Around a couple weeks ago there was a message that brought up the question of whether Mozilla was a defacto distribution, and, if so, should it have set goals so that the end-user experience improves with successive versions.... ( http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3E49923B.6090700%40mozilla.org )

Has there been further thought about this?

It seems that there is a split in how Mozilla.org Drivers is acting. On the one hand they're changing the splash screen to one that distributors are more likely to change in their distributions. On the other hand they're worried about what will be one "year after 1.0" (presumably because of how it is interpretted by reviewers and end-users, not how it's interpretted by distributors.)

Why didn't they simply call Chimera 95709.

Couldn't you guys come up with a better name?????

Maybe you should go back to the drawing board.

Enterprise, Voyager, Cruiser, Webonaut, Gollum, Neelix, Settler...

Let's look at the facts. First, Mozilla is one hell of software program. A lot of people, including a lot of really smart folks, think that Mozilla is already the best browser yet made. On top of that, there are lots of talented folks working on making it even better. If you get a lot of Bugmail, like I do, I'm sure you'll agree with me that there are many, many people working on Mozilla who are just astounding in not just their technical expertise, but also in their creative mindsets.

The committment to quality that the Mozilla Community has is, I think, what we can be most proud of. You know, not all of us are getting paid, or getting paid enough, but we really care. You can't say that about the competition, or even many other programs. Sure, there are little things to nitpick at, but those things are getting fixed. The pace for fixing every single little bug is not that of a sprinter, but then, we are not running a 50 meter dash; we are running a marathon.

One great thing about the Mozilla Project is that we are helping to stitch up the fractured web. W'ere transforming the tired old warhorse into a sleek and elegant thoroughbred. It's a beautiful thing to see so many well-designed and recently designed sites based on standards out there, and more every day. The true potential for new technologies like XML and all the rest simply could not be contemplated without the Mozilla Project pushing the envelope farther, as we do every day.

So let's keep all this in mind as we discuss big questions, like "distribution or platform." Yes, it's an important question that needs to be considered. The great part about it is, we're choosing between a fabulous array of riches on the one hand, and another fabulous array of riches on the other. This is a good problem to have.

Finally, I just want to say that 1.3 is going to rock.

I believe the new splash screen, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194291 , is boring.

this one should be the new splash screen, http://www.lancer.terra.cl/splash/

It's strange to me that there are many bug reports about lack of CSS2 downloadable font support in Mozilla--some people want it for language support, some people want it just for beautiful web sites--but downloadable fonts never seem to be on the radar screen for Mozilla development. Some high-end sites, like NYT, have to stick with IE if they want to control fonts.

Am I missing something, like does Mozilla have some sort of downloadable font functions I'm not aware of, am I in some obscure minority of people who want something irrelevant, or is this a serious issue being avoided?