Five Years Ago: Netscape Announces Intention to Release Source Code

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003

On this day in 1998, Netscape Communications Corporation announced that it was planning to release the Netscape Communicator 5.0 source code to the public. Heralding the move as "bold" and "aggressive", Netscape described how it intended to "create a special Web site service where all interested parties can download the source code, post their enhancements, take part in newsgroup discussions, and obtain and share Communicator-related information with others in the Internet community." You'll know this site as

#1 Woo hoo!

by Kovu

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 3:16 PM

Mozilla has come a long was since that announcement. I wonder where we'll be five years from now?

#2 5 yrs from now? Lets try to get back to 5 yrs ago.

by Ark42

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 3:23 PM

5 yrs ago:

"Netscape's research indicates that in the education market where Netscape's products are free, the Netscape client software commands approximately 90 percent share"

Today - probably 90%+ of education market is IE5/6

#3 Re: 5 yrs from now? Lets try to get back to 5 yrs

by jvlb

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 4:33 PM

Boy, we all knew the decline in American education was serious, but this is truly disconcerting. I suspect the lizard must be the browser of choice for the home-schooled, however.

#5 Re: 5 yrs from now? Lets try to get back to 5 yrs

by thelem

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 4:52 PM

Who said anything about american education? There is life outside america you know.

#10 I meant amateur, not immature

by tuxracer

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 7:34 PM

Netscape will never be a replacement in schools until admins can get more control. Admins need to be able to lock out certain menus, lock certain prefs, lock certain UI elements, etc... This can all be done with IE, but not with Mozilla/Netscape. Until then Mozilla/Netscape doesn't stand a chance in schools.

#11 Admins do have this control

by Dracos

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 9:12 PM

What admin can't rename a jar or xpi file to *.zip, extract it, edit the xul files within to remove/edit the prefs panels, zip it up again, and rename it back to the original file? Knowing a little bit about Mozilla's architecture can go a long way.

#12 Re: Admins do have this control

by Paper

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 10:06 PM

What admin can't? Admins who have only administered through easy-as-pie GUIs and wizards. These people wouldn't go through the hurdles you just mentioned.

mm, that's an easy answer, and it allowed me to take a potshot at Microsoft Admins. Whee :)

#16 Re: Admins do have this control

by CerthasIM

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 4:22 AM

Don't know how it is in the states, but around here the usual school doesn't have an administrator. Usually a teacher handles the PCs, and most of this is unfortunately still in his/her free time. Sure the contractor who installed the whole thing most likely could do this, IF he took the time to get to know the Mozilla architecture far enough which is something that will not be a vast help to sell future products since nobody asks what Browser they get. And even then it would be unacceptable for the school to have to call in the contractor every odd time they need to make a minor change there.

#32 How big?

by thelem

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 7:19 PM

How big is your school? In my secondary school, of slightly under 1000 students, we have between 1 and 3 technicians/aministators depending on the time you asked, and 1 or 2 staff teaching IT.

If you were in a primary school of 200 or so pupils, then I would not expect any IT staff, but most UK schools of the above size have at least one, normally more, staff who could qualify as 'administrator'


#39 Re: Admins do have this control

by CerthasIM

Friday January 24th, 2003 5:14 AM

All kind of sizes. The 800 pupils Gymnasium (upper branch, 5th to 13th grade) I went to, had a teacher who dedicated himself to the task, and that is the usual setup around here. It's not ideal at all and definately would need improvement. Mymother is a teacher at a Hauptschule (lower branch 5th to 9th grade) of 350 pupils and handles the daily buissness with the computers, completely self taught though, and the courses they send the teachers on can be called rudimentary at best.

#17 Time

by Malc

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 6:02 AM

What admin has the time to do that? Options slow people down and cause confusion. Keep it simple stupid - put a simple GUI on it, or create a custom distribution for those people. Expecting them to find and spend the time educating themselves and making these changes is unrealistic.

#55 Beauty of Open-Source

by DHiester

Sunday January 26th, 2003 3:11 PM

If the community really weanted schools (and intranets) back, they could simply make another gecko-based project aimed at being administrated via the network. Granted, it's a lot of work for us, but it's no work for the admins. And honestly, it's that kind of guerilla warfare tactic that makes open-source so much more powerful than corporate software anyway.

#14 Re: I meant amateur, not immature

by bzbarsky

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 2:24 AM

Not sure about menuitems, but there's a mechanism in place for locking prefs and last I checked Netscape distributed (as part of the free Client Customization Kit) a nice gui for doing just that

#6 90% marketshare

by vcs2600

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 5:55 PM

If Netscape knew then that it would take 4+ years to get a decent replacement out the door, they most likely would have NOT released Netscape 5.0 as open source. It took a while (1 year?) to disentangle the source code, and then they pretty much gave up and started over.

Instead, they could have finished Communicator 5, held onto some marketshare and started as the next gen open source browser. Odds are Mozilla wouldn't have taken much longer and would have a much larger userbase today.

#7 Re: 90% marketshare

by rkl

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 6:16 PM

This makes the assumption that Netscape *would* have held onto "some" marketshare if they'd have released a Netscape 5. Considering that the Netscape 4.X series of browsers were arguably no improvement on the 3.X series (and certainly weren't standards compliant), then unless Netscape did a complete re-write, NS 5.X would be 4.X plus a few minor changes one suspects. Remember that opening the source has not only increased the number of eyes looking at the code, it's also increased the number of *ideas* (RFEs) going into the melting pot - some of which have been implemented and many more wait to be.

Microsoft would have continued its bully tactics against OEMs and ISPs and NS 5.X would probably have lost almost as much market share as Mozilla currently has. The problem with Web browsers nowadays is that they are hellishly complex to write and the 4.X codebase was known to be a complete mess and difficult to extend (e.g. to make standards compliant). The rewrite was ultimately the right decision and, yes, it's disappointing it took several years to significantly overtake IE (tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking being when Mozilla advocates could finally point to major user-desirable features that IE showed no sign of having), but we've ended up with a world-class browser at the end of the day, so we can't complain :-)

Of course, the "fight" is never over - Mozilla may have the best feature list of any browser, but there are still two evils in this world - Macromedia Dreamweaver (which, in most versions I've seen, produces abhorrent and usually non-standard HTML) and - often coupled with this - Web design firms who only test on IE. BTW, I bet many "new" Web designers barely know any HTML - they use the sausage factory approach of "point-n-click in Dreamweaver, test in IE, then I'm done" drives me mad...

#13 Won!

by rgpublic

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 12:58 AM

Well, this might sound a bit surprising, but IMO Microsoft has already lost, Though IE has got 90% market share, Mozilla's few percents have been enough to keep M$ from implementing the web "their way". Mozilla can display more and more pages each day. I don't know of one major page which relys i.e. on MS "filter-CSS-property", those "drawing pixel-based" (is it VML?) functions or all those proprietary extensions they've made up. If they had gained 100% they wouldn't have cared about implementing getElementById and so on. And finally they will lose because their code must be pretty messed up by now and under commercial pressure you can't afford 4 years of rewriting the codebased. Mozilla as open source could do that and its advantage will grow. Ok, over to the next "frontiers" - .NET and TCPA, hope the OS community will stop that before it starts.

#15 They certainly can afford it

by leafdigital

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 4:12 AM

Microsoft certainly *can* afford to write a browser from scratch in much less than four years. (How long did it take them to write IE4, which was done from scratch? It wasn't four years.)

They've got essentially infinite development resources (well, as much as they choose to throw money at it), which kind of helps.

I'm with you on market share not being the really important thing, though, and your other points. Mozilla is never going to overtake IE, but if Gecko-based browsers can manage 5 or 10% eventually and a few other alternative browsers also pick up a few %, then we can move toward a much healthier Web situation with IE's dominance reduced to, say, 75%. (At the moment, IE's at around 90%+)


#20 .NET

by dpol

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 8:10 AM

I can understand your sentiments regarding TCPA, but what's wrong with .NET? I see .NET as a huge boost for Windows programmers. Ximian is thankfully working on a UNIX-implementation (Mono), which brings .NET to my platform of choice.

If you're referring to .NET My Services (Hailstorm), that project is no longer worked on by Microsoft. So what exactly don't you like about .NET?

#22 OT, but I'll respond

by cknoll

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:27 AM

.NET is an improvement for developers in many of the same ways Java is. However, the things i don't like about .NET are:

1) Web forms are extremely bandwidth intensive. The entire state of the form is sent back and forth to the server wich can be like 30-100k per request (this is what I have seen anyways, and also depends on the form). You can roll your own mechanism to use session instead of the default implementation to trim down bandiwdth usage, but then you wouldn't be using WebForms, would you?

2) The API has changed between 1.0 and 1.1 in very incompatable ways: Classes have moved between namespaces, parameters are different, etc, and there's no way to find out of these changes except upgrading the framework and then watching your app blow up. At least in java you have a @depricated flag that will indicate that methods will be expired over time...

3) There are still many many aspects of the framework that resemble a Win32 wrapper. It would have been nice if they defined a nice abstract layer that sits above the win32 api instead of exposing it in the framework.

4) DBNull. 'nuff said.

5) The only tool vendor playing in .Net so far is Microsoft. I don't see a thriving community of competitive toolsets like we see with NetBeans, JBuilder, WSAD, etc, and I don't see too many deveoper companies feeling comfortable competing with microsoft tools.

I could also go into the relative problems in C# and VB.NET as well as 'Managed' C++, but why bother. It's a shame that talented developers are working on Mono so hard when there is so many other projects out there that are less likely to turn sour on the development group. Bookmark this response, because you can mark my words: The mono team _will_ be raped before this is all over. MS has a _horrible_ trackrecord for working cooporatevely with an outside organization.


#23 Re: OT, but I'll respond

by kujo

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 1:04 PM

I must say I love .NET but I agree with you hole heartedly on points 3 & 4. I have heard that .NET 2.0 is going to implement Windows.Forms it a way that abstracts it completely from the API (I hope its true). And in that case I am all for changing the API in an imcompatable way.

Oh and by the way there are some people working on tools for .NET, check out it is showing a lot of promise.

#8 and what makes you think...

by joschi

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 6:17 PM

and what makes you think that the slowness of the release is the fault of the open sources process? it was clearly the fact that that original netscape 5 codebase was so broken that they had to start from scratch. furthermore, a 4 year cycle is not unknown for developing a project from scratch, especially considering the incredable bredth of the mozilla project.

#36 Re: and what makes you think...

by vcs2600

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:50 PM

Here's what makes me think that:

The only thing thing that was fundementally wrong with the old codebase was the lack of maintenance. What do you expect when all the devs spent the last 3 years writing a new version from scratch? You can't honestly believe that a product with 90% markshare was "so broken" that absolutely nothing was salvagable

The Netscape 5 code release was had huge holes due to the removal of 3rd party code. It wasn't even close to buildable. It was universally panned by the "open source" community as unusable. None of that code ever made it into any open sourse applications.

And this was a major factor in 'starting from scratch' -- Sure noboby _wanted_ to maintain old hacked up code, but the #1 argument for Mozilla was building a pure open source code base.

There's nothing about Netscape 5 that would have stopped Mozilla. However, Mozilla and open source killed Netscape 5 and by extention killed Netscape Communication Corp. You got got your code, Microosft got your users.

#50 Do you really believe this?????

by PaulB

Friday January 24th, 2003 7:17 PM

With all the reports of the lack of security reported against I.E. every since 1997 how do you think Microsoft kept its users and at the same time increase their user base. Does it make sense for customers to continue to use an insecure product? Where Eudora, for example, survive for very long if it had had the same number and frequency of security reports. It would have been quickly dropped by its user base, unless its users are not very bright.;)

What worked in Microsoft's favour was code intermingling, setting I.E. as the default browser on Windows Machine, making it hard for users to set any other program as their default browser. Some companies kept using Netscape primarialy for its security for mail and browsing. But the more Microsoft set its browser to pop up regarless of which bowser the users set as default and added proprietay tags and replaced the then standard Javascript and Java with VB and its non standard Microsoft Java users felt they had little choice but to swith to continue using the web.

What could Netscape do to counter this? Sure they could have released a Version 5 for Netscape. Could they have ensured this version would work with the web sites of the day. Not likely since the competitor kept changing the standards its browser followed with every service pack. The only choice Netscape had IMHO was to strive to be as standard compliant as possible, otherwise it was dead.

Think about it. Your competitor has comingled its code into its OS. Your competitor also has chosen to diviate from W3C standards and has even produced WSIWYG web site design tools which follows these propritary standards which only work well in its browser. How could Netscape keep up with a moving target. Netscape could have set to the task of implementing Microsoft's propritary standards, but what would keep Microsoft from the next day tweeking the standard so that it now only worked with IE. Thus the only way Netscape could move forward was by strictly adhering to W3C standards. Netscape had to use standards which could not be changed at the whim of Moicrosoft.

Little would have changed if there had been a version 5 for Netscape. The code they were working with was not very standards compliant and could not easily be made compliant. It had to be scrapped. Netscape, to remain in the game, desperately required a standards complient browser. It is too bad that it took 4 years to get a standards complient browser, but if time had been wasted working to first release a version 5 and Microsoft might have 99-100% of the browser market.

I am very happy that Mozilla correctly(IMHO) chose to scrap the 4.x code. By so doing they kept Mozilla in the browser game. Now as Mozilla/Netscape matures toward a version 2, as gecko is used in many projects including the AOL browser and as users tire of the insecurity of IE the gecko based browsers will gain market share.

BTW without Mozilla's insistance for following standards it is very likely a lot more web sites out there would fail to open in anything but IE. You know what brought me to testing Mozilla (starting with milestone 6) was the fact that with Netscape 4 ten to fifteen percent of the sites I visited failed to open and another ten percent displayed a downgraded Netscape page. Today for the sites I visit, including my two banks, display fully without a redirection to a downgraded page for Netscape. This situation would have been less likely today if developers had took the precious time to first udate version 4 to version 5.

I could be wrong. This is the way I understand the Mozilla history.

#18 Monolithic app

by Malc

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 6:16 AM

And they didn't learn from their experiences and copied what I considered the single biggest architectural flaw in Netscape: monolithic app.

Just the other day I was trying to download the headers from a news group with 180,000 articles... after two hours I had to kill Mozilla from task manager. Due to the poor architecture, I couldn't browse the web, or use any other component of Mozilla in that time. It's a good job I hadn't been in the middle of something, such as email as I would have lost it. On top of that, Mozilla used 100% of my machines CPU and grew to over 90MB in that time.

The other example that always and will never go away: a crash in one component brings all components down. How many times have I lost a lengthy email because I decided to check my facts on the web and the browser crashed? Or just as bad: have it crash when I look at new mail after spending ages typing in a textarea like this one. So far, it would appear that especially in the mail/news component that testing is minimal and doesn't extend to how well it scales to large newsgroups or mailboxes.

It's frustrating... so I stick with the hardly ideal solution of Netscape 4.x for my mail and news, and Mozilla for my browser. This product has a long way to go yet - I wish they would fix the current problems rather than constantly piling in new features and improving the coolness factor.

#21 Even if

by pbreit

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:05 AM

Even if everything worked perfectly, bundling mail, news, chat and compose into the browser is stupid.

#35 Congrats to the Moz Team!

by vcs2600

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:41 PM

Well, it's great that the Moz Team has finally figured this "bug" out.

Many realized at the time that putting www/mail/news in the same process was a fundemental design flaw in Netscape 3, and there was absolutely no decent reason to repeat that atrocity in Mozilla.

#37 oops

by vcs2600

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:53 PM

wrong parent!

#24 Monolith-this is simply your opinion

by PaulB

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 2:27 PM

I rarely have the problems or issues you seem to have with Mozilla being a suite with browser/mail/news, etc being in one program. I appreciate the simplicity of being able to launch one program for all of my online tasks and not have to run multiple programs. After surfing for about one hour Mozilla is only using about 42MB and 139MB of virtual memory. IMHO Mozilla is not the memory/resource hog many (trolls?) here accuse it of being. My impressions of the beauty of Mozilla as a suite as opposed to seperate apps may be coloured by the fact that I have only used the MoacOS X version. Maybe other platforms are much worse and if I was running Mozilla on another paltform I too would be demanding the Mozilla suite be seperated into seperate apps. I don't believe the Mac Mozilla is that much better.

I wonder if some people take "shots" ;) at the Mozilla suite, not so much because it is a bad idea that Mozilla is a suite of internet apps, but because they don't need/like some of the bundled apps or only want a browser.

In my experience the suite of Mozilla apps works well. I find the browser to be speedy,mail and news work well for me. I would not want Mozilla's suite to be broken up. I want More than simply a browser.

For those who only desire the browser. Great, go for it. Not everyone will want the Mozilla suite of apps. That is the way things should be.

But I have to counter your argument that Mozilla is much worse because of its nature as a suite. For me Mozilla runs very well as a Suite. The program could not run any better as seperate apps. I have a fast Cable Internet Connection. I wonder if this is the reason I do not experience some of the issues you report. Is the experience of Mozilla very different between those with slow dialup vs high speed connection?

#25 jeepers!

by pbreit

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 3:23 PM

"I wonder if some people take "shots" ;) at the Mozilla suite, not so much because it is a bad idea that Mozilla is a suite of internet apps, but because they don't need/like some of the bundled apps or only want a browser"

That is preceisly why it is a bad idea!! If only 5 or 10% (1%?) of Moz users are using news, chat and compose, then it has been a horrible waste of time and preciously limited resources to develop them. Especially considering there are multiple good options for each of these apps on every platform.

And after 5 years, the closest we have to what the masses have been waiting for are the 0.x versions of Chimera and Phoenix whose futures aren't even clear!

#33 Hello

by PaulB

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 8:22 PM

" That is preceisly why it is a bad idea!! If only 5 or 10% (1%?) of Moz users are using news, chat and compose, then it has been a horrible waste of time and preciously limited resources to develop them. Especially considering there are multiple good options for each of these apps on every platform."

Can you back up this statement or did you simply pull a figure out of thin air?

From the number of bugs posted for the Mail/News components by users who are not programmers, it appears that many (more than the 10 percent you quote are using mail. It only is a waste of time if you do not need it. Could you please back up your statement that working on anything other than the browser is a waste of time. Please show me your data or sources to backup the claim for "5 or 10% (1%?)" use any of Mozilla's features other than the browser? This is not the impression I have. Just go to Mozillazine see how many posts are concerned with the mail app. If as you claim very few users use use any of the apps such as Mail or chat, than why are so many post at Mozillazine posted on the Mail app.

If you want Mozilla to equal only the browser, that is fine. But many want the entire suite as well. I don't care if browser only projects are undertaken at Mozilla, just as long as the very valuable work on the browser suite can continue as well.

In reverse I could say why is Mozilla wasting its time on Phoenix. If users want only the browser they can download the installer and check the box so that only the browser is installed. Mozilla is wasting scarce resources developing a second browser. ;)

#44 Re: Hello

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 11:31 AM

If you actually read my post, you'll see that I specifically left out mail because I do know that the mail part of Mozilla has a non-trivial user base. But given the numerous good mail client alternatives on every platform, the absence of mail in Mozilla would be a non-issue.

What I want is for Gecko-based browsers to gain market share. As has been deomnstrated by Chimera, the way to do this is to make a lean, high performing, un-bloated browser.

And, if AOL ever switches to Mozilla, they will use nothing more than Gecko.

#51 Were are the good, affordable Mail programs for the Mac

by PaulB

Friday January 24th, 2003 7:37 PM

On the Mac the only competition is iMail. Some people like it. I do not. It is a personal preference. We talk about competition, then we want to reduce competition by scrapping all Mozilla projects except the browser. I would hate for Mozilla to give up on the Mail only to find out that one day outlook was my only choice. BTW work is underway to rework Mozilla so that the each app (mail, news, etc.) will each run in its own process eventually. When this occurs, amny aspects of Mozilla as a suite will disappear. No longer will downloading a large numder of newsgroup messages take over the Mozilla application preventing the user from doing another task at the same time.

Also I have heard from some developers that if they came to Mozilla to work specifically to work on one of the apps be it browser, mail/news, IRC Chat. Some of the developers would not have been attracted to work on a browser. Some want to work at mail, some a calendar. If Mozilla dropped everything but the browser Mozilla might not have gained more developers. Some who were attracted to aspects of Mozilla other than the browser might not have joined the effort in the first place.

#52 Right here

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 8:57 PM

Outlook, Entourage, Eudora, Mulberry, Magellan and Mail for starters.

Great, so more precious, limited engineering resources are going to have to waste a bunch more time splitting out all the apps into their own threads.

If engineers are so interested in developing a mail client, why can't they do it in a focused manner?

Can we admit that Chimera got it right?

#53 I wouldn't use anything insecure from Microsoft

by PaulB

Saturday January 25th, 2003 2:01 PM

My experience with Microsoft programs on my Mac was that they are either too insecure or they are the source of system conflicts. All the others have to be paid for I believe, so Mozilla is still the best choice for the home user setting up a computer on a limited budget. Mozilla will be even better choice once the Calendar matures a bit.

#40 Maybe I wasn't clear enough...

by Malc

Friday January 24th, 2003 7:22 AM

Woah. You're over-reacting - don't be so sensitive. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but it feels like you've spent a whole reply (including the title) trying to put my comment down. You've complete misunderstood what I was saying (which could well be down to my writing style) by trying to paint me in to the same corner with the anti-Mozilla trolls. I'm a big fan of Mozilla and have used it as my primary web browser for over a year, and dabbled with it for far longer. I evangelize it amongst my family and friends trying to get them to use it, so I'm certainly not "taking shots" at it.

Just because you rarely have problems with Mozilla doesn't mean there aren't problems, and nor should you use that as a basis for dismissing other people's grievances and trying to shove them under the rug. I agree, too many people whine about Mozilla's resource requirements... I suspect they have unrealistic hardware expectations and trying to run it on much older systems. Now, there's an argument that Mozilla should run all systems possible, and there's another argument that we shouldn't worrying about that and just looking to the future. I'm not going to get in to that though as my original comment about the memory usage was to highlight the fact that Mozilla had jumped from it's normal 25MB footprint to almost 4x that in its failed attempt to download newsgroup headers. Read what I said. Do you really and honestly think that it's acceptable for a news client to spend over 2 hours trying to get to grips with a newsgroup? BTW, to give you some perspective: 1.2Mbs DSL line and dual P3-850 w/ 384MB. That seems like reasonable hardware to me.

Now, as for the meat of my point and your response. I like Mozilla. I like and want Mozilla to be a suite. I want to use it for more than just browsing. I want it to be an integrated suite. But what has that got to do with it being in a single process space? Microsoft Office is a very tightly integrated suite, but do Excel, Word, Outlook, Access, etc all run in the same process? NO! Thank goodness. (Note: I have to use Outlook for work and I tried using Word as my email edittor for a while. I had to stop because of problems that kept forcing me to re-type messages. Just like browser crashes in Mozilla would take down my email if wasn't using Netscape 4.79.)

Obviously Mozilla has been well componentised. I can pick and choose which items of the suite I want to install. This is good. I would choose to install more than just the browser. But again, explain to me why it all has to execute in the same process space? That's just bad and fundamental implementation fault. I'm not asking for the suite to broken up, just each component run in its own process space. The last decade or so has seen a big move in desktop OSes that support isolation of processes (e.g Win 3.1 -> Win NT), and for good reason. The current implementation of Mozilla goes completely against that philosophy. This is my grievance.

#54 I agree with your opion on processes

by PaulB

Saturday January 25th, 2003 2:19 PM

If I remember correctly there is a bug being worked on to seperate processes in Mozilla. My comment was not to discount your experience but to add another opinion that in my experience Mozilla does not seem all that effected by "bloat" it runs smoothly and swiftly. I have never tried to download more than 500 newsgroup headers at a time. but in my experience using Mac)S X 10.1.5 on a G3-350 with 256MB on a high speed cable internet downloading 500 headers usually takes 10 to 15 sec unless the sever is overloaded or slow.

I simply wanted to voice an alternet impression of Mozilla. This is not to calim that there is not room for improvement. I believe Mozilla will be improved.

One of Mozilla's great strengths is that it is an Internet Suite. Mozilla has the category all to itself since I cannot think of anyother internet suites for the internet. Users or companies that prefer to use an Internet suite of integrated programs will use Moilla. It can only get better as each app is given its seperate process. This is one strength Mozilla has over the competition.

#27 keep up.

by joschi

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 4:45 PM

the moz team knows about this, its just a bug, its not the end of the world. they are actively working on having each app run in a separate process for exactly this reason. seeing as moz is a 1.x product, these sorts of issues are not unexpected and they are being fixed as we speak.

as for *cough* some people constantly rattling on about how they dont think that main/news/chat belong with a browser, well, who cares what you think? you dont work for netscape and you dont know a thing about the needs of their target audience. their customers had needs and they built a suite that met them. if you just want a browser, go ahead and ignore the other components, but please, save us all the whineing.

personally, i use mail/news and chat every single day and am glad its intergrated into mozilla.

#29 only Mail/News?

by Kovu

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 5:25 PM

And what if you want only Mail/News? Or only Chatzilla? I hope that happens soon.

#30 that's the idea.

by joschi

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 5:38 PM

the idea is that all the separate mozilla apps like the html editor, mail/news, chatzilla, browser, etc will all in in their own process so you can run only the app you want.

#31 nonsense

by pbreit

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 7:15 PM

"their customers had needs and they built a suite that met them."

That's just plain non-sense. Just look at Chimera which has achieved a major portion of the Mac market despite being significantly handicapped in name recognition and distribution against Netscape and IE (and not even being 1.0 yet).

It is utterly obvious that a "suite" was a termendous over-shot.

#34 Re: nonsense

by joschi

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 11:26 PM

seeing as large parts of netscape 4.x's customer base was using an entire internet suite (think commercial customers), building just a broswer does not meet those customers goals. this isnt a very difficult concept, is it? your uninformed trolling is very dull.

#43 ridiculous

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 11:23 AM

It's ridiculous that the truth is considered trolling.

No "commercial customers" were using the suite. They were using the browser and to a significantly lesser extent the email client for which there are numerous good alternatives on every platform.

The easy concept is creating a lean, high performing browser and picking up 30-50% share despite the bundling of IE and the distribution muscle of Netscape/AOL. I'm speaking of Chimera.

#45 where are the facts, man?

by joschi

Friday January 24th, 2003 12:12 PM

'No "commercial customers" were using the suite.'

really? you have proof? why is it that netscape seems to think there were? go back under your bridge, little troll.

#46 puh-leaze

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 1:25 PM

So I guess the current 95% of non-Netscape/Moz users aren't getting their email?

Let's stick to the real world, shall we?

#48 i love it.

by joschi

Friday January 24th, 2003 1:51 PM

its as if you were actually a troll script spitting out random statments whenebver anyone calls you on your bullshit... how does this:

"So I guess the current 95% of non-Netscape/Moz users aren't getting their email?

Let's stick to the real world, shall we?"

have anythign to do with substatiating your previous claim:

'No "commercial customers" were using the suite.'

come back when either A) you can hold a coherent conversation, or B) you pay someone to do it for you.

#49 c'mon

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 3:25 PM

"No" was being extreme but I think my point is clear.

#41 Do you have more info?

by Malc

Friday January 24th, 2003 7:39 AM

That's great that the Mozilla team are working on this. Is there somewhere that documents this process (Bugzilla???) so I can follow it? When is it expected to land in the trunk, and which release version of Mozilla can I expect to see it in? Sure, it's not the end of the world, but it does stop me using Mozilla properly.

I don't know why you made your comment about people rattling on against Mozilla being a suite of more than just a browser. I wasn't. In fact, if you read my comment properly you would have seen that I want to use more than just the browser. I quote: "so I stick with the hardly ideal solution of Netscape 4.x for my mail and news, and Mozilla for my browser". Right now, Mozilla is IMHO unusable as a complete product. Some bits of it are fantastic and the Mozilla team deserves all the congratulations they get. Some bits of it are very poor, and it's these bits that make the whole suite unworthy of it's v1.x status. Again, IMHO ;)

#42 here you go.

by joschi

Friday January 24th, 2003 10:32 AM

this is the bug for splitting them processes... i have no idea when it will actually get checked in though.

and i wasnt accusing you off rattling on, i was make a side swipe at pbreit :)

#47 Thanks

by pbreit

Friday January 24th, 2003 1:26 PM


#38 Re: Monolithic app

by CaptnMArk

Friday January 24th, 2003 4:55 AM

I agree with you. This is the biggest problem of mozilla for me too.

I now use phoenix 0.5 for browsing and mozilla for mail (with proxies set to localhost:666, so spammers are unable to spy)

#4 To paraphase Ronald Reagan in 1980...

by MozSaidAloha

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 4:41 PM

"Are you better off than you were five years ago?"

#9 Re: To paraphase Ronald Reagan in 1980...

by pbreit

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 6:25 PM


#26 Re: Re: To paraphase Ronald Reagan in 1980...

by DeepFreeze3

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 3:34 PM

I second that!! :-)

#28 Re: Re: Re: To paraphase Ronald Reagan in 1980...

by MozSaidAloha

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 5:20 PM

I third that!!

#19 link at top of is still to 1.0.1

by jtilak

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 7:51 AM

newsflash: 1.0.2 has been released. update link.