Asa Dotzler wrote:
>
> David Coppit wrote:
> >
> > Frequently I hear people say "Mozilla is not an end user
> > application". Most often this is in reply to people asking about
> > spell checkers for mail/news.
>...
> > If someone were to develop a copyright/royalty/patent free
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would have to be
copyright-free -- the copyright holder would just have to agree to it
being used in Mozilla under the MPL or a compatible license.
> > spell
> > checker for Mozilla, it would be incorporated, right?
>...
> > So to imply that features like spell checking aren't on the radar
> > isn't quite right,
>
> What do you mean "on the radar"? Mozilla doesn't have a spellchecker.
That's exactly the point. David is correct that in n.p.m.mail-news and
elsewhere, the statement `Mozilla doesn't have a spell checker, but
Netscape does' has often been conflated with the statement `Mozilla
isn't an end-user application, but Netscape is'.
The people making these sort of statements have obviously got the idea
that `Mozilla isn't an end-user application', but (quite understandably)
they don't know why this is the case -- especially since many other open
source apps *are* end-user applications.
<...
> > Instead of saying "Mozilla isn't an end user application", maybe it
> > would be better to say "Mozilla is an end user application, but the
> > developers are targeting the browser and mail/news right now. Try
> > Netscape 6.1 if you want spell checking".
>
> Or even better, "mozilla.org testing binaries aren't created for end
> users. They are created for testing and development purposes.
> mozilla.org testing binaries provide lots of user-level functionality
> and we appreciate any help in testing and fixing that functionality.
> The more of this functionality that we can make available in our
> codebase and our testing binaries the easier it is for vendors to
> release well designed and well tested end user applications and to
> focus on distribution and support issues that are neccessary for mass
> acceptance. So if you want to help get the Mozilla user agent out
> there you can do this several ways. (1) You can help us test and
> develop the Mozilla codebase by using nightly and Milestone testing
> binaries and reporting bugs or contributing code patches. (2) You can
> create, distribute and support an end user distribution like Beonex
> and work to build a large user base or (3) you can use and evangelize
> the use of an existing commercial distribution like Netscape or
> Beonex. Thanks for helping to preserve an open and free internet.
That's better, in that it's more accurate. However, it's about ten times
as long as it needs to be for anyone to read it. And it uses the word
`functionality' three more times than it should.
>...
> Everyone I know working on Mozilla wants the user agent to find its
> way onto as many desktops as possible. Mozilla's success as a browser
> is measured in user agents. mozilla.org is not a large company and
> does not have the resources to push binaries to millions of desktops.
I think you are confusing end user software with proprietary software.
Proprietary software, certainly, is pushed -- its distribution is paid
for, its branding is paid for, its advertising is paid for, and its tech
support is paid for. With open source software of sufficient quality,
whether it is `end user' software or not, distribution is done
voluntarily (`MIRRORS' (Score: 4, Informative)) after initial supply by
the central organization, branding is done voluntarily (`Mozilla needs a
new set of icons'), advertising is done voluntarily (`Where can I find
some Mozilla banners?'), and tech support is done from user to user
(`Try deleting your panacea.dat, that worked for me').
> Fortunately, there are some large companies that will help in this
> effort.
>...
And long may that continue.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla UI Design component default assignee thing
<http://mozilla.org/>
