MozillaZine

Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support XML!!!

Wednesday November 10th, 1999

Joel Caris writes in with the latest Berst burst of wisdom. Jesse Berst's new article at ZDNet's AnchorDesk is filled with such pearls as, "It now expects to ship beta of the 5.0 version of its browser suite next month... [a]nd without support for key Web technologies such as XML that IT managers and Web developers can get from IE."

Damn. And I was under the impression that the entire Mozilla application required XML to power its user-interface, and that it's XML support throughout the application was unparalleled. Silly me.

Be sure to vote in the poll on the article's page!


#1 heh

by Ben_Goodger

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:40 AM

Reply to this message

I was under the impression that IE didn't even support XML properly (am I right? someone correct me if I am..) Maybe he means Mozilla won't support IE's buggy implementation? ;)

This is the single most incompetent Netscape/Mozilla piece of the year. (With the exception of various ClieNTServer News articles)

While other pieces written are just doom gloom pieces based on little research, this piece is based on perhaps a *negative* amount of information about Mozilla! Even our CNet hero Paul Festa manages to acknowledge XUL now and then.

I think its about time we redefined the stupidity benchmarks to take this new article into account.

#14 heh

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

IE's XML does not support namespaces properly. Namespaces are required in mozilla.

What always pisses me off is that Microsoft was a co-author of the spec. They should be supporting it 100%.

#91 IE's Polluted XML

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 1:35 PM

Reply to this message

> IE's XML does not support namespaces properly.

That was probably intentional, just like the lack of version support for DLL's.

Since Microsoft's XML definitions will not co-exist nicely with others, it will force everyone to just accept Microsoft's XML as the defacto standard.

#94 Or....

by FrodoB

Thursday November 11th, 1999 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

Just accept Microsoft's XML as a worthless piece of junk.

#2 Berst is stupid

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:56 AM

Reply to this message

I read the article and he refers to an article about Netscape 4. This article says that Netscape FOUR doesn't support XML. Apparantly he doesn't understand simple sentences, or he just can't read at all.

#82 Berst is stupid

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 9:12 AM

Reply to this message

Ya get kinda nervous when Bill Gates has a gun to your head while your reporting

#3 It's all about hype...

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:56 AM

Reply to this message

Personally, I think it was Mr. Bersts intention to err. All he's trying do to is create hype and hoopla... which he has succeeded at.

I don't consider any place like ZDnet or CNet a reliable source for factual news or regarded opinion.

If everyone would quit feeding into such tactics then maybe they would stop such antics.

Unfortunatley, that's just wishful thinking... kinda like saying 'if everyone just cleaned up after themselves, there would be no pollution'... very true, but it will never happen.

#6 It's all about hype...

by arielb

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:31 AM

Reply to this message

yeah, I blasted him. I just ignore him most of the time but hopefully my post will irrefutably show that either he's a liar or a complete idiot. Either way he can't be trusted. He shouldn't be paid for what he does.

#15 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Quelish

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 8:08 AM

Reply to this message

While "we" might not regard ZDnet or C|net to be factual sources of information, many other people do. The sad truth is that we are outnumbered by "them", and "they" are not smart enough to separate the truth from the crap like this article.

I'm afraid that the damage has been done and unless this jackass publishes a formal apology/correction in his headlining editorial "they" are never going to know any different.

Just as a matter of fact, I used the talkback to rip on this jerk. I am not currently developing for Mozilla, but I have been following it since the start and trying to find as many bugs as I can. It pisses me off when jerkoffs write stuff like this without taking the time to do a little research and furthermore don't back up what they say with some side-by-side comparisons.

#56 CNET's actually pretty good, ZDNET BITES n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 11:47 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#122 It's all about hype...

by Anon

Sunday November 21st, 1999 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

How true, but you forgot to add WinRag to that list of untrustworthy info sites. Berst is just full of useless news directed towards the unwary. He knows that they don't and it places him in a position of power that is corroding public opinion regarding the future of Netscape.

#4 Talkback

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:02 AM

Reply to this message

The Talkback link is here: <http://www.zdnet.com/anch…hoiswe/talkbackform2.html>

I don't have enoygh insight in the technical details of Mozilla to write a decent reply, but I'm convinced others can...

KAL

#5 'bring up to speed'

by arielb

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:28 AM

Reply to this message

He didn't even read the link he gave:

The new components to the upgrade -- the Gecko rendering engine, along with XML, Document Object Model, HTML 4.0 and Cascading Style Sheets support -- bring Communicator up to speed with IE 5.0, almost a year after Microsoft released its upgrade.

Of course, there are technologies such as XUL and RDF that blow IE out of the water-not just 'bring it up to speed'

#7 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

I'm sorry, but Jesse Berst is A WANKER!!! Who the f*ck does this guy think he is?? He talks as if he is God.

Actually, he reminds me of the 2UE/John Laws Cash for Comments story here in Australia (check yahoo.com.au for info).

Ah well, let us wait for the beta, and shut this guy up.

#8 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by michaell

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:55 AM

Reply to this message

Re: 2UE scandal in Australia - I thought exactly the same thing when I read the story. I think Microsoft probably have quite of few of the computer press on their payroll.

#111 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Saturday November 13th, 1999 1:04 AM

Reply to this message

> Actually, he reminds me of the 2UE/John Laws Cash for Comments story here in Australia (check yahoo.com.au for info).

Maybe he's got a few "contracts" with outside companies as well... (Aussie joke)

#9 I have sent a feedback

by nicmila <nicmila@vscht.cz>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 6:22 AM

Reply to this message

I have posted a short reply. While I do not contribute to Mozilla project, I am quite interested in XML technologies (<http://zvon.vscht.cz/Zvon…von/zvonTutorials_en.html>) and at the moment the official Mozilla 1.0 is released I will definitively drink a few beers to celebrate, but only if standard support is 100%, from my point it means CSS1, CSS2, HTML 4.0, XML 1.0 , XSLT 1.0 (it should become a W3C recommendation in a few days). Try the link above to see why XSLT is so important.

#10 The link in my previous message

by nicmila <nicmila@vscht.cz>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 6:25 AM

Reply to this message

The link should be: zvon.vscht.cz/ZvonHTML/Zvon/zvonTutorials_en.html

For some reason it was not displayed properly, I will try again below:

<http://zvon.vscht.cz/Zvon…von/zvonTutorials_en.html>

#11 XSLT support in IE5

by nicmila <nicmila@vscht.cz>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

I just finished reading the accompanied article at PC week <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,1018021,00.html>

it claims: A more serious blow comes from software developers, which are starting to tailor Web-based applications for IE. Ivara Corp., a Burlington, Ontario, developer of maintenance tracking software for manufacturing and the oil industries, offers IE as an interface for customers who prefer a Web-based,thin-client architecture; the company chose IE over Navigator because Microsoft has made it easier to build a rich graphical interface using XML and its companion technology, Extensible Stylesheet Language.

And the actual state: I am really sorry for everyone who concentrates on current implementation of XSL in IE5. XSL has actually two major parts XSL (formatting stuff, think of it like a supercharged CSS), this is still in the stadium of working draft and it will be for months to come. And there is XSLT, which will probably become stable recommendation this month. With XSLT you can take an XML document and transform it into another XML, to HTML or to something else. You do not need a browser to use XSLT. On the contrary you can get excellent up to date stand alone parsers (I am using XT from <http://www.jclark.com> and most of zvon.vscht.cz is generated from XML in two language versions) which are very useful. The IE5 implementations only very remotely resembles current proposed recommendation (something like comparison of C++ and Java), it is based on old december 1998 draft with MS extensions which were not incorporated to the spec.

But it is true that fully compliant XSLT support is a must for Mozilla.

#12 Consider the Source

by dneighbors <derek@forchrist.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

Obviously articles like this frustrate us to no end. As they state facts that are untrue and easy to prove false. They show utter lack of any kind by the author to actually research what they are reporting on.

Unfortunately anyone with an opinion can post it to the net and have millions read it. People will take it as Gospel. Luckily more and more of these site provide slashdot style comments so readers can refute.

However, view the source here. Mr. Berst has some pretty heavy ties to Microsoft and their agenda. I mean ZDNet has Microsoft stuff plastered all over their site.

This is why the DOJ had to step in. M$ is so big at this point they have the ability to affect millions of people w/o actually doing anything with software. Their FUD department is so widespread that they could probably stop developing software for 1-2 years and still be profitable.

We must as a community remain calm and not "react" to this FUD. We should definitely reply back to such journalists, and post on the discussion forums following these articles.

However, we need to do it gently and not bash M$ at every chance. We need show what Mozilla can do not what we dont like about M$.

I stop ranting and simply end with. In my eyes the browser war has just begun! :)

#13 Force Correction

by badben

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 7:11 AM

Reply to this message

I think, Mozilla.org/Netscape should use their right (?) to correct this. It is objectively wrong.

I think, it's time to stop dirty journalism.

#16 Designs shouldn't matter

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

If people have being designing their applications for IE5 because it is more standards compliant that Netscape 4, and their designs are standards based: then it shouldn't matter if Netscape 5 is used. If they are using proprietry stuff, then they will shoot them selves in the foot.

#17 Designs shouldn't matter

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

If people have being designing their applications for IE5 because it is more standards compliant that Netscape 4, and their designs are standards based: then it shouldn't matter if Netscape 5 is used. If they are using proprietry stuff, then they will shoot them selves in the foot.

#18 Ironically,Jesse loved Netscape/Mozilla

by samig <samig@gega.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

In the last few months,Jesse wrote an article about how Gecko would rule the embedded appliances world,there's even a link to the old article in the current one. wonder what changed his opinion.

#28 Ironically,Jesse loved Netscape/Mozilla

by bmetzler <bmetzler@pluto.twistedpair.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

The MS Trial is basically over now. There is no need to prove that Microsoft has "competition" anymore.

Mozilla, Linux, whatever else Jesse Berst has had at least sort-of positive things to say about during the trial was just to help MS' defense. Now that the trial is over, don't expect to see any more positive articles about non-Microsoft innovations.

Anyone who couldn't see that happening was just plain naive.

-Brent

#59 Ironically,Jesse loved Netscape/Mozilla

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:33 AM

Reply to this message

maybe he just got tired of waiting for this mozilla thing like i did

#112 Ironically,Jesse loved Netscape/Mozilla

by Anon

Saturday November 13th, 1999 8:40 AM

Reply to this message

"...wonder what made him change his mind..."

Money money money...

#19 Libel

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:08 AM

Reply to this message

I doubt that this Berst article fits the bill, but has anyone given any thought to the concept of a libel suit. In the US (and presumably other countries) a person or corporation is not free to spout out anything they wish about another company, individual or product. If facts are grossly inaccurate and damages are incurred in the marketplace, a libel suit may be warranted. IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer, do not unveil your torches and pitchforks just on my account. Could it be inferred that when Berst and his ilk make big-banner assumptions (The Browser Wars are Over), site spurious information to back up their argument, and never seem to make public corrections, that there is legal recourse? Has anyone else seen Jesse Berst ever admit "Oops! I goofed on that one, lt me set the story straight.

- my $0.02

#109 Libel

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 11:06 PM

Reply to this message

Libel cases are hard to win in the USA, you have to be able to prove intended malice. In the UK however, i think damaged reputation/lost profits are enough to win a case, regardless of intent. So the question now becomes, how does international law apply to the internet? Since anyone in the world can read the article, could Mozilla take ZDNet to court in London? Like you, i'm not a lawyer, so i have no clue. It'd be pretty sweet if they could, though...

#20 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

Well maybe not that heavy measures, but we should definetely let our voice be heard, forcing him to make an official apology. So, everybody, post your comments in the talkback, and let him know what you mean of bad journalism.

#24 Mailbomb him!

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

Seems like the title slipped. It should read: Mailbomb him!

#21 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:29 AM

Reply to this message

In light of the recent flood of ill-informed anti-mozilla articles all appearing simultaneously-- so factually incorrect and full of spin generating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, one can't help but suspect that it's all part of an organized campaign... What are they afraid of?

ZDNet sucks.

#60 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:37 AM

Reply to this message

hasn't microsoft done this with all the other companies competing against it?

#22 How Gecko crushes IE5 in web standards

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:45 AM

Reply to this message

If you want to see how Gecko crushes IE5 in standards, including XML, check out this document: <http://home.netscape.com/…ers/future/standards.html>

This was last updated in March but it will be revised soon enough.

Chris Saito

#88 Don't be naive

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:10 PM

Reply to this message

You're being blind and naive. Mozilla is not the only project being worked on in the world, and MS is not standing still. Compare Mozilla with future IE6 and see who is going to crush whom. If NC5 can't provide native look and feel for different platforms, it's not going to survive even if it conforms to standards. IE will conform to standards too, so Mozilla will have to be A LOT better than IE in usability in order to allure people away from IE. As it stands right now, IE5 is a lot better than NC 4.7, with exception of bookmark and history management. And the new version will even be better. Mozilla will not give users anything that they need that IE will not have. So what will incentive to switch to NC be? Mozilla is not going to be faster or have more pleasant and usable UI than IE. Majority of browser users do not use more than one OS's, so they won't give a damn that Mozilla will look the same on different platforms. Platform consistency of an application's UI may be good mostly for developers of that application.

#93 Don't be naive

by thelem

Thursday November 11th, 1999 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

I very much doubt M$ willl add much into IE6, just look at the differance between IE4 and IE5 (wow! I can now click a Go! button!).

Besides, if M$ was planning something big they would already have started hyping it.

#121 Well....

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 10:53 PM

Reply to this message

I thought MS WAS already hyping it...remember the new "Tasman" rendering engine--which many claim was directly lifted from Mozilla code. MS had a huge promo for that on their site, if I remember correctly...

#23 Copy of feedback to AnchorDesk

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

I can't believe that AnchorDesk has been so degraded recently that it has to spew out a story like this which is mostly false and uninformed. AOL doesn't put Netscape in its main AOL client because 1) they can't, they have a license agreement with Microsoft which is expiring soon, 2) they don't want Microsoft to get out of legal trouble easily when they no longer have a monopoly thanks to AOL switching, and 3) they are using it in other clients such as the new main European effort, Netscape Online. Netscape's market share in other countries is still extremely healthy and it will be okay in the US as soon as AOL's agreement with Microsoft expires and AOL puts the Mozilla project in its clients. In addition, your article says that Mozilla will not support standard web technologies such as XML. If you knew anything about Mozilla, you would know that the entire browser is based around XML and is 100% W3C standards compliant- Microsoft's browser can't even compete in this field, much less be the only decision for people who need XML. XML in Mozilla is much more advanced than anything Microsoft has come up with.

However, the main error AnchorDesk falls into, which is an extremely common error, is to assume that the fact that Microsoft has released a 5.0 version number means that their browser is superior. Netscape 4.5 is the equivalent of IE 5.0 in almost every respect. IE 5 and Netscape 4.5 were both mostly cosmetic changes to the 4.0x browsers. Netscape should have released 4.5 as 5- this has caused a lot of confusion among users. Mozilla, which will be the root of Communicator 5, is in many respects similar to the details of Microsoft's upcoming browser which will be IE6, looking at the few details that have been released- both are completely new rendering engines and pledge 100% W3C standards support. Netscape has already proved that they will accomplish this- downloading the latest Milestone Release of Mozilla confirms this. Whether or not Microsoft's effort to build a new rendering engine and support W3C standards will be successful is yet to be seen.

#108 Copy of feedback to AnchorDesk

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, but IE5 has better support for many CSS features than Netscape 4.x . What's wrong with IE5 is as said above, too many proprietary features. When Mozilla comes out, it will be superior to any IE browser; but as of right now, IE5 is a better browser than Netscape 4.7. Though it's taking a very long time to finish M/G, the final product will leap ahead of IE.

#25 There is a reason for this

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

Right or wrong, and I know he is mostly wrong, there is a reason that so many anti-mozilla articles have been published lately: Mozilla is taking TOO LONG. FUD's 3 components not only work in tandem, they feed off each other. Uncertainty breeds Doubt, and Doubt breeds Fear. People are uncertain about Mozilla and Navigator because they are STILL waiting to see something. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, mostly because I myself am a huge fan of the Mozilla effort, but M10 or even the recent nightly builds do NOT qualify as even adequate. There has obviously been alot of work put into this project, but the result as of now is still unimpressive to the end-user. The UI seems flaky and fragile, the flickering on the main viewport is distracting, and there are still too many fatal bugs. I am not saying Mozilla sucks, nor am I saying the project is doomed. But I believe that the longer the actual product remains in its current state (especially interface-wise) people are going to look at it and decide that it doesn't measure up, regardless of all the great stuff under the hood. The longer it takes for something that is not only usable but FEELS SOLID to come out, the more articles you will see that look like Berst's.

#87 There is a reason for this

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

I agree. Mozilla isn't going to wil any spin battle until it can actuall produce something... a final product of sorts. Until then IE will continue to have a field day.

#26 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by mykmelez <myk@zapogee.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 10:42 AM

Reply to this message

First, he gets noticed by a lot of people who read his article and get either pissed off or smug.

Second, he gets to write an article six months from now about how wonderful it is that Netscape is back in the game. Only one person in this talkback forum noted that he was praising Gecko a few months back; how many will remember this article in six months?

The less time we spend paying attention to FUD the more time we can spending helping Mozilla succeed, not to mention living happier lives. :->

A simple refutation of all the obvious errors and omissions is the most possible compelling counter-argument for newbies who read the article and the talkbacks as well.

I know it's frustrating to see this stuff all the time, but really, Mozilla will succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of dime-a-dozen FUDdy-duddies or the volume of criticism they receive.

Michael D. Melez (<myk@zapogee.com>)

#31 Amen. n/t

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 12:48 PM

Reply to this message

:-)

#27 A former NS Employee response...

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

A former Netscape Sales Manager responds to Jesse:

<http://www.zdnet.com/anch…back/talkback_212450.html>

Hmmm....

#29 Has the article been altered?

by proub <proub@email.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 12:18 PM

Reply to this message

Clicked through to Berst's article, and the key sentence reads "And without support for key Web technologies that IT managers and Web developers can get from IE" (note the omission of "such as XML") -- is this a different version than was present earlier?

#33 Has the article been altered?

by FrodoB

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

Yep. But you notice they didn't apologize for it?

(And the statement is still dubious, even minus the specific XML info.)

#110 There's a whole new debate in here...

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 11:27 PM

Reply to this message

One of the most disturbing aspects of internet "publishing" is that nothing is ever final. This is fine in most cases, but some people, journalists among them, have to respect boundaries between drafts and final copies. Imagine "signing" an electronic contract, only to find key parts added or omitted without your consent later on. The implications aren't so drastic with a news story, but it's deceitful to change it without annotating the changes made. Example: i once read an ambiguous review of an album which ended with a very low score. A few weeks later, the same album was listed by the same on-line magazine as "essential." The review, because it was so ambiguous, was left untouched as far as i could tell, but the final score was simply omitted, as though it had never existed, as though every other review on the website wasn't accompanied by a numerical score. It just seemed contemptuous their regular readers.

#30 Trial is far from over.

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 12:23 PM

Reply to this message

The M$ trial is far from over, in fact, it has received more incorrect media hype than Mozilla has.

The latest hoopla about M$'s trial was merely a 'finding of fact.... not a verdict. Same sort of hype surrounded 'finding of fact' regarding the Sun vs. M$'s JVM.

M$'s strategy appears to be that of appeal. Let a single judge screw things up and then take it to a multi-judge panel and get it overturned.

This happened in both the Sun vs. M$ JVM case and in the overruling of Jackson himself when the courts decreed that M$ had every right to integrate browsing functionality into their own operating system.

Let's get the facts straight, folks, and not get into a 'pot calling the kettle black' situation. :)

#37 Trial is far from over.

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

You are incorrect regarding Microsoft's ability to appeal Justice Jackson's finding of facts and law. Let's get this clear, Justice Jackson has *not* ruled on the Microsoft case. He has simply stated what he feels are the facts and the impact of those facts of law based the presentations made by the government and Microsoft. Those findings can only be appealed to the Supreme Court, and represent the foundation upon which the final ruling will be made. It is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to examine a finding of facts and law. Put simply, there is no viable appeal strategy in their anti-trust case.

So, the trial may not be over, but then, there is no realistic avenue for appeal. If the rumours are correct, the Justice Department won't accept a settlement that does not breakup Microsoft, and based on the findings from Justice Jackson, I think he will break them up.

#32 Marketing, MS-praising

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

What I love most about this article is the part that says "[Netscape] fell behind in marketing, forcing it to give away Navigator." Yeah, I'm sure Micrsoft giving away it's browser for free had nothing to do with it.

Is anyone else noticing a trend in computer-related media to make Microsoft look as though it got where it was through nothing but hard work? Granted, other companies like Apple, Novell, and IBM made a lot of mistakes that Microsoft profited from, but no-one is mentioning stuff like their not letting PC makers include Netscape, or the stuff that came out during the Caldera case.

I think the media is just after MS's advertising dollars. That may explain a lot of Linux FUD, (how often do you see a Red-Hat ad.)

#34 Berst's on Bill's Payroll

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

Guys what do you expect of Mr. Berst? He's on Bill payroll, so it's obvious that he's going to enjoy stashing his smooth talkin' on loads of (let's call them) un-truths.

I've seen this behaviour from the guy ever since I fell for his "Berst Alert" email thing. He's not worth the time reading his email. He's biased, he sways around from arguement to arguement like a weather vane in a gale.

If one week somebody points out that he's gone too far in one direction, then he'll promptly write something to counter it. So don't be surprised to hear some apologetic talk in the near future.

On my part I have unsubscribed from his column. I could not bear the quasi-zealous fervour with which he enjoyed bashing anything Netscape did and lauding the praises of his Lord and Mentor Bill.

Excuse my candor, but I never really like the guy.

:)

#35 More ad revenue

by masri <masri@nolex.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 2:03 PM

Reply to this message

Ridiculous articles like this lead people (many from this site) to read Jesse's vitriol. One ad impression. Then, you read someone's response. Impression #2. Then, there's a link from a talkback here to a talkback there. Impression #3. ZDNet, and indirectly Jesse himself, are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just give yourself a quick & simple rule, as I've done: don't read Jesse Burst. He's alarmist, often incorrect, and a total waste of time. We should be spending our time learning the ins and outs of Moz, and helping to find bugs. He'll eat his own words, eventually.

- Adam

#101 More ad revenue

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Friday November 12th, 1999 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

Or turn off images

#102 More ad revenue

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

Better yet... use AtGuard. :)

Get's rid of the tacky Mozillazine ad no problemo! hehe!

#36 They're in for a surprise . . .

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 2:27 PM

Reply to this message

Well the good thing about all this is that with all these negative articles giving everyone false negative impressions of Mozilla, they're all going to be in for a surprise once the browser rolls out with ::GASP:: full xml support ::GASP:: [insert key Mozilla feature that no one thinks exist here]

<:3)~~

#38 ie has one major flaw

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 2:56 PM

Reply to this message

IE has one major flaw: it doesn't run on anything else but windows. It doesn't run on UNIX, it does run on apple but with degraded functionality and stability, it doesn't run on Palm top computers (excluding wince though I'm not sure). Mozilla runs on all of these and more.

On top of that, the traditional desktop market is relatively shrinking with palm computers and settopboxes popping up all over the place. IE can't compete in this area. While it may stay the prefered desktop browser for x86 pc's running windows, web developers are excluding people if they choose to develop for IE only. So, my guess is that they won't. This will force MS to become more compliant with the standards, something they've been able to postpone due to lack of competition.

My guess is that it will take a while for mozilla to catch on. Probably the first months after its release will be bug fixing and optimizing. Once that first phase is over it will slowly start gaining market share. Also development will speed up due to increased interest from the public. This means that it is unlikely that mozilla will fall behind in development like communicator 4 did.

One word of caution. Mozilla won't compete with ie 5 but with ie 6. MS has had almost a year to work on version 6 so my guess is that ie 6 will have an improved rendering engine that it will be fairly compliant with the standards and will be backwards compliant at the same time. Just like you shouldn't compare ns 4 with ie 5 when you claim the browser war is over, you shouldn't compare ie 5 with mozilla.

#63 IE does run on Unix

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 4:00 AM

Reply to this message

IE runs on HP-UX and Solaris in native versions, and I'm currently running IE 3.03 on Linux fopr testing purposes (the 16 bit version is stable under Wine, and I'm going to install IE 4 at some point).

#64 IE does run on Unix, yes, but *extremely* badly

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 4:14 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, IE does run on HP-UX and Solaris, but dismally because the idiots at Microsoft actually made the mad decision to use a Win32 <-> UNIX API layer, so that they didn't have to change much of their Win32 code to get it working on UNIX.

It means a quicker time to market, but results in a browser that's an absolute disgrace - about 5 times slower than Netscape !!

Also, Java support on the UNIX IE 5 is a complete joke - it doesn't ship with a JVM and if you use an installed JVM, it doesn't use OJI, so, yep, you get the applets in separate windows of their own - utterly, utterly useless.

I tried IE4 and IE5 on HP-UX and it was so shockingly poor (compared to IE4/5 on PCs, which is actually pretty good for a Microsoft product), I deleted it right away.

#89 ie has one major flaw

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

Who gives a damn about Unix. Most of those using on Unix workstations are not paying customers anyway. Unix machines are used at universities and at work. Then people go home and use Windows, with exception of fools that use Mac's or hackers that use Linux.

#97 i like macs

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 7:26 PM

Reply to this message

Mac users are not fools, you anonymous troll.

#98 Glittering generalities?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

I happen to know a lot of people who use some form of Unix at home, particularily Linux, as well as at work or school. And I use a Mac at work since Macs are pretty well known for graphics and publishing. Then when I go home I have to use a crappy ass Windoze machine that crashes every few hours.

The point is, Unix and Mac users are a minority compared to Windoze but are still important to a lot of people who won't go away. And if Mozilla were to succeed there needs to be verions of it for non-PC users instead of giving them the short end of the stick.

#39 things that make you go "hmmm"

by Waldo

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 3:06 PM

Reply to this message

OH MY GOD! He *CHANGED* the article's incorrect assertion that mozilla doesn't support XML on the sly without ANY KIND OF ACKNOWLEGEMENT! A real journalist would have acknowleged and apologized for the oversight. Jesus...

THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING. One merely has to look at his sources and how he spins them.

Take this statement:

--------- "Now it appears Netscape's browser won't survive. Zona Research is the latest to declare IE victor with survey results showing 64% of corporations picked IE over Navigator." ----------

Let's pick out the lunacy of this:

1. When Netscape controlled 75% of the browser in '96, did Microsoft say the browser war was "over"? I don't think so. But apparently, to Berst, a 64% lead means "victory" now.

2. But it *DOESN'T* to Zona research. The study cited did claim it was the "end of an era" but not the era Berst is hoping for! Zona didn't say anything about the war ending between Netscape and IE. In fact, its saying that the war has NARROWED into a two-browser competition (they make an analogy to the cola wars which are an ongoing two-brand competition). (See <http://www.zonaresearch.c…m/info/press/99-nov08.htm> for Zona's ACTUAL conclusions about the browser war.)

3. The study interviewed a grand total of 236 *CORPORATE* respondants, according to the press release at <http://www.zonaresearch.c…tudy/1999/nov99/index.htm>. They were asked about the browser they used "at work" (see <http://www.zonaresearch.c…/1999/nov99/chart1_sm.gif> ) Note that this study tells us _nothing_ about non-corporate or individual usage.

4. To give you an idea of how this survey was conducted, "approximately 300 corporate IT professionals" (if 236 is approximately 300) from "a variety of market segments" were asked if they used a browser, and if so, what they'd downloaded lately. (See <http://www.zonaresearch.c…tudy/1999/nov99/index.htm> ) Looking at the bottom of the graph at <http://www.zonaresearch.c…tudy/1999/nov99/index.htm> , unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the browser questions had N=172 -- only 172 respondants to this question? So the 64% victory comes from the PRACTICES (not necessarily PREFERENCES) of 172 corporate user's AT WORK. Great.

5. Of those surveyed in Oct 1999, *NINE* said they were still using IE 3.x. Compare with *FOURTEEN* claimed to be using Netscape Navigator 5.x!! (See <http://www.zonaresearch.c…/1999/nov99/chart2_sm.gif>). Fourteen people (6% of N=232)using a PRE-ALPHA product of Mozilla at work? That's weird.

5. The people interviewed "are selected from the IntelliQuest Technology Panel." (See <http://www.zonaresearch.c…ucts/products.htm#reports>) which are 32,000 people on some list I guess. Who are these people? I'm not in any way a survey expert but don't usually they say these people are phoned at random and there's such-and-such a margin of error..? Maybe someone out there knows (?)

5. According to the survey, 69% of users are REQUIRED or ENCOURAGED to use IE by their jobs (<http://www.zonaresearch.c…/1999/nov99/chart4_sm.gif>). But only 64% do, suggesting that 5% are intentionally violating their work's mandate to use IE! And indeed, 31% of companies say to employees "use Netscape" but 5% more (36%) do! (See chart at <http://www.zonaresearch.c…m/info/press/99-nov08.htm>) - Looks like Microsoft's well known practices are squeezing corporations to use IE, the users know better :)

5. Zona's list of "key clients" includes... suprise suprise... MICROSOFT (See <http://www.zonaresearch.com/info/clients.htm>)

Hmmmmmm......someone leave the spin cycle on for too long?

W

#40 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Waldo

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 3:08 PM

Reply to this message

Crap. Ok, just pretend that the last points, numbering 5, 5, 5, 5 say 5, 6, 7, and 8. Gotta have a bigger window to type in :)

And some of those links came out wrong, just eliminate the parenthasis at the end.

W

#43 very good points !

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

thanks for gathering this information. that's quite impressive. now it's clear that Berst's article is completely distorting reality.

#41 Why spin and the media is important...

by Waldo

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 3:31 PM

Reply to this message

I think it's important to note that the reason perceptions about IE "winning the war" are so important now to M$ is that it's self-fulfilling-- the notion that IE has "won" will encourage more people to use IE, thus more firmly establishing it as a standard which in turn causes more people to use it.

That's why it's so important to fight these attempts to declare a "winner" -- because some policymaker at some company who's on the fence on what browser to use is going to read it and go "oh, looks like I'd better go with IE which won the war rather than that non-XML supporting Netscape which is being ditched by AOL. Who wants those headaches?"

Losing the spin war is losing the browser war. We must get back control and get the truth out whenever bogus articles like this come out!

W

PS-- Man, those spelling errors just jump out at you as soon as you hit the submit button :)

#42 zdnet, cnet 0wned and operated by microsoft

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 3:36 PM

Reply to this message

Obviously these sites are operated under microsoft activist idjits that don't know what they are talking about. Gee, I wonder where they are getting their sources from, Netscape wannabe's at microsoft? I think its about time we give these people a swift kick in the @$$!

#44 That SUCKS

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

All that time it took for a great browser and no XML the title says it all

#46 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:32 PM

Reply to this message

Aol sucks to

#45 Ignore him

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

Jesse Berst is a blustering windbag with zero credibility. Anyone who has read more than a half a dozen of his "Anchordesk" articles could tell you that.

He gives the strong impression of being a PR whore - ignorantly and compliantly taking it from whatever the latest press release to appear in front of him says.

The Mozilla article is just the latest of articles to reveal the depths of his ignorance.

Frankly, if I were ZD I would be embarrassed to be associated with him. Perhaps they keep him on to generate some extra revenue through the hits that his ill-informed blather produces?

#47 Ignore him

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

Hey Mr. Anon, Sounds like you know this fool. I got the same impression reading this guys stuff. Are you saying that he don't know what he's talking about. or is he just another one of those people that wears kneepads whlie working ;)

#48 PNG

by arielb

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

hmm I guess my post was so sharp they didn't post it. The first line "Either you were intentionally trying to mislead the public or just incompetent..." Anyway, if IE5 is so standards compliant, how come I can see PNG's in Netscape 4.7 and not IE5? That's more important to me than how many dynamic tricks you can do.

#50 PNG

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 8:41 PM

Reply to this message

Jesse Berst is the journalistic equivalent of Jerry Springer.

PNG support...whatever...Nav 4 doesnt even support binary transparency (when did we get that for GIF?), which is still broken in Mozilla under certain color depths <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13627> but works fine in IE 5. I agree with the fact that PNG is the often overlooked standard badly in need of _full_ (read alpha transparency) support in Mozilla.

I just want my relatively simple homepage to display properly, and the bottom line for me right now is that IE5 does it, and Mozilla doesn't.

#51 Your homepage

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:07 PM

Reply to this message

Have you filed a bug into bugzilla? What is your homepage url?

#53 Bug ID 13627

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 10:03 PM

Reply to this message

I referenced the bug report in my post, you can read it at: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13627>

I finally decided to Do The Right Thing and convert my site <http://www.hubick.com/> to use PNG (and XHTML :-), and all the PNG's don't show up properly. Though, according to the bug report, this bug may only happen on Windows at certain (32 bit) color depths. I haven't tried under Linux yet. The scary thing is, Nav 4 displays the page better, because at least it doesn't try to do the transparency and then fail (but it would look horrid if I tried to change the background color of the pages.

#54 PNG

by arielb

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 11:28 PM

Reply to this message

I've tried many png images and none work in IE5 but they did work in Netscape 4.7.

#61 PNG

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 1:20 AM

Reply to this message

If IE5 shows PNG files correctly then I must have corrupted software cause this thing never showed a PNG file right.

#96 Demonstration

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Thursday November 11th, 1999 5:37 PM

Reply to this message

It doesn't seem too many people believe me. I ask them to look at <http://www.hubick.com/temp/pngtrans.jpg> which shows screenshot of NS4, Mozilla, and IE5 displaying a copy of my web page <http://www.hubick.com/> with the stylesheet altered to make color behind the PNG different. At <http://www.hubick.com/temp/pngtrans2.jpg> you can see a screenshot comparing IE5 and how mozilla currently breaks on my page. I realize that Mozilla only breaks under certain circumstances (color depths), but still, _my_personal_ experience is that my simple home page breaks.

I know Mozilla is under construction, and I have never implied that it will be anything less than perfect when it is finished. All I am saying is that I think the final product, advertising strong standards support, should include PNG in that support, and that I think too many people overlook the importance of basics like PNG images for sexier features like XSL and scripting. Look at how long XML has been a W3C standard compared to PNG, and at the levels of support in Mozilla. I would argue that PNG support should come second after HTML. I want a web build on _open_ standards, and GIF needs to die.

#49 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 7:21 PM

Reply to this message

Put simply, he is an idiot. Though this article is an editorial, it obviously lacks any substantial amount of background knowledge about the subject at hand.

It surprises me that he is an editorial director, as it is obvious that he cannot conduct any type of basic journalistic research whatsoever. Not to mention the lack of literary creativity. Pokemon? Please.

#52 Trial is far from over

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 9:21 PM

Reply to this message

You misinterpreted what I said. My statement regarding M$ appealing wasn't directed towards the 'finding of fact'. I was addressing two issues:

1. The trial is far from over.

2. M$ appears to be taking the appeal strategy and has succeeded already once with Jackson and with Sun Microsystems.

My apologies if I somehow composed my last post to indicate otherwise... although it's pretty clear to me what I meant! :)

#55 We Need a Parody

by Anon

Wednesday November 10th, 1999 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

We need to start taking the piss out of this guy. How about, "Jesse Burst, Anchor-around-the-neck: Get your head in the sand, and keep it there!". Or what about, "Jesse Bollocks, Anchor Desk: Get misinformed, Stay Misinformed". Anybody up for it?

#57 Confused

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

Uhm..... I don't see where this Berst feller is mentioning XML at all??

What gives?

#58 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Waldo

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

Confused--

He changed the article without an Update saying "oops! I made a mistake." Just changed it.

Scary :( W

#69 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by arielb

Thursday November 11th, 1999 6:46 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, instead of "without support for key Web technologies such as XML" it just says "without support for key Web technologies" What are these key web technologies anyway?

#73 key technologies for the web ?

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

maybe a button to edit the page source in Word 2000 ?)

#120 key technologies

by url <urlradio@yahoo.com>

Monday November 15th, 1999 3:57 PM

Reply to this message

Berst is such a unethical slob of a writer. . .he's not even brave enough to issue a correction for this. I wouldn't even grace him with the title of a journalist.

#62 Berst doesn't write his articles

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 1:41 AM

Reply to this message

Some people in this discussion (and others at other sites) have noted that there are blatant contradictions between Berst's articles. A journalist once commented that some writers get other people (lackeys) to do their columns. I am convinced that Berst doesn't write his own columns (or even read them), although of course I can't be certain.

#65 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 5:01 AM

Reply to this message

I'm sure that Mr. Berst would have mentioned his update if mozAdmin had first contacted him regarding his err, rather than post an article jabbing at him for simply making a mistake.

This kind of behavior is childish and quite frankly it is a bad reflection on Mozilla.org.

Shame on you, mozAdmin.

#67 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by arielb

Thursday November 11th, 1999 6:42 AM

Reply to this message

oh please. Berst's mistake was blatant. Stop sticking up for idiots

#70 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 6:55 AM

Reply to this message

The whole article written by Berst was a piece of uninformed crap. It is clear he understands nothing of the topic he wrote about. There is not just one single mistake, but a series of blatantly obvious ones leading to an erroneous conclusion. If he were any sort of professional, the whole article would have been withdrawn followed by a public apology. At least that Professor writing for Computerworld had the guts to admit he made a serious blunder. This Jesse guy would not have the balls.

#78 Aww, Bruce. Sorry to disappoint you so.

by mozineAdmin

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:52 AM

Reply to this message

#99 Oh, Christopher, you could never disappoint me.

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 10:52 PM

Reply to this message

#66 How Berst Works.

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 6:19 AM

Reply to this message

So, Jesse's taken another about-face on Mozilla it seems. For the Uninitiated, here's a little primer on Jesse.

1) Find an underdog, and hype it as the 'next big thing'

2) Do a follow-up on the underdog in slightly less glowing terms (usually sprinkled with "Microsoft is catching up!!")

3) Put out an article damning the underdog, and tell everyone to "Just stick with Microsoft instead"

4) goto 1)

This is ALWAYS Jesse's modus operandi. He will pick -any- underdog (whether it be Linux, Mozilla or whatever) and pretend to be it's best friend, until NEXT week when he falls back to the "Microsoft is GOD" party line.

#68 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 6:44 AM

Reply to this message

Blatant my ass, he made a booh booh and mentioned one term: XML.

Let's burn the sorry bastard at the stake.

#71 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe he means XSL? Who knows? The article he links to in that paragraph mentions some Burlington based Co. using IE because of XSL.

In any event, there are better ways to deal with situations like this than what has been displayed here.

I know it goes against the 'Hate all non-Moz' mantra, but people have to grow up sooner or later.

#74 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

Companies are going to be fscked if they rely on Microsoft's version of XSL, based on a late 1998 draft of the XSLT spec.

#79 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by arielb

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:56 AM

Reply to this message

ok do a search for XSL on mozilla.org. Mozilla is supporting that too. What are the crucial technologies that are missing from mozilla? Nobody knows because the responsible journalist won't tell us.

#72 Stop talking & start delivering it's been 2 ye

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

'nuff said

#76 i agree: show us what you've done, Anon !)

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

just ask yourself, what have you done lately to help ?

"'nuff said"

oh, and some links for you : <http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html> <http://www.mozilla.org/qu…g-writing-guidelines.html>

#75 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:05 AM

Reply to this message

Not if they use IE! hehe!

#77 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 8:19 AM

Reply to this message

I'm not the Anon you are referring to but I've helped Mozilla.org by not running around the web spouting 'big, bad, Microsoft and poor, poor, Netscape'..... rantings that contribute to the unjust label that Mozilla supporters are fanatics.

#103 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 6:02 AM

Reply to this message

so you think that the mozilla supporters are considered as fanatics ? great ! at least, it's better to be considered than not all... with all these so-well-informed-journalists telling the masses that the mozilla project is dead, i come to the conclusion that we are all "fanatic zombies" ! weird !)

#104 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 6:12 AM

Reply to this message

No... not all of them.

#80 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 9:08 AM

Reply to this message

You didn't disappoint me one bit, Christopher.

#81 Browser dead?

by Ray

Thursday November 11th, 1999 9:08 AM

Reply to this message

I think one thing this guy fails to realize is that by releasing the code to the web it is my opinion Netscape/Mozilla has really given the browser eternal life. As long as there are people wanting to tinker it will become better and better. A good example, Linux. As far as developers using IE for their developing needs all I have to say is I hope they have a big hard drive to keep downloading all those security patches Microsoft keeps coming out with every week.

By the way if the release of Netscape 5.0 is next month can I use smart update to upgrade my Mozilla M10 release?????? HAHA

#90 Browser dead?

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 12:24 PM

Reply to this message

Their hard drives are big enough, don't worry. At least they have a browser to work with right now.

#95 Browser dead

by Ray

Thursday November 11th, 1999 4:34 PM

Reply to this message

Ya they may have a browser that works now but how many patches does a person have to download before you get somthing that doesnt let people snoop your hard drive, Look at your address book, lets malicious code in, and cooperates with any virus thats sent in...Take the new Bubbleboy for example...So far they say it does not work on netscape. Maybe Microsoft should test their software better before it releases it to the public

#83 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 9:14 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe he even didn't mean to say XSL?? Like I said... who knows?

Maybe he just forgot, mistyped, lost his senses, someone else typed it, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...

It would have been much better handled by simply addressing him about it first before poking fun at him.

Two things bad happened:

1. He didn't mention his rectification of the error.

2. He probably doesn't care for Mozillazine that much now.

But oh well, the damage is done.

#84 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by FrodoB

Thursday November 11th, 1999 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

Is there any conclusive proof he even knows of mozillaZine's existence? If he had, he wouldn't have made that journalistic blunder (or deliberate misinformation?) in the first place.

#85 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

Hey Mark,

Good question. I'm sure he does now, though. :)

I first thought he stated that intentionally to stir things up, but after seeing him rectify it... I'm thinking that he just made a mistake.

#86 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

Hell... maybe he did mean XSL in the first place if he was going by what's stated here:

<http://www.mozilla.org/ne…layout/faq.html#cssnotxsl>

His idea being that many will be vested into IE's implementation of XSL.

So it's possible he (or whoever) mistyped one single character... and 'M' instead of an 'S'! hehe!

#92 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by thelem

Thursday November 11th, 1999 2:32 PM

Reply to this message

>Jesse Berst is the journalistic equivalent of Jerry Springer.

>PNG support...whatever...Nav 4 doesnt even support binary transparency >(when did we get that for GIF?), which is still broken in Mozilla under >certain color depths (LINK) but works fine in IE 5. I agree with the fact that PNG >is the often overlooked standard badly in need of _full_ (read alpha >transparency) support in Mozilla. Have you ever actually used navigator 4, or come to think of it, _any_ verision of Netscape? I just checked in Netscape 1.22, 2.02, 3.0 and 4.7 and guess what - they all support binary transparency. As for PNG in Mozilla, it is still under construction - if you went to a building site and saw that you could simply walk off the first floor (ie no wall built yet) would you complain? No, you would say, "well, it isn't finished so why should it be there?".

>I just want my relatively simple homepage to display properly, and the bottom >line for me right now is that IE5 does it, and Mozilla doesn't. Probably due to bad coding on your part (using non-standard features) or something in Mozilla which isn't finished yet. See the MozillaZine Homepage:

"If you hit a page that doesn't display well or has JavaScript errors in Nav5 (Mozilla) because the page uses MS IE4/5 DOM features, Nav4 Layer DOM features, or the LAYER/ILAYER tag, DON'T FILE A BUG in Bugzilla. Instead, use the below email creation templates to send an email to the page's owner asking them to upgrade the page to support W3C standards."

#100 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Thursday November 11th, 1999 11:20 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I know a few people that have 'played' around with Linux... then nuked it to free up more space for Windows.

#105 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by FrodoB

Friday November 12th, 1999 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

I know a few who've done the converse.... Played around with Linux and nuked Windows to free up more space for it. ;)

#106 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 6:43 AM

Reply to this message

your comment is completly pointless. Mozilla is a Cross-Platform project, this means it's not tied to Linux. It's made to run on Windows, Mac, several Unixes and some embedded devices.

is it a new trend to assimilate Mozilla to a Linux-only-project ? i hope not.

#107 Jesse Berst Says that Communicator Won't Support X

by Anon

Friday November 12th, 1999 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

Nope... the root of this particular thread was in response to another post. Was in 'flat mode' at the time. :(

#113 independent rating of Gecko XP Parser

by Anon

Saturday November 13th, 1999 12:25 PM

Reply to this message

Note that in this third-party evaluation of non-validating XML processors, the James Clark XP parser which is used by Gecko/Nav5 tied for the highest rating, five green dots, with a Sun Java entry.

The only Microsoft technology entry on this list, the DataChannel XML Java Parser, got one red star and the notation "Don't even consider using this package until its bugs are fixed." (Note that this is not the native binary XML parser in IE; that wasn't evaluated in this list.)

XML.com - Non-Validating XML Processors <http://www.xml.com/pub/19…formance/nv-analysis.html>

#114 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

#118 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

So do I, and I don't see what you say hapening. Marketing leaves us strictly alone.

#119 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

So do I, and I don't see what you say hapening. Marketing leaves us strictly alone.

#115 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 11:30 AM

Reply to this message

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

#116 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 12:14 PM

Reply to this message

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

#117 I work for ZDNet...

by Anon

Monday November 15th, 1999 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

why does this show up 3 times? once is enuff thanks.

#123 Lack of support for PNG, others

by Anon

Thursday November 25th, 1999 8:14 AM

Reply to this message

*sigh* Since when did alpha versions of IE work correctly? I'd say Moz is way ahead on that front alone. Please, let's compare apples to apples.

#124 I hate those X10 crap

by Anon

Thursday November 25th, 1999 3:58 PM

Reply to this message

Someone mentioned about the X10 ads on ZDNet, and they're hella annoying. I've complained directly to X10, with no reply. Those X10 ads seems to associate the "X" part of the product with sex, otherwise, why would they have pictures of seductive females in them if they're selling webcams. Also, they're playing psycho on people since people like to click on porno banners, making a normal ad look like one at the PG13 level makes idiots follow them.

X10 shall die.