Vadim Plessky wrote: > 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 :-((
No, we just haven't gotten all of the compatibility worked out yet. It's nothing intentional. > BTW: I don't have a proof that every propierty format/prtotocol/program is > bad. But, IMHO, estabilished open standards are much better. Are you kidding me? What part of "we use XDND/Motif" do you not understand? Protocol interoperabilty is not the same as flavor incompatibility. > And I don't think that Mozilla sucks. Yet, you go on to say this... > 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. And we are working on that, a bit at a time. > b) minimize/maximize time is enermous Working on it. Making real progress. > c) User Interface is *terrible* > d) CSS support is far away from being completed But we have the best CSS support that's out there. > e) Mozilla supports broken Netscape table alyout (HTML) That's right. We are a web browser, not a HTML browser. People have been using broken crap on the web for years and we need to support it. > > 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!... I don't care what AOL is doing with Mozilla as long as they are supplying developers and not stepping all over the Mozilla tree in doing so. They are pretty good about not doing so. In general, they obey the rules. That's why mozilla.org is not the same as Netscape/AOL and [EMAIL PROTECTED] includes non-Netscape/AOL people. > b) Mozilla developers are often paid by Netscape, and those developers do not > respect *normal* Mozilla users. Yes they do. I suspect that you haven't worked with them at length. > 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" So do the Mozilla developers that I work with. > > Business reasons > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > a) Mozilla is in development almost 4 years but results its developers > achieved are not impressive, at all. Wait, a working, cross platform, standards compliant, shipping browser isn't enough? I'll bet that you wouldn't be impressed if aliens landed on our planet, either. > 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") Apparently you are using a different Mozilla than I am. Yes, Mozilla has a large memory footprint at this time but it's something that's at the top of our list. As for speed, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Here are our page load times over the last 11 months or so: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/data/loadtimes/daily_loadtime.html You will notice that on Linux page load times on the test machine have dropped on average from 3000ms to ~1550 in the last 6 months alone. And, to compare page load times with other browser that are out there: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3BEC43C9.8060603%40netscape.com (Read the entire thread for the numbers.) The end result is that we're only a little bit slower than Opera and at least 3 times as fast as Netscape 4.7 which the author of the article that you referenced called "so much better" than Mozilla. > 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. What facts have you presented? That Mozilla is large and slow? Slow, we're getting a handle on and have already made definitive, measurable progress. Big we've got a good start on. And, as the real test, it's a working, usable product right now. Funny, that makes me feel like a success. > 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. Netscape happens to release products off of the Mozilla tree and we at Mozilla support those releases. It gets the software into more hands than we can and it gets them into the hands of people on more than just Linux. > > 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. I'm sorry, I disagree. Your facts are suspect and your rhetoric is weak. > 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 you should recognize the difference in effort when comparing Konqueror with Mozilla and the time frames. Does Konqueror have to run on more than one major platform? Does it include a mail client? Does Konqueror do all that and still all the standards and work on existing web content? > And real-world browsing support Konq has nowdays is superior to what Mozilla > can offer. I strongly disagree that Mozilla doesn't offer real-world browsing support. > 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. No, thanks. I've already got a cross platform solution right here that compiles from the same code base. I'd rather not start from scratch again. I mean, it took us three years to get where we are today, right? > > 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. You might be confusing unpopular decisions with incorrect ones. > 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. :-)) Like you've convinced me? > No. :-) > My advise: use Konqueror ;-)) > (or Opera5 on Windows, as Konq is still not ported to this platform) No, thanks. I've already got a browser that works for my platform that uses the same code everywhere and I can get even get the source code for if need be. > > 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!" That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just refuting your claims that Mozilla is a failure. People can and will use whatever they want. In fact, I encourage this since the more products that are out there the more standards compliant content will end up on the web. > 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 ) So you would suggest that people move to an even more marginal software product on an already marginal software platform as a solution to solve the problem of Microsoft being the dominant player in the desktop and web browser markets? There's something pretty wrong with that argument. > 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 :-) I consider XFree and Mozilla to be very important open source projects. I would hope that you would offer the kind of respect that you would expect me to show to the projects that you care about as well. --Chris -- ------------ Christopher Blizzard http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/ ------------ _______________________________________________ Render mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/render
