JTK wrote:
> 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?
Yes and yes. Since you love playing semantics, I'll do the same. To be strict,
while there has been work done on browsers at the Mozilla organization wince
March 31 1999, THIS project has NOT been going on since then. The CURRENT
Mozilla browser project was started in mid October 1999, after dumping the
decrepit MozClassic codebase.
And as for being nowhere near release quality, since this is extremely
subjective, there IS no "right" or "wrong". Some of us feel Mozilla is extremely
close to "release quality" and approaching hitting that milestone rapidly.
> And the commie graphics are just as silly and counterproductive now as
> they were before I gave up fighting that battle.
This is also subjective. You see them as "commie". People with even a minimal
art history education (or even moderately cultured) see Constructivist style
art, which is rather attractive, if needing some work (which it does, it's
looked a bit aged and could use a bit of sprucing and polish [note to self, DO
THAT]).
> 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.
Not anymore, correct...
> 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.
Yes, Gerv, myself, Ian all agreed you had several valid points, and nearly all
of your points were agreed upon after some discussion and minor modification and
tighter description.
> 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.
That you feel it is far from release does not bother me NEARLY as much as your
insistence that this is a fact, when it is little more than an opinion based on
a large body of incorrect information, and your stubborn refusal to admit when
you are wrong on some of those bits of information.
> 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.
Well, since I'm ALWAYS right, I think that answer is self evident. ;)
> > 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?
Possibly, but it's not on the agenda as an official project. Why don't YOU go
find it, polish it up, and submit it to the website to see if someone will post
it?
> Well, maybe I'll do just that Emmanuel! Clear a space on the web site
> for me guys!
Subject to a little proof reading mind you. :)
> > 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.
Maybe she just GENUINELY misunderstood the gentleman. Since people involved with
the product know that Mozilla itself is NOT meant for the end user (end user
products are generally round smooth objects too large to fit in the user's mouth
to prevent choking, while currently Mozilla has plenty of sharp points [ask a
user to install Moz from the zipfile, they'll drool halfway through the
sentence]) but the developer and/or gearhead, it's not illogical to assume that
when inquiring about Mozilla, the term of "user" loosely translated to
"developer" since THEY are the intended user base, who will then sand down the
rough parts to end users won't cry or hurt themselves.
> 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?
No more than I deny that some people feel that Microsoft can do no wrong, the
Internet will bring the destruction of morals / family / society / world+dog /
what have you, or that certain people tragically hold on to the idea that XUL is
a titanic albatross. There are even people that believe that the moon landings
were faked and that the earth is flat (and consequently that the idea of a round
earth is preposterous since it's so "obviously" flat).
I personally believe that Mozilla will become a respected platform in the non-MS
OS world, and even make decent inroads on the Windows platforms in their
dwindling lifespan.
> > 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.
This reminds me of what my mother would say when I was a kid being accused of
doing something or other that I was not supposed to be doing. You cannot prove a
negative, you can only prove the opposite and exclusive circumstance, and even
with said evidence, when the observer refuses to believe said evidence
(regardless of the truthfulness or "concreteness") it's all for naught. You
refuse to believe that AOL != Mozilla, thus no proof will satisfy you. Read the
MPL. Soon, it's going to be GPLed IIRC. Look at what AOL is doing with it's
platform, it's still using IE on it's windows clients. Sure, they're using Gecko
on it's non-Win clients, but other companies are currently using Mozilla for
their own products as well. Would you say that Mozilla and ActiveState are the
same thing, given the existence of their Komodo IDE? Or that Mozilla = Redhat
since Chris Blizard is a Redhat employee? Or that Mozilla = IBM since they did
the Bidi work? I could go on with other companies that have paid employees
working on the MPLed code?
> 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.
AOL couldn't care less about when Moz 1.0 ships. Hell, AOL already has shipped
consumer grade products based on some Moz tech. Netscape now has (or will
shortly) have TWO released products based on Moz tech. ActiveState does too.
Sony will soon. Etc. Mozilla's version number is irrelevant in tech large scale
to other companies.
> > 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.
I'm sorry, next time I won't admit when you're being helpful, will that please
you? I was stating facts there. You were helpful in your ideas for release
goals. You were totally off base with some of your other ideas.
> > > Can't wait to read that transcript.
> > Then go get it already.
> I'm on the case! NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Since I give 99% of conventions about as much attention as George Bush gave
counting lessons, I'd be interesting in reading it myself.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
