subject:"Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death\!"


dman84 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Chris, that is where I come in.  I have a project that I'd like to start 
> after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill 
> a tool.. that will help this problem.  I need to learn the programming 
> of the XUL & XML, and probably how all the XPCOM & XPAPPS, Tools & 
> Widgets stuff work..
No entailment here ... that's like saying you need to master C++ to
reconceptualize bug tracking; it just ain't so. Those requirements are
excessive.

>   I would need to write specs first too.
Yaa, now that's the track you need to follow.

> It only exists as a project  idea on paper.
Thongs have a way of starting that way, yes? Now, if you want to go
off track real quick, set yourself the goal of learning XML, and
XPCOM, and all of that. (Of course I'm not depreciating an
understanding of how the system works ... for that matter, get a good
sense of DOM while you're at it.)

The best project manager I worked with had precious little
appreciation for the finer points of how embedded processors worked
with phased-array switching, and his intelligent triage paid off in
spades.

hfx_ben

p.s. ain't nuthin' wrong with lending a hand on triage!

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> jesus X wrote:
> > Blake Ross wrote:
> > > Fact: you are terribly misinformed.
> > > The number of bugs has skyrocketed over the years because the number of
> > > people reporting them has skyrocketed over the years, and because we
> > > have more features and components than we used to. [...]
> > You are 100% right. In fact, I call it Bugzilla Inflation, and go into
> > detail in that article under the Bugzilla Inflation and Bugzilla Facts
> > sections. thanks go to Asa for helping me compile those numbers, too.
> AH!  So *THE LORD* is the one behind that article!  Wonderful!  Why no
> attribution, or did I just miss it?
What is this in aid of? We all know you're an asshole ... no need for
further evidence of that.

> Anyway, perhaps then rabbi you could explain this little gem of apologetics
> from that gem of an apologetic article:
> "To get technical for just a moment, the total number of bugs at any
> given time is a function of the number of Bugzilla reporters, not a
> function of the quality of Mozilla."
> So you mean to say that:
> N_bugs_in_bugzilla = A * N_registered_bugzilla_users
> for some suitable A?

Ever heard of abstraction, dipshit? How about Heisenburg's cat? How
about the sound of a tree falling if no one's there to hear it? How
about granularity? Ooops, I forgot that your thought is contrained by
the need to piss on something.

Given a complex project, the number of bugs reported is directly
related to the number of eyes looking and the number of hands typing,
yes. Welcome to the wonderful world of OpenSource, ya friggin' twit.

> All it does then is track entries made by registered users, which may in
> fact be bugs in Mozilla, or bugs in other products, or recipies, or
> porn, or maybe they're just using it as a substitute for NNTP or email,
> whatever.
yada yada yada ... the sound of one twit flapping

> BTW: I know you won't take this for what it's worth, but I read both
> articles in their entirety.  While yours is written better, his is more
> factually correct and less biased.

*Yikes!* I _knew_ you weren't iredeemable! *I'mma gonna shoot that
word!* _credit where credit is due_ ... wow ... JTK is not _entirely_
bereft of positive aspects! Man, ain't that a light on the horizon!

hfx_ben

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5DB7AD.6578A3D7
> > @hgdjaggd.com, on 03 Feb 2002:
> > >  the cache bug,
> > Sorry, I don't recall you "fixing" this one, just bitching for a week
> > when a 30 second "Edit, Preferences, Advanced, Cache, Clear disk cache"
> > would have fixed it for you.  Do you have a bug number, or a copy of the
> > patch you "made" that fixed this bug?
> Fished in LaGgy.  As I already posted, that's not me, but somebody so
> empty inside that they want, need, to pretend they're me.
I was going to call you a pathetic pain in the ass ... I've been
reading the NG for 30 minutes or so and I' totally sick of you ... but
it just dawned on me: you think you're contributing by playing devil's
advocate!
OMG, that's so sad! You think straining at gnats is evidence of your
ability? You poor dear thing! You know, there's the _chance_ that you
aren't iredeemably compulsive ... I mean, vanishing slight that it
might be, there's a chance that the dumb-assed persistence you share
with so many coders might be turned to good use.

Is there a chance that you can concentrate on something for as long as
u 15 or 20 minutes? Gawd knows XCOPMPTR is as close to rocket
science as I've seen lately, but there's more to the project than CPP
... and a damned site more than just pissing over everything 24/7

hfx_ben

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

2002-02-05 Thread JTK

DeMoN LaG wrote:
> 
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
> 05 Feb 2002:
> 
> > 0.73%.  Suck it down LaGgy.
> >
> 
> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
> 
> "
> * Mozilla and Netscape 6.x: ~0.85% of page accesses. This has grown
> significantly since the release of Netscape 6.1.
> "
>

Yeah, according to my numbers, a whopping 2.6 ***TIMES*** since a year
ago.  From a mere 0.28% to an embarassing 0.73% now.

But look out in 2007!!!

Pfhht.

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)


DeMoN LaG  wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
> 05 Feb 2002:
> > 0.73%.  Suck it down LaGgy.
> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
> * Mozilla and Netscape 6.x: ~0.85% of page accesses. This has grown 
> significantly since the release of Netscape 6.1.
> Since it already beat's Opera's stats on the same 3 sources, I'd say 
> it's winning.  One could argue that Opera can spoof as IE, but so can 
> Mozilla, so that's a moot point.
Why are you engaging him in a pissing contest? First, he's full of
piss, as anyone readings these NGs can see. Second, if *!Ha!* he
should happen to see sense one day, what would he have left?
FUD's for chumps.

hfx_ben

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

2002-02-05 Thread rkaa


JTK wrote:
[snip]

> 0.73%.

[snip]

TheCounter.Com is the only counter I found which over the past half year 
shows Windows 3.* growth accellerating. To me that sounds unlikely to be 
correct, and it might indicate that theCounter.com are also targeting 
some "narrow groups".

But regardless: I find a timeline more interesting than a single figure.
So here are the "worst case" numbers: theCounter.com's percentages for 
"Netscape 5" and Netscape 6.* at end of months:

2001   2001   2001   2002
June   Okt.   Nov.   Jan.

0.26   0.51   0.66   0.86


It may be accurate or not, but it does seems to show a trend. It also 
indicates that since July 2001, users have more than tripled.

During these months, corresponding figures for Opera are:

0.28   0.31   0.33   0.41

Not impressive, but I thought it might interest.


K.

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

2002-02-05 Thread DeMoN LaG


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
05 Feb 2002:

> 0.73%.  Suck it down LaGgy.
> 

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm

"
* Mozilla and Netscape 6.x: ~0.85% of page accesses. This has grown 
significantly since the release of Netscape 6.1.
"

Since it already beat's Opera's stats on the same 3 sources, I'd say 
it's winning.  One could argue that Opera can spoof as IE, but so can 
Mozilla, so that's a moot point.  

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-05 Thread Sören Kuklau


Andrea Monni wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> Ihighly doubt that it works on Opera. I highly doubt that it would 
>> ever work on Opera. Those great guys from Norway working on Opera 
>> still didn't get around to implement full DOM support.

> Reading this thread a weird idea came to my mind: what if the Opera guys 
> dropped their rendering engine and swiched to Gecko and focused on the 
> user experience?

Wouldn't be bad. They do know how to make a nice browser from the point 
of user experience. Would support them.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

2002-02-05 Thread JTK

DeMoN LaG wrote:
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05 Feb 2002:
> 
> 
>>Looks like the most reliable number there is 0.85% today.  A far cry
>>from LaGgy's mystical 3%, no?
>>
> 
> 3 sites targetted: .85, 1.2, 8.1.

Three sites.  My numbers cover thousands.  I win.  Your lies lose.

>  Averaged together, 3.83%.  Far cry 
> off from your mystical .75 also.  You realize a really good reason that 
> Mozilla has no thecounter.com statistics is because of how rare they 
> are?

Rare?  Do they cover more than three sites?

>  And even still, four of my friends use Mozilla's sweet sweet image 
> blocking to block out counters.

Why aren't they using Proxomitron for that?

 >  Couple that with something like
> Proxomitron, and to any counter Mozilla is non existant

And I use proxomitron, so my IE is non-existant to any counter.  And 
since so many more people are using IE, so many more are using 
Proxomitron.  So it balances out, doesn't it LaGgy?  Or don't you 
understand basic statistics?  Or don't you want to?

0.73%.  Suck it down LaGgy.

Re: Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

2002-02-05 Thread DeMoN LaG


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05 Feb 2002:

> Looks like the most reliable number there is 0.85% today.  A far cry
> from LaGgy's mystical 3%, no?

3 sites targetted: .85, 1.2, 8.1.  Averaged together, 3.83%.  Far cry 
off from your mystical .75 also.  You realize a really good reason that 
Mozilla has no thecounter.com statistics is because of how rare they 
are?  And even still, four of my friends use Mozilla's sweet sweet image 
blocking to block out counters.  Couple that with something like 
Proxomitron, and to any counter Mozilla is non existant

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


rtwin Glück wrote:
 >

> But what I want to point out is that not 
> individual figures matters but rather an impression, an overall feeling 
> for the state of the project. And this is what disquiets me sometimes. 
> It doesn't really matter what options/ parameters you choose for the bug 
> chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase.


Check put this link: 
http://www.mozilla.org/events/dev-day2001/community-testing/index.html
it's Asa's presentation at the November Mozilla Developer's Day, it 
gives an overall outlook of the Bugzilla state (and of the Mozilla 
community QA).

Andrea
-- 
Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   "It is our choices, Harry, that
Y! IM: andreamonni  show what we truly are, far
ICQ: 7387142more than our abilities."
Tiscali NetPhone: 178-229-5413x165   A. Dumbledore

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote:

> 
> Ihighly doubt that it works on Opera. I highly doubt that it would ever 
> work on Opera. Those great guys from Norway working on Opera still 
> didn't get around to implement full DOM support.

Reading this thread a weird idea came to my mind: what if the Opera guys 
dropped their rendering engine and swiched to Gecko and focused on the 
user experience?

Andrea

-- 
Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   "It is our choices, Harry, that
Y! IM: andreamonni  show what we truly are, far
ICQ: 7387142more than our abilities."
Tiscali NetPhone: 178-229-5413x165   A. Dumbledore

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote:

> 
> Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed 
> Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows 
> 3.0% market share. 

What I'd like to see is a recent Google zeitgeist: last one didn't even 
mention Mozilla (and neither NS 6.x) and I think Google is a pretty 
democratic site (in the sense that almost everybody use it nowadays).

I don't anything will change soon, at least until the next, major NS 
release.

Andrea
-- 
Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   "It is our choices, Harry, that
Y! IM: andreamonni  show what we truly are, far
ICQ: 7387142more than our abilities."
Tiscali NetPhone: 178-229-5413x165   A. Dumbledore

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote:

> 
> Sigh. It's always a problem if a product should please everybody, it 
> ends up pleasing nobody...

That's why Mozilla terribly needs third-party "vendor" like Netscape, 
Galeon, K-Meleon and the (not too many, indeed) others: to make 
targetted applications which can please a very well identified group of 
people (customers).

Mozilla (shouldn't it be Seamonkey?) should be seen as a showcase for 
what is developed by mozilla.org and as a tool for users who want to 
explore and to be on top of things.

But I'm not saying nothing new, am I?

Andrea
-- 
Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   "It is our choices, Harry, that
Y! IM: andreamonni  show what we truly are, far
ICQ: 7387142more than our abilities."
Tiscali NetPhone: 178-229-5413x165   A. Dumbledore

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-05 Thread Christian Biesinger


JTK wrote:
> So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.

The original one broke opera as well



-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> 
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> on 04 Feb 2002:
> 
> >> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are
> >> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts?
> >>
> >
> > It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back
> > down to earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative
> > "mind" share - it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an
> > image helped tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a
> > tough row to hoe, and crying about poorly-written websites and
> > deluding yourself into thinking people will tolerate something
> > sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just because it has a commie star on it and
> > "isn't M$" is nothing but a self-defeating fantasy.
> 
> Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed
> Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows
> 3.0% market share.

Check with "TheCounter.com".  If you dare.

>  JTK just refuses to acknowledge that Mozilla and
> it's derivitives are actually gaining market share.

Indeed I do, because indeed they aren't.

>  Get with the
> program JTK.  Are you going to cling to this .75% like you cling to the
> "Hyatt said Mozilla is 4 times slower than IE" thing?
> 

Well, I have to admit the number is actually closer to 0.7_3_%.

Oops.

Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

Jason Johnston wrote:
> 
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> > Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed
> > Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows
> > 3.0% market share.
> 
> Would you mind posting a link to that website here?  I'd much appreciate
> it.  Thanks.
> --J

He won't, but I'd *LOVE* to!  Here ya go, this is the one he's referring
to:

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

OH MY!  LOOK, IT'S UP TO 8%!  WHY AT THIS RATE, IT'LL BE UP TO 689% IN A
WEEK AND A HALF!  Oh, no, wait:

"Source 3 stats are from this domain (www.upsdell.com): because of its
special audience, its stats apply to a narrow segment of the
population."

Looks like the most reliable number there is 0.85% today.  A far cry
from LaGgy's mystical 3%, no?

In the interest of accurate statistics, we need a random sampling...
AH!  Here we go, "counter.com", that sounds pretty random:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/February/browser.php

Oof, that one says 0%!  Lemme get that scientific calculator out here...
ooof, less than 0.8%.  But that's just this month, let's check out last
month...

Oh man, STILL 0%!  Well, let's get a little more accurate this time:
...carry the one...reciprocal...smiley face...  here we go: oh God. 
Less than 0.73%.

Well, growth rate!  Yeah, what's that looking like, let's go back a
year!  Oh dear, less than 0.28%.  So it's still buried in the noise
after all these years.  But if we apply Dr. LaGgy's Exponential Growth
Hormone Statistics, let's see:

0.73/0.28 ~= 2.6x more users per year, so in one year we'll have... oh,
only 1.8% market share.

But in 2004 Mozilla will have... ah, yeah, 4.9% market share.

Well yeah but come 2005 Mozilla will really start to take off with...
well, 12.8%, that's getting there.  Multiplicatively.

And by 2006, what, ten years after Mozilla's inception, Mozilla will
have a full ONE THIRD OF THE MARKET  Of course the internet will
have been replaced by implants or something by then, BUT STILL!!!  IT'S
A PYRRHIC VICTORY!!!

Well, it will be, in 2007, when Mozilla FINALLY breaks the 50% market
share mark.

Assuming multiplicative growth, and no motion by Microsoft.

Hold your breath at your own peril.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
> Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

Ihighly doubt that it works on Opera. I highly doubt that it would ever 
work on Opera. Those great guys from Norway working on Opera still 
didn't get around to implement full DOM support.

>> again. The site used an old, improper version of the script.

> "Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's "improper" 
> about that?

No need to explain it the 234345th time.

>> The new script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

> Right, with special treatment, your web site too can be rendered by 
> Mozilla!  0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

3%.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Even the code for that sweet AIM client?

No. Nor do I contribute to that. Nor do I want to - it still doesn't 
have Message History, afaik.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Jason Johnston


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed 
> Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows 
> 3.0% market share.  

Would you mind posting a link to that website here?  I'd much appreciate 
it.  Thanks.
--J

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

>> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are
>> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts?
>> 
> 
> It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back
> down to earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative
> "mind" share - it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an
> image helped tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a
> tough row to hoe, and crying about poorly-written websites and
> deluding yourself into thinking people will tolerate something
> sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just because it has a commie star on it and
> "isn't M$" is nothing but a self-defeating fantasy.

Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed 
Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows 
3.0% market share.  JTK just refuses to acknowledge that Mozilla and 
it's derivitives are actually gaining market share.  Get with the 
program JTK.  Are you going to cling to this .75% like you cling to the 
"Hyatt said Mozilla is 4 times slower than IE" thing?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr.
> LaG: IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND
> DOES NOT MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

Yes, it is 2002.  Web pages are code.  Right click, view source.  See 
that pretty text?  It's code.  True, writing HTML by hand doesn't make 
you a programmer, it makes you a web designer.  I'm all for programs to 
write code for you.  However, they have to produce complient code.  How 
about I give you a C++ program that you type what you want to display, 
it makes some random formatting tags I made up and says "Hi, here's your 
web page".  I'll just blame all browsers for not supporting JML (Jim's 
Markup Language).  I don't understand why someone given the choice 
between making a site so only 1 browser can use it, or making a site so 
that *any* browser can use it, you take option 1.  But hey, I'm arguing 
with someone who doesn't think web pages even need valid markup, so 
what's the point of this discussion?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)


JTK wrote:
> Why, jesus_x posts from alltel.net!  H

Why yes I do. Without going through everyone else's posts, I can only assume
someone else does too. They're a fairly large telco, and they bought out the
Navex internet service in the midwest recently, so I'm sure there's more than
one Alltel customer here.

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> 0.75% more people will be able to view your site!
> 
> 
> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably 
> not even true) in each and every of your posts?
> 

It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back down to 
earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative "mind" share - 
it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an image helped 
tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a tough row to hoe, 
and crying about poorly-written websites and deluding yourself into 
thinking people will tolerate something sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just 
because it has a commie star on it and "isn't M$" is nothing but a 
self-defeating fantasy.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> No.  But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi?

No, it's in big 12 point text in my news reader. for quite a long time I never
understood why it was there, since you were ostensibly posting from home. Most
ISPs don't add anything to newspost headers, so I figured it was either the
default of your newsreader (unlikely) or the Mozilla news server is adding that.
Do you post to news.mozilla.org or to secnews.netscape.com?

> > Every single one says "Organization:
> > Another Netscape Collabra Server User"
> Huh, wonder who put that there.

Most likely the Collabra server your ISP uses for Usenet, or the secure news
server if you post to that server directly.

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do
> more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work
> with Opera.

No, it dosen't work at all. The Updated (standard) script WOULD work on Opera,
but their DOM support is worse than IE's. So it doesn't, and won't work on
Opera.

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Jason Johnston

JTK wrote:
>
> 
> So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
> more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
> with Opera.
> 

Wrong.  His choices are:

1) Do nothing.  It will continue to work on MSIE and Netscape 4, but 
nothing else present or future.

2) Update the script to make use of the W3C Standards.  It will continue 
to work in MSIE and Netscape 4, _plus_ work in Mozilla _and_ any other 
future browser that implements the W3C Standards, with no additional 
effort.  This will include Opera once they get their DOM support up to par.

So it's either do no work and get no gain, or do a little work and gain 
support of any future compliant browser.  That's the whole point of the 
standards: write once, run anywhere.  It's the direction everyone's 
heading; Mozilla is just the first to get there.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

barney wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
>>>
>>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
>>Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
> would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.
> 
> 

So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
with Opera.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread user

barney wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
>>>
>>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
>>Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
> would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.
> 
> 

So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
with Opera.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Pratik wrote:

[snip]

>>> Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
>>> such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be 
>>> beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Beneficial to whom?
> 
> 
> To the webmasters so that they don't have to deal with emails saying 
> "But your site doesn't work correctly in Netscape/Mozilla." Such emails 
>  will only increase over time.
> 

Yeah, well I guess there's nowhere to go but up from zero.  Come on.

> Pratik.
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


jesus X wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User
>>
> 
> Have you ever looked at your headers?

No.  But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi?

> Every single one says "Organization:
> Another Netscape Collabra Server User"
>

Huh, wonder who put that there.

> --
> jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
>  email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
>  web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
>  tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
>  warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]
>

Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)


Phil Anderton wrote:
> "JTK" wrote:
> 
>> WHOA there buddy. Now, Maozilla may be chock full 'o' bugs, but it's 
>> not THAT
>> bad. Now, I'm the first person to say where the lizard needs help, but 
>> in the
>> area of taking their time to do it right they have no problems. I got 
>> them to
>> fix the context menu, the cache bug, and they're on the way to 
>> producing the
>> best build yet (thanks to me) with 0.9.8. Two more months, and no more 
>> commie
>> graphics, and we'll have the best browser around. I'm going to have to 
>> whip them
>> into shape with mail/news, though. I don't say it too much for fear 
>> they'll get
>> lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long 
>> time.
> 
> 
> NNTP-Posting-Host: r-185.181.alltel.net
> 
> Now, which regular contributor here posts from alltel.net? Will He step 
> forward and confess?
> 

Why, jesus_x posts from alltel.net!  H

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Simon P. Lucy

On 04/02/2002 at 18:28 JTK wrote:

>DeMoN LaG wrote:

>>  A proprietary Netscape 
>> 4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
>> includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.
>> The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however,

>> should work with the W3C complient one.
>
>No, Mozilla should render all existing web pages as well or better than 
>all existing web browsers.  If that means it has to know what a 
>"document.all" is, tough noogs.

Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Microsoft is having such
a hard time supporting CSS over and above CSS1.  Its also non-trivial to
support two different object models of a document.  It would be slightly
easier to support layers but the decision was taken not to support it
(which doesn't mean someone couldn't support it if they feel like coding
it), so that the proprietary DOM wouldn't be perpetuated.  

If you want Mozilla to have a particular performance aim then I'd agree
that it should render all existing valid documents, where valid is the set
of documents conforming to W3C.

>
>>  If people didn't do dumb things 
>> like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
>> to do my own code",
>
>God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr. LaG: 
>IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND DOES NOT 
>MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

A great many WYSIWYG tools create invalid HTML code, I wouldn't blame the
users for that I would blame the tool developers.  Though, software in
general might be of a much higher quality of some of those writing it had
had the experience of using punch card.

>
>> you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers
>
>No Ace, just Mozilla.

Try pointing IE 2 and 3 at a great many pages, try getting Opera to run
some Javascript.  Given the random quality of so many web pages its not
surprising so many fail for people with a variety of browsers.

S

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5F213A.6070405
@odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 04 Feb 2002:

> chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase.
> On the other hand there is another really interesting chart:

No.  Bugs do not increase.  Bug *REPORTS* increase.  If something major 
breaks, like say...  Viewing a major web site like Google, likely *lots* 
of people will notice.  More people using the browser, more people see 
the problem, more people rush and file bug reports.  They are all 
duplicates, and there is only *one* "bug".  But now instead of a bug 
report, you have 30 bug reports.  How many bugs?  1.  How many reports 
(and thus bugzilla entries)?  30.  See how this works now?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Simon P. Lucy

On 04/02/2002 at 22:02 Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

>JTK wrote:
>
>> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>> can view their websites properly.
>
>Internet Explorer and Netscape 4 doesn't support the same DOMs either. 
>The site you mentioned in your hover tips bug posting detects which 
>browser you are using, and sends IE-only code to IE and NS4-only code to 
>NS4. The W3C DOM, which Mozilla supports, is also supported by Internet 
>Explorer. So Mozilla and IE does in fact support the same DOM, but the 
>site you visited actively detected Mozilla and prevented it from showing 
>what you call the "hover tips".

Actually it mis-identified the browser as being Netscape and assumes that
any browser so identified supports the same DOM as 4.x  That the
proprietary features supported by Netscape were flagged as 'to be removed'
some 4 years or so ago doesn't seem to have permeated many sites.

But then the amount of bit rot accumulating in web sites is directly
proportional to the amount of rot talked about them.  

S

>
>-- 
>Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh så er spørgsmålet dumt.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Thank you all for this very enlighting discussion.

I read most of the postings and sometimes had to laught out real loud 
because they were too hilarious... There were many postings that shared 
part of my views and others that didn't. That indicates that at least I 
am not completely absurd. I know that there are many good coders and 
there are many bad ones too. But I believe that the major part of the 
Mozilla Community belongs to the first group. Be good. Thanks!

see you somewhere around 1.0

in awe Ortwin Glück

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> on 04 Feb 2002: 
> 
> 
>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same
>>DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore
>>unable to render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure
>>everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's
>>0.75% of the population can view their websites properly.
>>
> 
> "Same DOMs that all other web browser do"???  Um, dude, do you know what 
> a "DOM" is?

Document Object Model?

>  There are only 3 of them out there.

Only three?  And Mozilla can't handle a mere *three*?

>  A proprietary Netscape 
> 4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
> includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.
> The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however, 
> should work with the W3C complient one.

No, Mozilla should render all existing web pages as well or better than 
all existing web browsers.  If that means it has to know what a 
"document.all" is, tough noogs.

>  If people didn't do dumb things 
> like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
> to do my own code",

God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr. LaG: 
IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND DOES NOT 
MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

> you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers

No Ace, just Mozilla.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris

(Sorry for not quoting that lengthy but very useful one.)
I agree with you that it is very difficult to manage bug reporting in a
way so that duplicates can be mostly avoided (as is with every system
that processes mostly unstructured text entered by humans). Bugzilla
certainly lacks a bit of functionality to achive that. I also do realize
that developers put their reminders into bugzilla too and that
"techincal" bug reports exist. But what I want to point out is that not
individual figures matters but rather an impression, an overall feeling
for the state of the project. And this is what disquiets me sometimes.
It doesn't really matter what options/ parameters you choose for the bug
chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase.
On the other hand there is another really interesting chart:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=Browser&output=show_chart&datasets=RESOLVED%3A&links=1&banner=1

We can see now that you guys are not so slow at fixing bug as I thought
originally. You fixed about 18'000 in the past half year already! Man,
that is the hell of a lot! In this light the formerly posted figures may
seem not so bad anymore.

Beeing euphoric about developing the world's coolest, fastest, most
reliable etc. best browser is ok. I mean you guys have done really good
work so far (and some horrible as well of course). But do not lose the
scope for details. All the small things that do not work correctly and
behave strangely are more annoying to any user than a missing feature! I
want to make you to set your priorities right.

Ortwin Glück

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:

> I wonder if a bus load of cheerleaders are going 
> to bust into my house right now and say they need someplace to sleep for 
> the night now...


Send them here. Plenty of space... :-)

SCNR

Ortwin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:

> And if you want it all, use IE.


On Linux?

And it's quite slow too. Mozilla feels more responsive on my machine 
than IE does. IE sortof "hangs" the machine for seconds sometimes when 
you click on a link. That is so annoying I tell you... but lets talk 
about Moz.

Ortwin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Christian Biesinger


JTK wrote:
> 0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably 
not even true) in each and every of your posts?

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> 
>> Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
> 
> Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
> Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Christian Biesinger

JTK wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> the QNX version is version 5.something,
> 
> 
> Mozilla run on QNX?

To my knowledge, it does.

> No Mac version?

I'm sorry for forgetting it. However, you can either get an old, but 
final version (5.0) for MacOS <= 9.x, or a beta of an old version for 
MacOS X (also 5.0).

> Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

I replied to a post stating that "Opera seems to do fine trying to run 
their browsers for many OS's"

"seems to do fine" is way exaggerated.

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Christian Biesinger

DeMoN LaG wrote:
> For a browser that isn't even 
> marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies

Well, alas it is.
Bug reports are closed because developers think that either a feature is 
"too geeky". Alternatively, developers close bug reports because they 
rather annoy developers than end users.

Sigh. It's always a problem if a product should please everybody, it 
ends up pleasing nobody...

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
>> 
>>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>>>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>>>render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>>>willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>>>can view their websites properly.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
>> vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
>> trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...
> 
> Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.
> 

You must have been a real trip, selling document.layers in 1996.  "If 
Netscape can render it, you're pretty much set."

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> 
> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.
> 
> 

If you spent any time in the c.i.w.a newsgroups, you'd find that the
trend towards standards compliancy is spreading rapidly.  Generic,
standard code is the only real future on the web.  You're living in the
past.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 05:11 PM, JTK wrote:
> Pratik wrote:
> 
>>On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
>>>NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
>>>named):
>>>
>>>"Dear Sirs,
>>>Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
>>>0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money 
>>>redoing it so that my defective browser can render it properly."
>>>
>>
>>Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
>>such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.
>>
>>
> 
> Beneficial to whom?

To the webmasters so that they don't have to deal with emails saying 
"But your site doesn't work correctly in Netscape/Mozilla." Such emails 
  will only increase over time.

Pratik.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> "Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's
> "improper" about that?
> 

Knives work fine getting stuck out of the toaster.  Since they work 
fine, it's "proper" to stick the knife in the toaster than, isn't it?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> 
> Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User

Have you ever looked at your headers? Every single one says "Organization:
Another Netscape Collabra Server User"

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> AH!  So *THE LORD* is the one behind that article!  Wonderful!  Why no
> attribution, or did I just miss it? 

You just missed it. It's at the top.

> So you mean to say that:
> N_bugs_in_bugzilla = A * N_registered_bugzilla_users
> for some suitable A?

A being the number of valid bugs on ALL products, plus dupes, INVALIDs, and
RFEs, yes. The total number will be larger in proportion to the total number of
bug reporters. Especially on bug that are high profile. 2 years ago, you could
expect to see maybe 20 to 30 dupes of a high profile bug, while today, it's easy
to see up to a hundred dupes of a high profile bug. That will drive up the total
number of bug reports, while the number of VALID bugs stays the same. Same thing
with RFEs.

> All
> it does then is track entries made by registered users, which may in
> fact be bugs in Mozilla, or bugs in other products, or recipies, or
> porn, or maybe they're just using it as a substitute for NNTP or email,
> whatever.

As a matter of fact, yes. It does more than that, there ar attachment features,
and report querrying functions, etc. but the user can use the system in ways it
was not intended. Way way back, there were even a couple of bugs that were there
just to remind someone to do something. I remember one guy entered a bug so he'd
remember to bring something with him to work from his car. Some bugs are nothing
more than metabugs, they contain a list of related bugs (tracking is the
component they're under). Some bugs are for Mozilla, some are for Bugzilla, some
are for mozilla.org, etc. that's what the Product entry is for.

> BTW: I know you won't take this for what it's worth, but I read both
> articles in their entirety.  While yours is written better, his is more
> factually correct and less biased.

Actually, it's not. I certainly am biased, and make no apologies for it, but his
is NOT more factually based.

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
04 Feb 2002:

> Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
> suffer this misery!
> 

*cough* 3.0%  Still lying about numbers, are we?  Afraid of the 
quadrupled market share?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
04 Feb 2002:

> Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.
> 

For another 6 or 8 months

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same
> DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore
> unable to render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure
> everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's
> 0.75% of the population can view their websites properly.

"Same DOMs that all other web browser do"???  Um, dude, do you know what 
a "DOM" is?  There are only 3 of them out there.  A proprietary Netscape 
4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.  
The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however, 
should work with the W3C complient one.  If people didn't do dumb things 
like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
to do my own code", you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> 
> And if you want it all, use IE.

Not until they get their CSS support up to at least Opera's level.  I'm
pretty tired of using hacks to get around IE bugs.  In this respect, IE
is holding me back.  IE6 isn't much of an improvement.  It still barely
supports core CSS1.  Maybe IE7 will support full CSS2, but I expect
Opera and mozilla will both have full CSS3 support by then. ;)

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Pratik wrote:
> On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:
> 
> 
>> Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
>> NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
>> named):
>>
>> "Dear Sirs,
>> Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
>> 0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money 
>> redoing it so that my defective browser can render it properly."
> 
> 
> Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
> such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.
> 

Beneficial to whom?

> Pratik.
> 
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>>render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>>willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>>can view their websites properly.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
> vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
> trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...

Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>> CSS and DOM support.
>>
> 
>> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on 
>> Mozilla.
> 
> 
> Because it's not proper W3C DOM.

Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

 > And we discussed that already again and
> again. The site used an old, improper version of the script.

"Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's "improper" 
about that?

> The new 
> script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

Right, with special treatment, your web site too can be rendered by 
Mozilla!  0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
>>> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
>>> Politburo.
>>
> 
>> Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
>> the profit" "Open Source" model too?
> 
> 
> I do work for Mozilla, and I get profit too: I don't pay for it, and yet 
> I may use it.
> 

Even the code for that sweet AIM client?

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:

> Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
> NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
> named):
> 
> "Dear Sirs,
> Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
> 0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money redoing 
> it so that my defective browser can render it properly."

Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.

Pratik.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.
> 

Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Jonas Jørgensen

JTK wrote:

> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.

Internet Explorer and Netscape 4 doesn't support the same DOMs either. 
The site you mentioned in your hover tips bug posting detects which 
browser you are using, and sends IE-only code to IE and NS4-only code to 
NS4. The W3C DOM, which Mozilla supports, is also supported by Internet 
Explorer. So Mozilla and IE does in fact support the same DOM, but the 
site you visited actively detected Mozilla and prevented it from showing 
what you call the "hover tips".

-- 
Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh så er spørgsmålet dumt.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> Fix your statistics.  3.0% last count.  Hmm, let's do some math with 
> that.  It was .75%, now it's 3.0%.  So between statistics takings, 
> Mozilla QUADRUPLED it's market share.  For a browser that isn't even 
> marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies, that's pretty 
> impressive.  Mathmatically, if this trend continues next time we see 
> updated numbers they will show Moz with 12% market share.  More than 
> likely the numbers won't quadruple again, but I bet you'll see Mozilla 
> and derivitives with > 15% of the market before next year

That would be cool,  but I'm not that optimistic.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
>> Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.

> Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our 
> PNG images!?!?!  Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
> suffer this misery!

So you know a better way for drop shadows and other nifty stuff which 
so-called web designers would love to be able to use?

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
04 Feb 2002: 

> Hehhehe, yeah, you keep tellin' yourself that, year after year, 
> milestone after milestone.  0.75% market share after 0.75% market
> share. 
> 
>>Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that it is and I
>>think 
>> most people involved agree.
>>
> 
> I wonder what the browser-using community thinks?  Oh, wait, no I
> don't, 0.75% pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Fix your statistics.  3.0% last count.  Hmm, let's do some math with 
that.  It was .75%, now it's 3.0%.  So between statistics takings, 
Mozilla QUADRUPLED it's market share.  For a browser that isn't even 
marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies, that's pretty 
impressive.  Mathmatically, if this trend continues next time we see 
updated numbers they will show Moz with 12% market share.  More than 
likely the numbers won't quadruple again, but I bet you'll see Mozilla 
and derivitives with > 15% of the market before next year

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> CSS and DOM support.

> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Because it's not proper W3C DOM. And we discussed that already again and 
again. The site used an old, improper version of the script. The new 
script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


"Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb
2002: 

> Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code
> and a much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should
> take, speed not bells.

If Opera were like 3 times faster than Mozilla, I could see your point.  
But it's not.  On my systems, Mozilla is not perceptably slower than NC 
4.x or Opera (this is on Win 2k and Linux).  On Win 2k, Mozilla is not 
perceptably slower than IE.  There are some minor exceptions, stuff like 
DHTML performance, but those are being addressed.  Opera is a tiny bit 
faster, and has almost none of the features of Mozilla.  No themes.  
Nothing like Mozilla's mail/news client.  Composer, integrated IRC chat, 
Javascript and DOM debuggers, not to mention top of the line standards 
complience.  Opera is a good light browser.  Comparing it to Mozilla 
though is like saying one TV is better than another because it turns on 
faster, not including that one is a big screen with 5.1 surround sound 
and all the bells and whistles and the other is a 13" meant for hanging 
in the kitchen

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
>> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
>> Politburo.

> Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
> the profit" "Open Source" model too?

I do work for Mozilla, and I get profit too: I don't pay for it, and yet 
I may use it.

>> You forgot to mention Mac OS btw. And the QNX version is only somewhat 
>> a port of the Engine to the native QNX browser and not an own browser.

> Which, considering QNX is an embedded OS, is the most anybody would 
> want.

Not too certain there. I found the internal browser to be quite limited, 
even for an embedded one. What was its name again, I forgot. They oughta 
speed up their web site so I'll want to look again.

I tried out QNX several times for fun on a machine it was never intended 
for - a plain PC. Sound unsurprisingly did not work, because I have a 
stupid nobody-knows-it no-name sound card on that machine - there's no 
driver either for Linux. Networking worked fine though. And fast. It was 
an experience similar to BeOS. But anyways, this is OT.

> Does Mozilla run on QNX?

Yes. QNX guys are actively helping port Mozilla to QNX.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> And if you want it all, use IE.
> 
> 
> Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
> Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.
> 

Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our 
PNG images!?!?!  Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
suffer this misery!

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Pratik wrote:
> On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Bundy 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and 
 Explorer? Just
 one please.

>>> CSS and DOM support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on 
>> Mozilla.
> 
> 
> As pointed out, that script had non standard code. The updated script 
> that conformed to the W3C standards worked perfectly with Mozilla.
> 

Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
named):

"Dear Sirs,
Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money redoing 
it so that my defective browser can render it properly."

> Pratik.
> 
> 
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: 

> My God, it's like I stumbled into a funny farm here.  Mr. LaG, do
> you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that defects in
> software should not be fixed?  That software projects should simply
> be left to their own devices and given no direction nor management?
>  Now I know you're not a software professional, but my Lord, don't
> you have enough common sense to know that the only thing down that
> path is ruin? 
> 

There are people directing work.  Module owners, and 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  It's nice having it that way, because it's not a 
dictatorship with stuff like "Fix this problem now.  I don't care what 
happens for the good of the project, I want this one fixed cause it 
breaks my favorite site" (which we all know has 3 hits a month).  With 
an open source project with groups of people who guide the project, the 
likelyhood is that the entire browser will get better, instead of just 
things that appeal to the guy in charge.  

BTW, who said defects in software shouldn't be fixed?  If I said that, 
please do quote the relevant article number and piece of text for me.  
Otherwise, please don't put words in my mouth

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_.

> Numbers Kuklau.

That's my last name. I don't call you "K" either, unless you're the guy 
from Men In Black with exactly that name.

I can't and won't give you numbers (never trust statistics you didn't 
fake yourself, hmm?), but I'll tell you that I know a lot of people who 
switched over to Mozilla in the last year. If you want a good example, 
then just look at me.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> And if you want it all, use IE.

Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
>>Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Bundy wrote:
>>>
>>>
Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
one please.

>>>CSS and DOM support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>>Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> Which has what to do, again, with what I posted?

That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
can view their websites properly.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
> 
>>In article , Bundy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>>one please.
>>>
>>>
>>CSS and DOM support.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

As pointed out, that script had non standard code. The updated script 
that conformed to the W3C standards worked perfectly with Mozilla.

Pratik.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux
>> is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something,

> Since BeOS is defunct, this is an issue how?

They claim it works on BeOS. They don't really fulfill that claim.

>> the OS/2 version is a "public beta",

> OS/Who?  Come ON!

See above.

>> the QNX version is version 5.something,

> Mozilla run on QNX?

Yes. It's beta stage or so, but it does run. And I've seen at least one 
qnx engineer on bugzilla.

>> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).

> No Mac version?

Too, Chris forgot it. Needless to say: It's beta.

>> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.

> Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

Then obviously you didn't understand the point: They claim they run on 
many platforms. They don't really.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> In article , Bundy wrote:
>> 
>>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>>one please.
>>>
>> 
>> CSS and DOM support.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Which has what to do, again, with what I posted?

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Bill Weinman wrote:
> "Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:...
> 
>>Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a
>>much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not
>>bells.
>>
> 
>For what it is, Opera is an excellent product. It's small fast and
> simple. But there already is an Opera so there's no need for Mozilla
> to duplicate that effort.
> 

There's already an IE, it kicked Netscape's ass long ago, so why 
duplicate that effort?  Oh right, we like reinventing wheels 'round 
these here parts.

>Mozilla was designed by the community,

The little design work that went into it was done by AOL, not by any 
"community".

> and the community wanted a
> platform including browser/mail/news/chat/composer/etc.

Exactly like NC4.7x oddly enough.  Which is why five years later people 
are *still* using NC4.7x in preference to Mozilla.

> along with a
> mechanism for building other applications with xml/DOM.

Nobody in "the community" wanted that.  Apps?  hell, there aren't even 
more than a handful of *SKINS* around!

> When people
> finally realize just how powerful this thing is, I think the world
> will sit up and take notice.
>

Hehhehe, yeah, you keep tellin' yourself that, year after year, 
milestone after milestone.  0.75% market share after 0.75% market share.

>Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that it is and I think
> most people involved agree.
>

I wonder what the browser-using community thinks?  Oh, wait, no I don't, 
0.75% pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

> --Bill
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article , Bundy wrote:
> 
>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>one please.
>>
> 
> CSS and DOM support.
> 
> 

Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
> 
>> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).
> 
> 
> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
> Politburo.
> 

Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
the profit" "Open Source" model too?

>> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't express it that drastically, but the point remains.
> 
> You forgot to mention Mac OS btw. And the QNX version is only somewhat a 
> port of the Engine to the native QNX browser and not an own browser.
> 

Which, considering QNX is an embedded OS, is the most anybody would 
want.  Does Mozilla run on QNX?

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>> Ortwin Glück wrote:
>>>
 If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code 
 that
 needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch.

>>> Thanks for keeping it to a high language level.
>>>
>>> You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases
>>> while the number of users increases, hmm?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're claiming that the number of Mozilla users has increased over the
>> last year?
>>
> 
> No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_.
> 

Numbers Kuklau.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> Bundy wrote:
> 
>> Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a
>> much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not
>> bells.
> 
> 
> If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use 
> Mozilla. As simple as that.
> 

And if you want it all, use IE.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Bundy wrote:
> 
>> Opera seems to do fine trying to run their browsers for many OS's
> 
> 
> Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux
> is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something,

Since BeOS is defunct, this is an issue how?

> the OS/2 version is a "public beta",

OS/Who?  Come ON!

> the QNX version is version 
> 5.something,

Mozilla run on QNX?

> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).
>

No Mac version?

> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.

Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Nigel L wrote:
> /Nigel L recounts:/
> Sören Kuklau wrote:

>> Bundy wrote:

>>> Opera ... [uses] less code and [is] much faster  Mozilla should 
>>> ...[aim for] speed not bells.

>> If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use 
>> Mozilla. As simple as that. 

> I  have found Opera a tad slower than Mozilla on my Win Me system, even 
> before the Mozilla speed enhancements of early January.  Since the next 
>  K-Meleon is to be based on Mozilla 0.9.8, we can expect that to be a 
> super-fast browser. 

Mozilla is faster than IE for me, but mostly not as fast as Opera yet.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Nigel L





Nigel L recounts:
Sören Kuklau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Bundy wrote: 
  Opera ... [uses] less code and [is] much faster
 Mozilla should ...[aim for] speed not bells. 

If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use  Mozilla.
As simple as that. 
I  have found Opera a tad slower than Mozilla on my Win Me system, even before
the Mozilla speed enhancements of early January.  Since the next  K-Meleon
is to be based on Mozilla 0.9.8, we can expect that to be a super-fast browser.
                                                                         
                                                             Nigel L

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Bill Weinman


"Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:...
> Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a
> much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not
> bells.

   For what it is, Opera is an excellent product. It's small fast and
simple. But there already is an Opera so there's no need for Mozilla
to duplicate that effort.

   Mozilla was designed by the community, and the community wanted a
platform including browser/mail/news/chat/composer/etc. along with a
mechanism for building other applications with xml/DOM. When people
finally realize just how powerful this thing is, I think the world
will sit up and take notice.

   Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that it is and I think
most people involved agree.

--Bill

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pascal Chevrel



Bundy wrote:

> "JTK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ortwin Glück wrote:
>
> > WHOA there buddy. Now, Maozilla may be chock full 'o' bugs, but it's not
> THAT
> > bad. Now, I'm the first person to say where the lizard needs help, but in
> the
> > area of taking their time to do it right they have no problems. I got them
> to
> > fix the context menu, the cache bug, and they're on the way to producing
> the
> > best build yet (thanks to me) with 0.9.8. Two more months, and no more
> commie
> > graphics, and we'll have the best browser around. I'm going to have to
> whip them
> > into shape with mail/news, though. I don't say it too much for fear
> they'll get
> > lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time.
> >
>
> Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
> one please.

PNG, CSS, DOM
Cross-platform rendering engine
Security
...

Pascal

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article , Bundy wrote:
>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>one please.

> CSS and DOM support.

SVG, MathML.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


In article , Bundy wrote:
> 
> Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
> one please.

CSS and DOM support.

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Christian Biesinger wrote:
> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).

Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian Politburo.

> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.

I wouldn't express it that drastically, but the point remains.

You forgot to mention Mac OS btw. And the QNX version is only somewhat a 
port of the Engine to the native QNX browser and not an own browser.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
> 
>>Ortwin Glück wrote:
>>
>>>If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that
>>>needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch.
>>>
>>Thanks for keeping it to a high language level.
>>
>>You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases
>>while the number of users increases, hmm?
>>
>>
> 
> You're claiming that the number of Mozilla users has increased over the
> last year?
> 

No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!