Media Reaction to New Mozilla Roadmap Proposal
Thursday April 3rd, 2003
Apart from MozillaZine, Slashdot was the first news outlet to report on Mozilla's new Roadmap proposal. The story was also covered by several other sites, including OSNews, Neowin.net, LWN.net and The Mac Observer. Paul Festa of CNET News.com felt the need bring up the Safari/KHTML "snub" again but did go to the trouble of getting some quotes. The Register got confused and reported that XUL is going away, while BetaNews also mixed up some details about XUL and its relationship to XPFE (for the lowdown, read Boris Zbarsky's and Jason Kersey's messages). Internet Week's article was generally fine except that it reported that Mozilla is currently based on the Netscape codebase. Meanwhile, InternetNews decided that Mozilla has been "plagued with conflicting hacker troubles," a claim repeated by the more mainstream Sydney Morning Herald (or The Age if you prefer Melbourne).
***Paul Festa of CNET News.com felt the need bring up the Safari/KHTML "snub" again but did go to the trouble of getting some quotes.***
How CNET.com can claim any credibility and still employ this asshole, I will never know.
#10 Who said they were credible? n/t
Saturday April 5th, 2003 1:01 AM
Why is he an asshole?
I guess I don't know the backstory...
This guy has a history of putting out anti-Mozilla articles full of inaccurate facts & quotes. Hell, sometimes, he just makes up stuff. Just ask the guys who run MozillaZine. Or anybody high up in the Mozilla movement. Somebody needs to sue that guy for libel. They really do.
#3 But the thing we're all dying to know is ...
Friday April 4th, 2003 1:38 AM
... what does MozillaQuest think of it?!
(No, of course I'm not going to go to that site and look. I'm not here to give him hits.)
#5 Steering the Ship
Friday April 4th, 2003 4:49 AM
This is more of a general post. It's been my impression that open source projects have a great potential to be maneuverable. More so than any large corporation. However, the very nature of open source at times encumbers that maneuverability. In corporations you have an overseer, looking down at the battlefield calling the shots. Don't obey the overseer and you're gone. I think in this sense corporations have a leg up over most open source projects. Ruling by fear is a lot easier (and at times more effective) than ruling by democracy. The fact that Mozilla is re-evaluating its goals is a refreshing concept. Open source projects are known more for quick patching than quick stable development. The best strategies I've seen are the ones that stand up to consistent pressure at all times. At any given point, everyone should be asking whether or not this is the correct way to go. Slow continual tweaking of the strategy will eventually yield results. The people that don't like it experienced or not can jump ship as they please. As much as I can be a prima donna at times, there is no more dangerous thing than a software engineer on a power trip.
Why is the media hell bent on misinforming people. If they want a scintillating news there is nothing wrong in it, they can create a scintillating news, by giving the *right* news, not the wrong one. Especially someone like internet news reporting that the mozilla source is from netscape. Agreed this was what the beginning of mozilla, but not now , please. I think the media should also give a little credit to the amount of work going into a project of this scale. Given the penetration of IE and windows in general, people tend to underplay the beauty and importance of a cross platform browser. I think we all agree that moz has its share of problems, but showing them in the wrong light hurts the project.
Mozilla probably should have a Press Information or FAQ page? I did a google search for a FAQ directed at journalists and couldn't find anything. The assortment of FAQs on the FAQ page are all directed toward users. But some kind of Press Information or Relations page off the front page could be a good idea?
where is PR?
north of Venezuela, east of Domincan Republic
Being from Puerto Rico (PR), I find your reply hysterically funny. ;-) <http://welcome.topuertorico.org/descrip.shtml>