My personal opinion, not that anyone is asking :-) I don't actually expect this to
ever happen, either -- I don't really think we are well enough organized to pull
something like this off. Yet...
I think it would be cool if Mozilla 1.0 were a set of technologies (XPCOM, JS,
XUL, a layout engine, etc.), with well defined interfaces, that stand on their own
as (binary) components, that can be used to build software such as a browser. And
not just browsers, but anything that can make use of the technologies that
mozilla.org makes available. It would be ok for mozilla.org to provide a sample
implementation of a browser to prove the technologies can be combined in a
meaningful way. But I don't think it would be useful for mozilla.org to get to
worried about the details of that sample implementation. I think mozilla.org could
be doing more to make it easy for vendors and organizations that want to develop a
browser (like Netscape, or Beonex, or what have you) to do their work, as opposed
to trying to develop a browser of their own. I'd like to see a lot of
mozilla-based browsers competing against each other, instead of tying all this
technology down to a single product that may or may not be able to survive in the
market place. The only way that is going to happen is to componentize the
technologies, get them to stand on their own, and make them available.
I think by focusing on the technologies instead of the browser, a Mozilla 1.0
would be more easily defined -- it is much easier to shoot for a XUL 1.0 and a JS
1.5, and such than it is to try and come up with a product that is going to be an
IE killer. I know we all want that product to exist, but perhaps such a product is
more likely if mozilla.org were successful in fostering the development of
several, independent contenders to the thone. The best way to do that is provide
the technologies and let multiple browsers spring forth. I'd hate to see all these
technologies we've developed go to waste because a single product ended up not
making it in the marketplace. I'd even propose that these technologies be
developed on their own timelines -- why should a major milestone of XUL be held up
because XPCOM development is in flux? The more componentized mozilla.org
technologies become, the better.
If you focused on making the technologies sound, well componentized, with solid,
frozen interfaces, and (this is important) documented *really* well so people
could use them, this would allow more outside entities to develop a browser
product. The more browsers that derived from mozilla-based technologies, the more
likely a mozilla-based domination of the world would occur.
I don't know, I've always thought it wrong for mozilla.org to make shipping a
browser their focus. Seems to me that it is much better (and more straightforward)
to provide the technologies that enable third parties to pick and choose what they
need to make their own browsers (and other Internet software they might dream up)
a reality, and let the browser vendors flourish, innovate, and compete. To me,
that is what a Mozilla 1.0 should be.
Again, just my opinion.
syd
Greg Miller wrote:
> 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
