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).


#21 more shit :)

by noName

Friday April 23rd, 1999 8:04 AM

You are replying to this message

To say no release after a year is a failiure is wrong, since you can get releases every day, and since it takes longer time than just a year - and even lots more with the cathedral model who you seems to like...

The army of coders argument, I can't understand, mozilla is an open-open project, everyone can contribute and not just an closed circle of few dedicated developers, mozilla got hundreds of dedicated programers plus anyone else who wants to participate ; what is wrong with that ????

The thing cathedral people don't get is that everyone can contribute without creating chaos, without disturbing the dedicated people, it makes the development faster; wait and see...

One person resigns and suddenly everyones think this is the sign of a failiure, please tell me why?, one person, no matter how good meens nothing to mozilla in the end.

The people who critisice mozilla for no release should think about W2K(winDOS 2000) The people who think it is buggy should bare in mind that linux has been developed for way longer time than just one year The people who just think adding features is bloat should go to hell, and then think about that this project is open, and everyone can and do, add the features they like