MozillaZine

LinuxWorld's Joe Barr on Milestone 10

Wednesday October 27th, 1999

Joe Barr has a generally positive review of Milestone 10 over at Linuxworld.

Thanks to Joerg Beierle and "Anony Muss" for the news.


#1 Other than the rather lengthy AOL <rant>...

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday October 28th, 1999 7:54 PM

Reply to this message

The stuff about da Moz was fair enough. The functionality now is really kicking ass. That metasearch feature is really, really cool.

Yes AOL has some sordid stuff in their background, but they've left the Moz alone, and they still let Netscapers bring their dogs to work.

#2 Are all computer journalists stupid?

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 12:51 AM

Reply to this message

This guy seems to have an underlying attitude that Mozilla will fail. What a lousy reporter! Why is so much time spent waffling over AOL - I thought this story was about Mozilla? What is the purpose of pondering over the dialogs and other bits that are not working yet? What is this crap about other browsers pushing out Mozilla?

My grandmother's dog could have written a more informative and informed piece. Is this guy paid to write crap?

#3 Are all computer journalists stupid?

by MattyT <matty@box.net.au>

Friday October 29th, 1999 2:39 AM

Reply to this message

Mostly true, but at least this piece wasn't that bad. Joe's last piece, if I remember correctly, was how Netscape should stop working on Mozilla and leave it to independent developers to finish.

He's obviously someone who doesn't bother to research his stories well, it doesn't take too much to find out what "Wallet" refers to.

Furthermore, he doesn't seem to get how long it takes to build a web browser of this size - something you can say about most journalists who've been dissing Mozilla of late, yet have no idea about programming. He probably wouldn't be hired to write for LinuxWorld if he didn't know anything about Linux, so why should he write about Mozilla without actually researching things first?

#4 Are all computer journalists stupid?

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 3:23 AM

Reply to this message

> So why should he write about Mozilla without actually researching things first?

1. Laziness. Just follow what other journalists are writing.

2. Arrogance. 'I'm the journalist and I can write anything I care to - that's what I'm paid to do.'

3. Desire to whip up a storm, no matter how (un)true it is, to increase advertising sales and retain own job.

4. Bias. Against a non-GNU open source project and a commercial company.

#5 Are all computer journalists stupid?

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 3:37 AM

Reply to this message

If you have a look at the discussion following this article you can see people asking some fairly fundamental and relevant questions about Mozilla (about whether it is standards compliant and about whether it supports Java - see <http://www.linuxworld.com…ntrol_3-2.html#mini-ditka> ). You have to ask why such fundamental issues weren't covered in the article, instead of the irrelevant and uninformed rubbish he ended up filling 2500 words with. If this magazine can't find anyone with enough journalistic skills to write a decent Mozilla article, they shouldn't bother to publish anything at all.

#7 Are all computer journalists stupid?

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

> Furthermore, he doesn't seem to get how long it takes to build a web browser of this size - something you can say about most journalists who've been dissing Mozilla of late, yet have no idea about programming.

There is a more fundumental point that is not commonly mentioned. Netscape and Mozilla are not *just* building a new Web browser, but a completely new way of building software applications. Witness XPCOM, XUL, RDF, et al. all bound together with a scripting language, Javascript. It's quite an advance , and the press and others need to just LAY OFF for a while and let the developers complete what needs to be done. These new technologies will be used in the coming years to build many other applications besides Mozilla the Web browser. It is worth the wait for this to be done right.

#6 Stuff and nonsense

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 9:13 AM

Reply to this message

`Whether M10 loaded [Slashdot] more quickly than Netscape or not, I don't know.'

...

`What's Tinderbox, you ask? I'm not sure.'

...

`It appears to be a personal database of some kind, with all the elements somehow related to online shopping, but beyond that, your guess as to its purpose is as good as mine.'

...

`Also present are options to translate (the currently displayed page?)'

Uh. Somebody wake me when this guy actually has anything to say, please?

-- mpt

#8 Should we really slam the press or ourselves!!

by dneighbors <derek@forchrist.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

I think this article was pretty much uninformative junk. I do think AOL/Netscape driving the project is of relevance. Just not 2/3 of the article relevant.

However, we only have ourselves to blame. How many of us are writing INFORMED articles on Mozilla and putting out there. How many mozilla sites are there promoting mozilla other than mozillazine?

Mozilla.org is a developers site. No journalist is going to read through documentation to find out what its all about, and until a nightly build a few days ago a lot of the functionality was so buggy they couldn't have understood it if they tried to use it.

I think the biggest mis information is about XUL, RDF and XPCOM. Mozilla is NOT your fathers browser!!

It is a whole new animal. One that others will trying to catch up with.

Also the whole timeline thing is a joke. A fairly simple upgrade of netscape turned into a complete re-write with RDF / XUL and XPCOM. So of course the timeline is going to change. Has windows 2000 stayed on target??? Didn't think so.

I will quit the rambling, and simply say if we spent less time complaining about how a skin looks and slamming ignorant journalists adn spent more time advocating Mozilla the world would be a better place. : )

Mozilla is a Good Thing (tm).

#9 Should we really slam the press or ourselves!!

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 10:49 AM

Reply to this message

This is very true. We desperately need an antidote to the current wave of misinformation about Mozilla. So, get to it. Someone with some literary skills and an understanding of Mozilla needs to write some decent articles and submit them for publishing. Beta is coming soon, which would be a good time for publishing them.

#10 an FAQ?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday October 29th, 1999 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

Would an FAQ of common Mozilla Misconceptions be nice with appropriate links for further details on it?

<:3)~~

#12 definitely!

by url <urlradio@yahoo.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 1:31 PM

Reply to this message

An updated FAQ of recent Mozilla misconceptions and the project work in general is a really good idea. If there was a way I could contribute to one, count me in!

Even though I'm sure there's lots of versions of it on the Net, the last Mozilla FAQ I found was very pre-milestone. At the time I was reading it, the browser was at M7 I think. :)

#11 Joe Barr article

by url <urlradio@yahoo.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 1:20 PM

Reply to this message

Although it was good to read at least another positive leaning article towards the Mozilla project, the overall tone of the article does make me wonder if he only sat down to look at the browser a few minutes before running out for a cheeseburger or something. The writing (I felt) seemed superficial, reflecting a few notes scrawled down about some unfinished features he noticed.

#13 Mozilla FAQ!!!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday October 29th, 1999 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

Okay, inspired by the posts above, I think we need to start a current Mozilla FAQ.

We can start it by compiling a list of common questions and need-to-knows first. I'm willing to volunteer to sort out THIS part of the FAQ process, so who wants to help or contribute questions? I guess you guys can email me, <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>, on this part.

Another thing: if we can get this FAQ off the ground can we get it posted at say . . . the main Mozilla site? It would be a good place to put it, and here as well at MozillaZine.

<:3)~~

#14 Here is a product to help us...

by dneighbors <derek@forchrist.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 2:47 PM

Reply to this message

This is a nice dynamic faq generator. So quesitons could be posted and answered too.

<http://mc200.cybernet-ag.net/new/index.html>

UserName: faqmaster password: mamma

#15 Updated URL to the above

by dneighbors <derek@forchrist.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 2:58 PM

Reply to this message

Here is the <http://www.daemon.de/faq-system.html>

Some one care to install? Let me know. I don't want to duplicate any efforts.

#16 LinuxWorld's Joe Barr on Milestone 10

by geek <jmeskill@libertydistribution.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 4:29 PM

Reply to this message

I have a FAQ-O-Matic up and running if people want to start using it... <http://mozilla.geeks4christ.org> is where it can be found... Let's get this thing rolling and destroy all the FUD going around about Mozilla

#21 Mozilla FAQ!!!

by Anon

Friday October 29th, 1999 8:20 PM

Reply to this message

It should definitely be posted at <http://www.mozilla.org/faq.html>.

You should look back though all the articles that have been written about Mozilla so far and cover all the major misconceptions, along with a description of the Mozilla project, the people involved, it's current state, future plans, etc.

#23 THERE IS A MOZILLA FAQ!

by MattyT <matty@box.net.au>

Saturday October 30th, 1999 11:09 PM

Reply to this message

It's at <http://www.mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html> . It's definitely buried too deeply, but it should get raised shortly.

I have actually been talking to the author, and one thing I'd like to see in there is a misconceptions/myths section. I suggest you email the author and say what you think should be addressed.

#17 Mozilla FAQ-O-Matic of Truth

by geek <jmeskill@libertydistribution.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

I have setup the Mozilla FAQ-O-Matic of Truth for everyone to dispute some major untruths going around about mozilla...

Go here: <http://mozilla.geeks4christ.org>

#18 LinuxWorld's Joe Barr on Milestone 10

by Waldo

Friday October 29th, 1999 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

The link at <http://mozilla.geeks4christ.org> isn't working btw, at least not for me.

Also, aren't most FAQs for open-source projects done in SGML for easy conversion to XML, HTML, text, PDF, etc.?

W

#19 Alternate Link

by dneighbors <derek@forchrist.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 6:16 PM

Reply to this message

DNS may not have shuffled down to your neck of the woods. You can attempt <http://geeks4christ.org/~faqomatic/> as an alternate.

#20 Faq-o-matic and link

by geek <jmeskill@libertydistribution.com>

Friday October 29th, 1999 6:26 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry... I forgot about DNS issues... this <http://geeks4christ.org/~faqomatic> should work in the mean time...

Putting the FAQ in SGML is do-able, but first we must have some content to put into it... think of the faq-o-matic as a rough draft, that can then be edited, moderated, and just plain cleaned up and then we will post something formal in every imaginable format... sound good?

#22 LinuxWorld's Joe Barr on Milestone 10

by stephan <stephan@micropop.com>

Saturday October 30th, 1999 4:32 PM

Reply to this message

The link to <http://geeks4christ.org/~faqomatic/> works, but it only tries to forward me to <http://mozilla.geeks4christ.org/cgi-bin/fom> , which doesn't work..

#24 Why are you wasting so much flamethrower-gas?

by Anon

Friday November 5th, 1999 2:42 PM

Reply to this message

Why are you wasting him so bad?

I think the article is quite positive about Mozilla and before I read the talkbacks, I thought you guys would be quite HAPPY about it. (I was WRONG).

He says it's useable and it's developing quickly. That's TRUE.

I use Mozilla as my full-time browser right now, BTW. And I haven't even had a single crash so far. (Honest, although I haven't dared to try the cream on the top of the cake, yet!)