Randall Parker wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:44:16 -0500 esteemed Greg Miller did hold forth
> thusly:
> And I'm saying that the criteria for releasing Moz ought to be driven more by
> the potential user population.
Yet the most important thing is to convince developers to ship
Mozilla-based browsers. Otherwise, very few users will ever see it.
> No. We make up forms on a web site that is pretty simple and that is what the
> users use (plus e-mail to remind them to click to go to the site) to report
> back their experience after a week. The traffic this would generate would be
> so low that any of us with a static IP address could handle it. Companies
> would need to be asked. Someone in the area would volunteer to go thru and
> run the install for Moz on 100-200 machines (or smaller amounts and larger
> numbers of organizations) of users who now do not have Moz or NS6.x on their
> machines.
So how do we get a meaningful sample?
>
>
>>It also sets a very high standard.
>>
>
> If Moz can't pass this standard then its not worth releasing.
Why not?
> Then why is Moz being developed if no additional users are going to use it no
> matter good it is?
Because current contributors like it or find its existence strategically
useful? This is open source.
> But ISPs and OS vendors (except MS) make those decisions based on how likely
> the users are going to be happy with the results. Right now Moz is in a
> condition where the users would be less happy if made to use it rather than
> IE.
That's a factor, but suggesting that business strategy and the ability
to cheaply and quickly develop and maintain products based on it doesn't
matter is hopelessly naive.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
Taxation Is Theft
