Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Open Source
Monday April 12th, 1999
The Industry Standard has done a piece on commercial companies and Open Source.
There are a number of factual discrepancies that I believe should be cleared up. The author, Jason Krause, states, "In fact, if you go to Netscape's Mozilla.org site and do a search to see who's checked out code in recent months, every one of the e-mail addresses come from a netscape.com domain." If he really means "checked out", then this is just false. First, how did he get a list of people who have checked out Mozilla code? Second, I have checked out Mozilla code via CVS, and I don't have a Netscape.com email. If he meant "checked in", then this is false as well. There are numerous coders who don't work for Netscape who have checked in new code, and many more who have contributed patches that have been checked in by module owners.
He goes on: "Now, largely because of a confused Netscape road map, the launch is slated for this spring." Well, the roadmap is not confused, and the release is not slated for this spring. Beta is scheduled for July of this year.
Jason had contacted me for information regarding Mozilla's Open Source release. If you are interested in reading my responses, click "Full Article" below.
#1 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 3:24 PM
We engineers/programmers hate incorrect things...and the media is incorrect much too often, even the computer/Internet media, when it comes to technology and related issues
#2 It's on CNN Too (was: Software and Open Source)
Monday April 12th, 1999 3:49 PM
The same article appears on CNN's site at <http://www.cnn.com/TECH/c…ting/9904/12/bigsoft.idg/>
#3 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 4:48 PM
Interesting that when they discuss licenses and let people whine about Apples's and Sun's licenses, they never once mention Netscape's license that does not require royalties of any sort whatsoever.
And, okay, Apr. 12, IE did not come out last week, and W3C trashed it. Even C-NET mentioned how trashy its implementation was, and how MS barked about it.
And Mozilla may "need all the help it can get," but to be brutally honest, it got AOL's virtually bottomless pocketbook and blessing to continue with not only open source, but the license as well. What more do they need?
Still, it's amazing they even did a story on something as vague and ethereal as Mozilla is right now. It won't hit mainstream until July. I'm having this problem putting together a proposal for IDG (my employer) to do . . . For Dummies books on the Next Generation Amiga, which is quietly slated to come out in November. They plan to make major announcements this summer but until then, solid info is hard to come by.
#4 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 5:11 PM
He should check out bugzilla, the newsgroups and even the mozilla site again ( Which by the way greatly in need of updating).
#5 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 6:42 PM
What do people want? We have a rewritten layout engine that's very small and supports the standards. It's much easier for anyone to change the GUI without digging in C++ code (XUL for Dummies?). You'll be able to use any java you want. What else do people want that requires "hordes" of non-Netscape coders? Everything is now being done the right way.
#6 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 7:09 PM
Some people just can't buy that NS made the really difficult decision to scrap the old code. It was a late decision, but a necessary one, and they put the industry over their own release date, and Mozilla will reap the benefits.
Off subject, but did you guys know Corel is working on a GUI for Linux, due in November?
#7 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Monday April 12th, 1999 8:51 PM
another gui for linux? Caldera already has a gui-it's called kde
#9 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
by Dale Merrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 5:34 AM
I for one think Netscape made the right choice in going Open Source. I think they made an even better decision when they decided to scrap the old code in favor of the new stuff.
I'll be happy to wait until they get something released, no matter how long it takes.
#10 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 7:21 AM
"And they even broke their own DOM by screwing up the way certain elements work and rendering other useless (pixelTop, offsetParent, etc...). I think Microsoft jumped the gun with this release and ended up shooting themselves in the foot."
Don't you just love the way that MS seems to avoid backwards-compatibility issues by assuming that everybody's gonna upgrade the instant it releases a new version of something? Let's see... MS has altered its DOM implementation... it's still nonstandard... it's being incorporated into Win2000 and Office2000... more requirements to test every little thing under the sun to make sure things are compatible across browsers... at least in the version 4's we could do one or two object tests and then move on... Now we're not even going to be able to do that. Sheesh.
Been reading in several places (e.g. InfoWorld) how IT managers are already starting to complain about how IE5 is going to integrated into everything but the kitchen sink... Listen up, MS: Monolithic, proprietary application suites are yesterday's news.
Modularity and cross-compatibility, there's the wave of the future...
#11 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 7:27 AM
I agree with the last poster, I think Mozilla is definitely going in the right direction by: 1) Supporting the standards (instead of trying to seize control of them) 2) Jettisonning the 'old' engine which, in my opinion, was bloated and increasingly klunky. Getting rid of Motif was a good idea too (on the UNIX side), even though JWZ was dead against it (what wasn't he against?) Give it time, I think Mozilla will be worth the wait...I'm typing this on the latest CVS grab of Mozilla and I must say that it is really looking sweet!
#12 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 7:51 AM
Meanwhile, here's an article at WebMonkey that's a bit more positive... <http://www.hotwired.com/w…/index1a.html?tw=browsers>
#13 "commercial application developers"
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 10:37 AM
<quote>In addition, the people at Mozilla.org and Netscape are working with commercial application developers to integrate their browser into upcoming applications. I have no more information on that at the moment.</quote>
Beyond Communicator, AOL/Netscape hopes to encourage other companies to work with mozilla.org to port Gecko onto other platforms. Why? Because the company wants to deliver AOL content to PDAs, kiosks, set-top boxes, even cell phones. A compact, standards-compliant embedded browser, built from free Gecko source code, would be the easiest way to make "AOL Anywhere" a reality. The rest of us would benefit too: Unlike the "push" systems of 1997, Gecko-powered devices could display all existing Web sites, not just a few big companies' custom-built channels. (Taken from <http://www.mozillazine.or…talkback.html?article=486>)
#14 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
Tuesday April 13th, 1999 3:43 PM
oh btw I hear Sausage is interested in gecko for a future version of HotDog.
#15 Re:Industry Standard on Commercial Software and Op
by SomeSmartAss <email@example.com>
Wednesday April 14th, 1999 6:13 AM
"I hear Sausage is interested in gecko for a future version of HotDog."
While I think this is a tad off topic; (not that its stopped me before) Allaire, the makers of HomeSite, have always stated that, as soon as Netscape was "pluggable", that they would allow developers to use it as their "internal preview" browser. IMHO, most non-microsoft applications that currently embed IE will not only allow the embedding of Mozilla, they will SHIP with gecko, especially since the Gecko Active-X has the same developer hook-ins as the IE one. It makes life simpler for them, as it can be auto configured during install, and doesn't require the fine print terms "requires IE 3.0 or higher" within the list of "features". (Anything that requires IE isn't realy a feature though ;) )
My questions about NeoPlanet, will they allow people to use a layout engine that automatically supports interchangable skins to be used in their browser, which is after all, just interchangable skins for IE?