"For now I think Netscape made Mozilla just for using thousands of free testers and some free development. Can someone comment on this?"
I wasn't in the room when the folks at Netscape were making these decisions so I can't comment from direct experience. I don't think your speculation is at all correct though. It's definitely not now the case, or for the last few years that I've been directly involved in Mozilla.
"I begin to think that Netscape made Mozilla just for releasing own branded versions."
Maybe you weren't around back in the old days so this might be news to you but there haven't always been mozilla.org binaries and when Netscape released the code and created mozilla.org it was clear from statements coming out of mozilla.org that mozilla.org wasn't a binary distribution. "The products of Mozilla are source code and their customers are developers. Whereas the products of Netscape Client Group is a program, a binary and its customers are users." "Mozilla is not engaged in producing binaries intended for users. It produced source intended for developers." http://technetcast.ddj.com/hz-show-980529.html That we have daily and milestone binaries today is because a lot of people, inside and outside of Netscape, thought it would make testing and development a lot easier for everyone involved.
"[Netscape] do not want many features that already are in Phoenix (and really needed and waited features!)"
Point me to one place where someone ported a Phoenix change over to Mozilla and it was rejected by a reviewer or Module Owner employed by Netscape. You're just making this up with nothing to support it.
"[Netscape] do not want a new splash-screen for mozilla
That's total bs. The splash screen has nothing to do with what Netscape wants or doesn't want. They don't use it and they don't care what it looks like. mozilla.org, however, does. There are licensing issues, there are unity of UI design issues, but there is absolutely no Netscape involvement in this issue (with maybe the exception that people inside Netscape would like to see the end of the use of the old-style green lizard).
"[Netscape] do not want other fixes I was ready to contribute for..."
Point me to your fixes that were denied by a reviwere or a Module Owner employed by Netscape. I challenge you to point me to a single patch you've done that was rejected because Netscape didn't want it.
"What's the point of being open source, but when community does not have any influence what and when something will happends in the project. "
Right. Now you're just talking garbage. You just haven't been paying attention if you think that the community doesn't have any influence in the projects. Boo-hoo. It's a crying shame. mozilla.org hasn't done anything about the community concerns with the splash screen. That the community hasn't been able to get the splash screen changed doesn't mean jack when you look at the fact that the community convinced mozilla.org to throw out pretty much its entire browser and start over with a new XPFE based on the new Gecko rendering engine http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=88 ? If the community didn't have any infulence then why did mozilla.org make the switch in Oct of 98 http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/roadmap-26-Oct-1998.html ?
"Isn't this a major point why Apple desided to go with KHTML? Is Mozilla independent? "
No and yes.
--Asa
#11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Uninstalling of extensions?
by ezh
Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:13 PM
"[Netscape] do not want many features that already are in Phoenix (and really needed and waited features!)"
"Point me to one place where someone ported a Phoenix change over to Mozilla and it was rejected by a reviewer or Module Owner employed by Netscape. You're just making this up with nothing to support it. "
1. Customizeble toolbar
2. Form filler a-la IE
etc. There are more and more I just cannot remember since I'm a Mozilla user.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"[Netscape] do not want a new splash-screen for mozilla
That's total bs. The splash screen has nothing to do with what Netscape wants or doesn't want. They don't use it and they don't care what it looks like. mozilla.org, however, does. There are licensing issues, there are unity of UI design issues, but there is absolutely no Netscape involvement in this issue (with maybe the exception that people inside Netscape would like to see the end of the use of the old-style green lizard)."
I personally do not care about the splash screen, I install to my custumers NN7.01 (currently), since I believe it's a suite that should be widly distributed and I can live with any splash. But the ignorance for mozilla users is awfull. Look at the bug - tons of the splash screens, tons of votes, but no one cares to solve this most voted bug. I _believe_ Netscape does not want Mozilla becomes popular to end-user (but the fact is that Mozilla have a way more popularity than Netscape does) and this is some sort of barricade. I believe any more good looking splash will make people happy, but no activitie at all form mozilla.org stuff. There already was a petice made, but... Asa, if I'm not right please explaine to me why a most wanted issue is not yet fixed with all that splash available? When will it be fixed. The way out way you, at mozilla.org select usable splashes and make a voting on mozillazine. That's it! What's the problem?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"[Netscape] do not want other fixes I was ready to contribute for..."
Point me to your fixes that were denied by a reviwere or a Module Owner employed by Netscape. I challenge you to point me to a single patch you've done that was rejected because Netscape didn't want it.
They were not mine, but from a programmer, we agreed that I make his work on mozilla more intresting with some paiments by me. I cannot say here what were sayd to him. If he want's he say it itself.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Isn't this a major point why Apple desided to go with KHTML? Is Mozilla independent? "
No and yes.
Sure no and yes, but it was a big point that maybe was the main reason.
#12 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uninstalling of extensions?
by Sander
Sunday January 19th, 2003 3:58 PM
>> "Point me to one place where someone ported a Phoenix change over to Mozilla and it was rejected by a reviewer or Module Owner employed by Netscape." <<
"1. Customizeble toolbar 2. Form filler a-la IE"
*blinks* Did I miss newly created bugs for these features? The ones I'm following haven't had any patches attached from someone porting over the Phoenix code. The fact that no one is working _for_ it doesn't mean people are working _against_ it - it just means that developers have different priorities.
Much as I'd like to see some things like this ported over from Phoenix, _someone_ will still have to do the work. If someone did, the code would be accepted. (And if not, then you could poke Asa on it.)
"tons of the splash screens, tons of votes, but no one cares to solve this most voted bug"
That's right. *no one* cares. Not Netscape developers (why should they? Netscape doesn't have the problem), and not a single person from the community. (Not counting end-users - talking non Netscape developers.) The guidelines for getting a new splash screen are clearly lined out in the bug; any developer who felt this bug important enough to waste time on it could get it fixed. However (probably due to the large level of useless comments and invalid splash screens in the bug), no one is doing that. Is Netscape responsible for non-Netscape developers spending their time on more important issues?
"They were not mine, but from a programmer, we agreed that I make his work on mozilla more intresting with some paiments by me. I cannot say here what were sayd to him. If he want's he say it itself. "
I don't think anyone cares about what was said. Bug number with the patch please.
#14 Re: Uninstalling of extensions?
by mlefevre
Monday January 20th, 2003 5:16 AM
"That's right. *no one* cares [...] The guidelines for getting a new splash screen are clearly lined out in the bug; any developer who felt this bug important enough to waste time on it could get it fixed."
I don't think that's entirely true - there are contributors that care, there are splash screens that meet the guidelines. It's not getting fixed because mozilla.org want to resolve the legal issues first, and only they can do that, not anyone else...
New tinderstatus Tool Available