On Monday 12 November 2001 18:13, Christopher Blizzard wrote: | Vadim Plessky wrote: | > | We use XDND or Motif for the drag and drop protocol since | > | > Sorry, Chris, but this is not true. | > I tested now (Konqueror 2.2.1, KDE 2.2.1, Mozilla 0.9.5) | > 1) dragging url from Konq's location bar to Mozilla's location bar | > -> doesn't work | > 2) dragging text file to Mozilla's location bar or to browser's space | > -> doesn't work | > 3) dragging HTML file to Mozilla's location bar or to browser's space | > -> doesn't work | > | > at the same time, | > a) dragging URL from Konq's Location bar to another Konq's location bar | > -> works | > b) dragging URL from Konq's Location bar to Kmail | > -> works, you can't D'n'D a whole folder but if you have web page or | > file opened - file will be attached to the mail | > c) dragging URL from Konq's Location bar to Desktop | > -> works. | > And wow - I see wonderful HTML page preview on desktop after it! :-) | | The fact that you can't drag a url from one app to the other only means | that aren't using the same types for exchanging data. It doesn't | reflect the protocol.
Exactly. And as a user of both Mozilla, Konq and Opera/Linux, I want them all working together. The fact that Mozilla/Netscape decided to go on their own is very disappointing to me :-(( | | > | As for the clipboard we do some of our own hand rolling. | > | > Probably this is the reason for all problems. | | Do you have actual proof of this or is it just wild speculation? well, IIRC there was a link on XDND protocol on my site - may be, Google can proove it :-) I guess reference to XDND support (and other Open Standards, like NetWM) in KDE was part of KDE 2.0 announcement. BTW: I don't have a proof that every propierty format/prtotocol/program is bad. But, IMHO, estabilished open standards are much better. | > Thanks for advise, but I strongly back this article (originally | > published on NewsForge) | > http://kde2.newmail.ru/Learning_from_Mozilla_mistakes.html | > "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." | | You back it? Is it a call to arms or something? "Mozilla sucks because | corporate backers want to see it succeed?" There were no such words in that article. And I don't think that Mozilla sucks. | | What exactly do you back in it? The tenious pejorative speculation | webbed together in way that appears to create the illusion of a fact? | I'm sorry, I except more from my news sources. I happen to know for a | fact how far off base he is since I work on the Mozilla project every | single day. ok, let me explain, than. There are several reasons why _I_ do not support Mozilla, or don't like it as a product. Technical ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) startup time is HUGE. b) minimize/maximize time is enermous c) User Interface is *terrible* d) CSS support is far away from being completed e) Mozilla supports broken Netscape table alyout (HTML) Political ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) Netscape (AOL Time Warner) is backing Mozilla, and *uses* Mozilla for own *games* AOL needs to protect "icon on genuis Microsoft Desktop"? Let's threat them [MS] that we will use Gecko/Mozilla as an engine in next AOL browser. Again, it's fine with me if AOL or even MS will use Mozilla - but not for *dirty games*, please!... b) Mozilla developers are often paid by Netscape, and those developers do not respect *normal* Mozilla users. To understand it better - compare Mozilla-layout list with, say, KFM-devel, (or Konq-bugs), where key Konqueror developers (and advanced users) are subscribed and *answer questions*, including "what will be in next version" and "when it will be released" Business reasons ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) Mozilla is in development almost 4 years but results its developers achieved are not impressive, at all. Again: Mozilla is slow, bloated, consumes a lot of memory and lacks support for many important standards (partially implemented standard can't be called "reference implementation" or "standard compliant implementation") b) it's time to recognize (in case there is a least one Real Manager behind this project) that Mozilla project failed. :-(( It's really a pity, but you can't ignore facts. c) unfortunately, it seems that neither Netscape or AOL itself has good managers. So, may be, it's good time to look for such managers outside?... Again - answer is "no!..." from Netscape. So, what can I say seeing such arrogance from Netscape's side? It's a pity. I wish it could be better. But this is out of my control at a moment. So, if we left political reasons outside, only Technical and Business reasons theirself are enough to recognize that Mozilla is *failing*, if not failed already. That's my opinion, and I strongly back it. | | Trying to blame the amount of time that it has taken as the fault of | some corporate entity is near-sighted and shows how little he actually | knows about the subject matter. Writing a fast, full featured, cross | platform browser is hard work and it takes time. That's it. Yep, that's right. But you should recognize as well that Konqueror was done in less than 1 year (compare with 3 years for Mozilla, as of Oct.2000) And real-world browsing support Konq has nowdays is superior to what Mozilla can offer. So, my advises to Netscape: (not to Mozilla hackers! you , of course, can do what you want) 1) drop from using Mozilla as a code base Switch on Linux to Konqueror/KHTML 2) if you still want to fight with MS on Windows platform - buy Opera as a whole company; out-source Opera browser codebase; backport KJS from KHTML to Opera, and use it on Windows. I understand that it can sound a little bit strange for you. But I got used to make *unpopular* decisions which in fact were very painful. I have to tell here that my [working] background is Sales & Marketing, and I got used to talk to Top-Level executives. So, if you can arrange a meeting with AOL TW General Manager, and/or their GM/Marketing Manager for AOL/Netscape division, I can explain all this stuff to them in a word they will get. :-)) | | > As I wrote in comments to this article, | > "It's not very common to find constructive critics of Mozilla project. | > Therefor I was very much surprised to find very interesting article by | > Robin 'Roblimo' Miller, analyzing in histrorycal aspect problems of | > Netscape and Mozilla." | | What is possibly constructive about that article? "Use Netscape 4.7 | because it sucks less?" No. :-) My advise: use Konqueror ;-)) (or Opera5 on Windows, as Konq is still not ported to this platform) As about "constructive" - I guess it's very constructive when somebody is not saying "Hi! I am a Linux zealot. Resistance is useless. Surrender and join the Force of Mozilla!" And on the other hand, not saying that "War for Desktop is over. Microsoft won it many years ago. Linux is a niche market. MS has 95% of Desktop and 90% of Browser market. What can you do about that?" Backing Mozilla project, you just loose your time. (and yes, that's just my *personal* opinion, not related to any company or project ) Instead of wasting time, you [or many other people] can help to other very valuable Open Source project, which are not failed and would appreciate support. And XF is just one of them :-) | | Be my guest. | | --Chris Cheers, -- Vadim Plessky http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/ _______________________________________________ Render mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/render
