MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Evaluating Commercial Open Source Projects

Thursday April 22nd, 1999

A recent Forbes article characterized Mozilla as a "flop". The article had so many inaccuracies that I felt a rebuttal was required. At the same time, I felt that some light needed to be shed on the differences between commercial Open Source projects and "all volunteer" Open Source projects. What follows (click "Full Article" below) is a rebuttal to the assertions in the Forbes article and my opinion on what can reasonably be expected from a commercial Open Source project.

As always, the opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of mozilla.org (which MozillaZine is not affiliated with).


#18 Re:Shit Speak

by SomeSmartAss <improv@magma.ca>

Friday April 23rd, 1999 7:36 AM

You are replying to this message

noName,

I Never said "More Coders=Bad Code", I just said that "More Coders != OpenSource Success".

All the "Mozilla is Dead" critisism seems to pivot around three major gripes.

a) no realease after a year. Which can be attributed to the complete redesign of the rendering engine, and the fact that this group is deftly determined on getting it right the first time. These are, in the long run, good things.

b) no Army of Coders. And its this point that realy throws me... because the concept makes no sence. I would rather have a small group of dedicated indeviduals than an ocean of half-assed slackers anyday. Quantity never equals quality. Bigger isn't better. Why should More Coders automatically mean Better Code?

c) JWZ resigned, because of the first two reasons, so they MUST be true. (some-one should kick JWZ in the nads for that!!)

This opinion that Bigger/Sooner is always better is not neccesarily a good measure for success.

Anyways, I'd like to know how many people worked on Linux the first year IT came out.