Mozilla 1.1 News Reports
Tuesday August 27th, 2002
Though not as major as 1.0, a few tech sites noted the launch of Mozilla 1.1. A Mozilla release just wouldn't be the same without an article from Slashdot and the site offers up the usual collection of user comments. The more mainstream ZDNet News concentrates on the speed and stability improvements of the new version while internetnews.com delivers little more than a rehash of the Release Notes. Thanks to everyone who sent us links to news.
UPDATE! CNET News.com has an article focussing on consumer reaction to the new release. The report sums up the feedback as "mixed", though this does seem to be largely based on a single Slashdot comment.
#48 Re: Re: Heartily Agree
Thursday August 29th, 2002 3:25 AM
You are replying to this message
"But I thought it was Netscape's job to get end-users? AIUI Mozilla is supposed to be a technology demonstration aimed at embedders. It sounds more reasonable that <marquee> is added to the Netscape branch only but not Mozilla."
It's not a branch. It's a separate and closed source tree. Distributors maintain a separate tree with their distribution specific changes. You're suggesting we make life difficult for a lot of distributors. I don't know for sure what their numbers are but RedHat also distributes Mozilla, and as the default browser shipping with their OS. They want marquee and all of the other "make the web browser display web pages" fixes. You want them and Netscape and Galeon and all the others to maintain anything non-standard in their own trees, independently?
Everything that goes into Mozilla makes it that much easier for distributors (and there are more than just Netscape) to ship a well tested product to end users. If changes don't land in mozilla then RedHat and OEOne and AOL and Galeon and Nautilus and Netcape and Beonex and Compuserve and others all have to duplicate the work in their own trees. Then they all have to duplicate the testing. I don't see Beonex getting hundreds of thousands of beta downloads every few weeks (or any of those distros, for that matter) so I'm sure they appreciate that Mozilla does and that the changes they take in every new release are well tested.
The point is that yes, we could say "not in Mozilla" to literally thousands of fixes based on the fix not being the perfect fix or not being "pure" but we're making a web browser here and the better we make it and the easier we make it for distributors to turn into products the better the chances of Gecko spreading across the web. If we backed out all of the non-standard features (as defined by the various web standards groups) and said that those kinds of changes had to land in the individual distributors' trees I'd wager that all but one of those distributors listed above would go away. On top of that, Mozilla would have about 13 users, just like Amaya, and so we wouldn't even be providing the testing for the one remaining distributor. Not a world I want to move toward.