Randall Parker wrote:
> There has been considerable debate here about what features or bugs or
> performance issues should be added, fixed, or improved before Moz goes 1.0.
Not quite. We've been debating what bugs justifying refusing to release
a 1.0. That doesn't mean other fixes can't go in if they're deemed
sufficiently safe.
> Well, I have a very different sort of standard to propose. Lets use an
> empirical standard based on user feedback of people who normally use a
> different browser.
This would require finding someone to fund such a study. It also sets a
very high standard. It might fail this test even if 100% of users felt
it was a better browser, since people tend to continue using whatever
software they're familiar with, even when convinced an alternative is
better.
Of course, we'd still need other criteria for stopping a release as
well, since pleasing users is only one part of the task. Mozilla is a
developer-oriented product, and must meet the needs of developers who
need to ship a browser, and must inspire confidence in decision makers
at those same companies.
> If people who get the browser installed onto their machine won't use it then
> the people who have to go download it won't use it either. We'd need to find
Certainly not. In fact, almost nobody downloads and installs browsers.
If we're counting on them to do that, Mozilla will be lucky to ever
crack 10% marketshare no matter how good it is or what its reputation is
like. ISPs and OS vendors decide what browsers people use.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
Taxation Is Theft
