jesus X wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
> > Ooof, that must have been a rough gig: "Well, it's like four years now,
> > still nothing anywhere near ready to release. But we do have some
> > 'liberating' commie graphics. There's coffee and cookies in the lobby,
> > thanks for listening."
>
> I knew the civility and level-headedness that was starting to show in
> n.p.m.performance was all an act.
What are you talking about rabbi? What's "uncivil" or not
"level-headed" about anything I said here? Am I wrong in stating the
obvious fact (which I need not remind you even Mr. Hickson agrees with)
that Mozilla is nowhere near release quality? And that development has
been going on for four years?
And the commie graphics are just as silly and counterproductive now as
they were before I gave up fighting that battle.
> I'm just surprised it broke so soon, I was
> hoping against hope that it wasn't an act.
>
As a famous sailor man once said, "I yam what I yam". There's no act
here, you can see that for yourself, if you so choose. I've contributed
what even *Gerv* believes to be a reasonable performance criteria for
1.0 release, with some help from even you Lord, so I'm one of the Body
now. We're stuck with each other. That doesn't mean you have to like
it when I say "it's insane that the project is this far from the finish
line after having humped it for so many years", but I respectfully
submit that ignoring that fact does nobody any good, while shouting that
fact from the rooftops does nobody any harm.
I also submit that the Mozilla project is big enough for the both of
us. If it isn't, well, then ask yourself who's right, and who's wrong.
> > We gonna get a transcript of that, Maozilla Politburo?
>
> Since it's not Mozilla's responsibility to transcribe open source events, I
> doubt you'll get it from Mozilla.org.
Um, wouldn't Mozilla.org *want* to publish a "State of the Mozilla"
report? If not, why not, he asked rhetorically?
> Why not ask a site dedicated to the Open
> Source community at large, or an O'Reilly site? After all, we don't ask you for
> current news, we go to news organizations for it.
>
Well, maybe I'll do just that Emmanuel! Clear a space on the web site
for me guys!
> > > My followup questions was "Isn't the voting scheme the only way you have
> > > of finding out what the customer wants to see implemented?" She
> > > misunderstood my question and thought that I was asking what the
> > > engineers were interested in seeing implemented.
> > You mean "she 'misunderstood' my question".
>
> Of course, it's all a conspiracy JTK. She deliberately tried ot be obscure.
How does one get from "customer" to "developer" otherwise? Well I guess
we'll just have to wait until the transcript surfaces.
> You've once again foiled our plan to take over the world - er, make a browser.
>
You know Jesus, there's more than a few here who are under the very
mistaken impression that Mozilla will indeed "take over the world",
that's its a "platform", not a "browser". Do you deny this?
> > Such as performance and usablility, there's a good chance that they
> > could be missed. Oh wait, they've already been missed by orders of
> > magnitude.
>
> Orders of magnitude being powers of ten, you're not even close.
>
Oh come on, indulge me just a little hyperbole will ya? Sheesh, what a
slavedriver!
> > AOL's Mozilla...
>
> Once again, AOL is not Mozilla, and Mozilla is not AOL. Just because you say so,
> does not make it true. What more do you want for proof?
>
Some solid evidence to the contrary. The shocking almost-wholesale
acceptance of my performance criteria for Mozilla 1.0 release is a good
start, but it remains to be seen if it will be "enforced". If AOL's
screaming for a 1.0 release and Mozilla says "it ain't soup yet, cram
it", I guess I'd have to consider that pretty solid evidence.
> > 3. Same as #2, but at the same time contribute administratively, as I
> > have done with my "less than twice as bad" release criteria proposal.
> > This takes the most effort, but it gets the most notice.
>
> Because it was PRODUCTIVE and OBJECTIVE, as opposed to your normal worthless
> drivel that is filled with nothing but misinformation, wild accusations, and
> vitriol.
>
Who's got the vitriol now? Calm down Jesus.
> > Can't wait to read that transcript.
>
> Then go get it already.
I'm on the case! NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
