On Tuesday 13 November 2001 05:32, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
| 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.
ok, looking forward than to see it working.
|
| > 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.
AFAIK Motif support is treated as "legacy", but again - I look forward when
everything is fixed, and programs can inter-operate.
|
| > And I don't think that Mozilla sucks.
|
| Yet, you go on to say this...
No. Mozilla is second-biggest browser after Konq, if I take numbers for my
site. So, I frankly wish success to Mozilla. I don't want to support 10+
browsers. I have enough headache already (especially I don't know what to do
with NN 4.7, people still use it and reject to upgrade to Mozilla "until it's
achieved 1.0).
So pls go forward to Mozilla 1_0 release, and fix as many bugs as possible.
I hope 500 bugs targeted at Mozilla 1_0 milestone will be, in fact, fixed for
1.0 release.
| > 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.
Thanks. I highly appreciate this.
|
| > 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.
No, you are wrong. CSS support in Konqueror is better :-)
But I have to recognize that Mozilla is progressing - in Nov.2000 it couldn't
display correctly menu on my web site (pretty simple CSS).
BTW: Mozilla doesn't have { display: inline-block } implemented, while MS has
it in MacIE5 and IE6/Win.
You can argue that this is CSS3, but hey: we are already in 2001, not 1998
when CSS2 was "recommened to use".
Moz 1.0 will be out in 2002, so I really expect Mozilla to support this
property.
Check my posting and followed thread on www-style maiuling list concerning
this subject.
|
| > 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.
ok, it's up to you.
|
| > 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.
Doesn't Mozilla come dual-licensed?
IIRC recently somewhat 6000 files were re-licensed under GPL, but hey, it's 4
years after Mozilla started.
Before this, these code fragments were, in fact, *not free*, owned
exclusively by Netscape.
Anyway, I think that's it's pretty stupid to have own browser
(netscape/mozilla) and still use MS IE in AOL.
That's what make me thinking that in AOL's Mozilla support more politics than
business practice or business etics.
|
| > 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.
well, I am subscribed to Mozilla-layout and Mozilla-DOM for around 9 months.
I make my conclusions from what I see on those lists.
Mozilla/Netscape hackers are laso not very active on www-style list.
So, to what other list I need to subscribe to see those wonderful guys?
(in fact, I am in contact with one person, but more openness would be better,
IMO)
|
| > 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.
|
I am using Mozilla 0.9.5
It takes 20sec. for startup time, and around 6 sec. to open new window.
Besides, around 4-6 sec. required to *close* window!
My platform in Pentium III/600MHz, 128MB RAM.
It's notebook (I mention this because notebook has usually 3500rpm HDD, while
on desktop you can have 7500rpm or 10000rpm HDDs, it can make a difference)
Of course you will get better results on Athlon 1.2GHz with 512MB of RAM and
disk array of 3 or 5 10000rpm HDDs.
But my computer is pretty new, just one year old. And Mozilla works slow on
it.
| 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:
|
"Page load" times is not very critical.
Time to load Mozilla itself is crtitical, and time to open new window.
I usually open around 25 windows in Konqueror. I just can't do it with
Mozilla (with my 128MB of RAM)
|
| 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.
ok, I have some stress tests where Mozilla looks really bad.
It's not public yet - I need to finish with CSS test Suite first.
|
| > 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.
ok, let's see than what improovement you can achieve till 1.0 release.
If you wil be able to reduce startup time from 20sec. to at least 5 sec.
(which is still slower than Konq but comparable with MS IE) - I wil take my
hat off.
|
| And, as the real test, it's a working, usable product right now. Funny,
| that makes me feel like a success.
How do you measure success?
0.6% of total market share - is it success?
Or being second-best browser after Konq on my KDE site - is it success?
(well, it's fine for me, as I really don't want to support NN 4.7, Opera5 is
much better than NN 4.7 so I better wil support it)
| > 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.
it's ok with me if you don't accept my arguments.
finally, you (or Netscape) do not pay me money - so I see no reason why I
should "improove" my arguments.
Short answer, from "average user"'s point of view, though.
I have Pentium/133 notebook, with 16MB of RAM sitting next to me.
It's not upgradable.
And I can't use Mozilla or Netscape 6 on it - while I can use MS IE4/5 and NN
4.7.
Doesn't this argument sound good for you?
|
| > 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?
yes. Linux. FreeBSD. PDAs (Compaq iPAQ). Kiosks. Solaris.
Mac is dead - I am going to write an article on it (0.7% market share here,
comparing to estimated 1.6% to 2.3% for Linux Desktop)
So, does Konq runs on Windows? No. But IMO it's not really an issue.
Platform is not very important, market share is more important.
And stability is more important - and Konq is really better here than Mozilla.
| Does it include a mail client?
KMail is KDE's mail client. And it's better than Mozilla's built-in client,
plus doesn't create bloatness in browser when user just doesn't need e-mail
BTW: KAmil is also using KHTML, just as Konq, for displaying HTML mails or
HTML-formatted content.
| Does Konqueror do all that and still all the standards and work on
| existing web content?
Konq works much, MUCH better on existing content.
And to ensure this, I overlooked 1100+ real-world web sites (againt those
sitees were reported bugs)
Most of them are just TERRIBLE, believe me. And Konq still can display
majorityof them. Mozilla fails on many of them.
In terms of standards's support, Konq supports HTML4, XHTML, XML, CSS1, CSS2,
DOM1, DOM2, JavaScript/ECMAscript. Besides, it has support for document.all
MS propierty DOM, so it doesn't fail on sites which require either NN 4.7
(doc.layers) or MS IE (doc.all)
You speak about standards?
What actaully is _the_ standard , or *standards*?
If you take real-world numbers, standard is MS IE 5.x - 70% of market share.
Is Mozilla compatible with MS IE 5.x? No.
|
| > 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.
It offers. Otherwise there were no reason for Mozilla to exist.
I just wanted to express that
"real-world browsing support Konq has nowdays is superior to what
Mozilla can offer."
Nothing else.
|
| > 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?
right ;-((
I would pray to get Mozilla 1_0 out ASAP, with Mozilla 1_0 targeted bugs
fixed.
But, so far, Opera5 looks much better on speed (startup, open window, close)
while of course DOM2 support in Opera5 is rather weak.
|
| > 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.
May be. May be not.
IMO Netscape was doing just mistakes during its presence as independent
company.
Now Netscape is obscured by AOL umbrella. I don't know how things are going.
But one I can tell for sure: Netscape/AOL even doesn't have Representative
Office in Russia. So, commercial market is really left in MS hands. That's
why Netscape browsaer market share dropped from 17% 18months ago to symbolic
4% nowdays.
And from those 4%, only 0.3%-0.5% is NN6.
|
| > 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?
Time will solve these issues :-)
|
| > 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.
it's ok with me.
|
| > 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.
I just provided two opposite opinions.
Everyone should decide theirself what product to use and why.
I know some websites here which have 99.9% of visitors using MS IE.
I think you wil have hard time convinience webmasters of those sites to adopt
sites to Nestcape/Mozilla.
You will realize soon that you (ok, Netscape) will have *to pay web masters
to adopt layouts for Netscape*.
Can you pronounce it?..
In fact , I know people (from the lists, and in real world) who have one
price for designing web site, say, $1000.
And you have to pay extra $500 if you want this site working with Netscape.
What about this?
(and don't tell me that "they should follow standards"; these people are not
geeks, they are *designers* or business people; for "business people",
desktop standard is Microsoft)
|
| > 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.
I feel that Mozilla is failed. I just *feeling* it, and it hurts ;-(
So I frankly wish success to Mozilla, and I pretty happy if you have opposite
opinion to mine about Mozilla's success.
We have to honour Mozilla just because it was the first Open-Source project
which received such publicity.
(oops. Sorry XFree! probably you were first, but not so much info floating
around.)
|
| --Chris
--
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
