thank you, but I think they should point it out in detail on ther web page. I am using Mozilla now for I dont know how long (starting with M18 I believe). I tried to use NS a few times and always nearly immediately deleted it and came back to mozilla. I tried Beonex two times and didnt see any advantage for me over Mozilla. So the paradox situation probably is that while Mozilla isnt for end user it will be used by more end users than Beonex :)

#7 Re: hmmm

by thegoldenear

Saturday April 13th, 2002 2:07 AM

"while Mozilla isnt for end user it will be used by more end users than Beonex :)"

but each will be used by a particular and different kind of end user, so it is good that the different soft wares exist to support people who need their support given differently

whereas Mozilla users are comfortable spending time and using Bugzilla/newgroups/IRC, other people are more comfortable spending money and using the telephone to speak with help desk staff

Mozilla is the raw creative kernel that facilitates many different growths, each appropriate to a different kind of person, but always Mozilla at the heart of the process; thats the only way this development process will build something that spreads further than other software

#13 Re: Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by mcrist

Tuesday April 16th, 2002 3:56 PM

>What if I want to install Moz as the standard web browser enterprise-wide on Linux smart client >workstations?

Isn't that what the Client Customization Kit for Netscape is for:

#14 Re: Re: Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex rel

by roro

Tuesday April 16th, 2002 10:17 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

One wonderful thing about Mozilla is that you can customize it pretty heavily without source code. I'm glad that Netscape is taking advantage of this.

There are still good reasons to have source around though, for instance emergency patches ( hopefully to be fixed in the next Moz release ), architecture-specific compilation for perf reasons and/or for platforms unsupported by NS.

Also, participation in the Moz development community based on shared desire for specific features with capable developers that happen to work for other companies. Source helps here :)

Last but not least, I find the Netscape license undesirable especially with the MPL/GLP/LGPL choice becoming available for Moz. This gives me mature, tested source code that I can reuse in other GPL/LGPL projects.

What I'm saying is, organizations such as Beonex are an example of companies that can help perform these kinds of functions for customers that don't happen to have someone on staff with the neccessary skills, but who possess the knowledge, desire and money to fund specialized Mozilla development.

Netscape used to serve the kind of customer I am describing, but they seem to have refocused since the AOL ( now AOL Time Warner ) buyout. I don't think Netscape supported them to the extent that I am describing, but I'm sure if you were an interested customer you could get alot of input into the development process. It wouldn't have been practical for them to try to fulfill every little client request of course.

Thankfully, the core technology is free to be further developed and marketed by companies with different priorities, so this is fine by me. This also helps the Mozilla project ( and therefore all the distributors ) by attracting new contributers.

#8 The point

by benb

Saturday April 13th, 2002 6:28 AM

#11 Re: The point

by c960657

Tuesday April 16th, 2002 1:36 AM

Beonex is at version 0.7, and Mozilla is at version 1.0.

Does that imply that Beonex is "less complete" (defined in an "end user"-sense) than Mozilla?

Some suggestions: I think the "Beonex vs. Mozilla" page should cut down on the "proofs that Mozilla is not for end users". Instead I would like to see a more thorough comparison of the two products, like concrete examples of differences (except the obvious removed Debug and QA menus). I probably should install Beonex at my parents computer. I am tired of patching their Internet Explorer every time I visit them.

#12 Other Options

by amutch

Tuesday April 16th, 2002 2:02 PM

Or use K-Meleon:

which is especially suited for those running Windows on older computers and don't need all of the extras.

#15 Re: I dont see the point of the Beonex release

by stu42j

Tuesday April 16th, 2002 10:57 PM

After some other discussions on this site about how there is a need for user-oriented builds of Mozilla without all the fluff of Netscape, I finally decided to start a project with this goal ( but don't expect to find much there yet).

However, I'm still undecided whether or not there is even a need for this. Here are the main questions:

1) What's wrong with the builds from

The Mozilla Organization has consistantly refused to provide user-oriented builds optimized without debuging/development info. However, I'm not sure how much difference this actually makes in the current builds.

2) What's wrong with Beonex?

Beonex seems to be focused on adding new features and providing commercial support. Also, the releases seem to be rather slow. I want builds based on the latest and greatest that has to offer (at least as often as milestones) and I don't care about commercial support (and I think there are a lot of other people that want that too).

3) What about builds from your linux distributer?

In my experience distro builds tend to be designed mostly to meet dependancies of other apps like nautilus and galeon. Trying to update your distro build can be a dependancy nightmare.

Also, after building Moz from source for the first time a few days ago and finding it to be less difficult than I expected, I'm thinking that compiling their own user builds from source may be a good option for a lot of people and there should be a place to help them do that.

So, what do you think? Is there a need for something in between and Beonex?

#5 optimoz 0.4?

by re_Verse

Friday April 12th, 2002 6:47 PM

all i see is 0.3.x on there, am i missing somehting?