How big is Mozilla now?
Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now?
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Colin Blake wrote: > Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, > JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? > a lot :] grayrest
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Colin Blake wrote:
> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL,
> JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now?
>
devo:mozilla 262: find mozilla \( -name \*.xul -o -name \*.js -o -name
\*.cpp -o -name \*.h \) | xargs -n 50 wc -l | fgrep total | awk '{print
$1}' | add
2824938
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Colin Blake wrote: > Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, > JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? > http://kryptolus.com/report.txt [Warning: might be very inaccurate]
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
These are numbers on 0.9.9 from sloccount (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/) Looks like it doesn't count XUL however. SLOCDirectory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted) 282657 securityansic=249820,cpp=15723,asm=9674,sh=4820,perl=2358, lex=129,yacc=79,ada=44,csh=10 205830 mailnewscpp=205333,ansic=497 171181 layout cpp=169425,perl=1538,sh=218 169877 content cpp=169867,perl=10 158648 other-licenses ansic=130399,sh=20499,python=3628,perl=1992,yacc=1297, cpp=553,lex=280 148337 modules ansic=78646,cpp=68560,java=598,perl=533 144793 xpcom cpp=78113,ansic=49164,sh=12432,asm=2725,yacc=1752, lex=341,perl=266 132973 gfx cpp=86971,ansic=45929,perl=73 123508 nsprpub ansic=118091,cpp=2834,sh=1622,asm=853,perl=108 100748 js ansic=71892,cpp=28213,perl=395,java=141,asm=76,sed=31 96033 extensions cpp=75253,ansic=17239,python=2916,perl=473,csh=122, sh=30 83483 widget cpp=80315,ansic=3168 81125 xpinstall ansic=42612,cpp=35563,perl=2933,sh=17 60190 embedding cpp=57650,ansic=2257,perl=239,objc=32,java=12 58997 netwerk cpp=58522,java=354,perl=96,sh=25 52912 editor cpp=52912 51548 intlcpp=42878,ansic=6331,perl=2339 47160 xpfecpp=46341,ansic=532,perl=193,sh=94 34666 db cpp=34666 29138 directory ansic=25799,cpp=3339 23096 htmlparser cpp=22316,perl=780 22230 gc ansic=19049,cpp=1612,java=1333,asm=232,sh=4 17124 rdf cpp=15134,ansic=1990 16908 jpegansic=16624,asm=284 15933 dom cpp=15933 14207 lib ansic=13173,cpp=1034 12166 webshellcpp=12099,sh=39,perl=28 10907 config ansic=7735,perl=1841,cpp=1224,sh=107 10727 expat ansic=10727 9620string cpp=9620 9312plugin cpp=8623,java=689 8895build perl=5320,sh=3487,cpp=88 8213viewcpp=8213 6522docshellcpp=6522 6276accessible cpp=6276 5569uriloader cpp=5569 4992capscpp=4379,perl=613 4860dbm ansic=4860 4835profile cpp=4835 3622tools cpp=2705,ansic=917 3296sun-javaansic=1733,cpp=1563 2587calendarcpp=2587 1092top_dir sh=1092 910 gfx2cpp=910 783 include ansic=783 0 l10n(none) 0 CVS (none) 0 themes (none) 0 README (none) Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): cpp:1444273 (58.75%) ansic: 919967 (37.42%) sh: 44486 (1.81%) perl: 22128 (0.90%) asm: 13844 (0.56%) python:6544 (0.27%) yacc: 3128 (0.13%) java: 3127 (0.13%) lex:750 (0.03%) csh:132 (0.01%) ada: 44 (0.00%) objc:32 (0.00%) sed: 31 (0.00%) Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,458,486 Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 726.49 (8,717.91) (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05)) Schedule Estimate, Years (Months) = 6.55 (78.58) (Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38)) Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule) = 110.95 Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 98,139,254 (average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40). Please credit this data as "generated using 'SLOCCount' by David A. Wheeler."
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Olaf Titz wrote: > These are numbers on 0.9.9 from sloccount > (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/) > Looks like it doesn't count XUL however. > > read my above reply with my report form slooccount that counts xul/xml/etc
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
grayrest authored the following: > Colin Blake wrote: > >> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, >> JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? >> > > a lot :] > > grayrest > Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! -- Kyle
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy a dit : > grayrest authored the following: > >> Colin Blake wrote: >> >>> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, >>> JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? >>> >> >> a lot :] >> >> grayrest >> > > Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins > > Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! > > > -- > Kyle > > Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a mail&news module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage editor. Pascal
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel authored the following: > > > Bundy a dit : > >> grayrest authored the following: >> >>> Colin Blake wrote: >>> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? >>> >>> a lot :] >>> >>> grayrest >>> >> >> Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins >> >> Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! >> >> >> -- >> Kyle >> >> > > Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it > cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a mail&news > module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage editor. > > Pascal > > BLOATWARE ALERT IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's an option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download. Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. Opera does include a mail/news client. It's email client is pretty good. It's news client is horrible. Opera is a superior web browser to Mozilla. (just compare the back/forward speed vs Mozilla)and unlike MOzilla, it is an end user product. And it does this using far less memory than Mozilla. Easier to change settings on the fly with Opera Faster loading pages WAY faster using the back/forward buttons Uses far, far less memory Can be run on slow computers like a 486 Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at all cost attitude. and on and on and on and on -- Kyle
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy a dit : > Pascal Chevrel authored the following: > >> >> >> Bundy a dit : >> >>> grayrest authored the following: >>> Colin Blake wrote: > Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, > JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? > a lot :] grayrest >>> >>> Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins >>> >>> Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kyle >>> >>> >> >> Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it >> cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a mail&news >> module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage editor. >> >> Pascal >> >> > > BLOATWARE ALERT > > IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a > horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's an > option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download. Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. > > Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in > the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. Same comment as the one for the IRC client. furthermore, your opinion are purely based on prejudices and not on facts. If you want to be taken for a reasonnable person and not an idiot, you should really base your opinions on facts. Didn't they tell you at school that "this is a piece of shit" is not > > Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. I use it, I guess I am a geek then. > > > Opera does include a mail/news client. > It's email client is pretty good. > It's news client is horrible. I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create sub-folders or create HTML messages. The only feature really worth of interest in opera mail is manual filtering. > > Opera is a superior web browser to Mozilla. (just compare the > back/forward speed vs Mozilla)and unlike MOzilla, it is an end user > product. And it does this using far less memory than Mozilla. Opera does not support the DOM and its javascript capabilities are limited. Its CSS support, although very good, isn't as complete as mozilla's. back/forward speed is indeed better in Opera but when you use tabs you almost never use back/forward. Being and "end-user" browser to justificate "superiority" is simply a dumb argument : with this logic, windows 98 being an end user OS is superior to Windows NT ? > > Easier to change settings on the fly with Opera Yeah, it's like 2 clicks for Opera and 3 clicks for Mozilla. If you really change your usual settings that often, you can add an optional mozilla preference toolbar to get a one click access to the most common settings and "beat" Opera. Not a big deal. http://www.xulplanet.com/downloads/view.cgi?category=applications&view=prefbar > Faster loading pages Wrong > WAY faster using the back/forward buttons You already said it > Uses far, far less memory True and this is why I advise it for older machines. But with every new Opera release, the program gets bigger and memory-hungry. When opera has all of Mozilla features it will use at least as much memory. > Can be run on slow computers like a 486 Opera 6 is NOT usable on a 486. Opera4/5 was but that's history. > Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) XUL is far more powerful than the BMP skinning Opera uses. Ever heard of cross-platform UI ? > A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at > all cost attitude. thus a browser is technically better than others because the support staff share your opinion about Microsoft ? Thank you for this gem :-))) > > and on and on and on and on Could you be more specific and list some major features Opera enjoys and Mozilla not ? Pascal
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy wrote: > Opera is a superior web browser to Mozilla. (just compare the > back/forward speed vs Mozilla)and unlike MOzilla, it is an end user > product. heh, you're funny.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel wrote: > > > Bundy a dit : >> >> and on and on and on and on > > Could you be more specific and list some major features Opera enjoys and > Mozilla not ? superior toolbar customization ;)
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
yatsu a dit : > Pascal Chevrel wrote: > > >> >>Bundy a dit : >> >>>and on and on and on and on >> >>Could you be more specific and list some major features Opera enjoys and >>Mozilla not ? > > > superior toolbar customization ;) good point, but I would qualify this as a "nice" feature and not "major" feature ;-) Pascal
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel wrote: > Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. I prefer Xchat. Chatzilla is too slow. > I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client > totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create > sub-folders or create HTML messages. If an mail client cannot create HMTL messages it is a feature. A HTML message is *never* usefull. -- Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of 10 Euro.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy wrote: > Pascal Chevrel authored the following: > >> >> >> Bundy a dit : >> >>> grayrest authored the following: >>> Colin Blake wrote: > Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, > JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? > a lot :] grayrest >>> >>> Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins >>> >>> Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kyle >>> >>> >> >> Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it >> cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a >> mail&news module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage >> editor. >> >> Pascal >> >> > > BLOATWARE ALERT > > IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a > horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's > an option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download. > > > What about users of platforms that dont have MIRC, would you say that MIRC works well for them ? Probably
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy wrote: > [Opera,] unlike MOzilla, it is an end user > product. I would actually count that for Mozilla. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:19:17AM +, Bundy wrote: *36 lines snipped. learn to cut back on your quoting people! fark...* > BLOATWARE ALERT > > IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a a 103k xpi that you don't have to download if you don't want to. > Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact that it's an integral part of browser.xpi and the components that are used for editing pages are also reused for creating forms and the creation of html email (this makes sense no). As such the editor itself would be, more or less, a side-effect feature. As such I wouldn't really consider it a seperate component. > the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. Speak for yourself. I can see a fair few things in there that might come in useful for me once I step out of the 'basic first html page' design and into something a bit more complicated. > Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. I believe this is in venkman.xpi which is 153k. Also, your comment of 'only geeks will ever use that' is insulting and lands you in the 'I dunno why I shouldn't pee on the electric fence' category. If you despise geeks so much (who I am taking you believe are people with technical knowledge and acumen) that get the fsck off the net, turn your computer off and give it to someone who appreciates it. Also, stop using planes, cars, toasters and all the other nice things you are used to taking for granted because, quite frankly, you don't deserve any of it. You are just not worth the effort so give them up to someone who is. All in all you have pointed out 256k of bloat (file size wise, at lease for the linux build). Now, personally, I wish mozilla had taken the path of building a kickarse browser and then built the rest. This was not taken. It's a shame but fsck it. It's done. What they did do though that I commend is made a highly modular browser. One that allows people to build add-ons (like the pref bar for example - it's cool :) and all sorts of doohikies for it. This lends me to a rather nice theory (IMO). As mozilla is not for the end-user as it stands but rather for developers to make use of and create their own browsers out of, things like chatzilla and the js profiler and other such things all serve a very important service (other then their primary function), and that is that they are examples of just what CAN be done with mozilla. This sort of thing is most useful to the future of mozilla due to the fact that it allows future developers of addons to get more familiar with the varied APIs involved and write even more fun things that you'll probably find useful but whose existance you'll take for granted. Afterall, they ARE just worthless fscking geeks now aren't they? -- SOCCER PLAYER IN GENITAL-BITING SCANDAL --- "It was something between friends that I thought would have no importance until this morning when I got up and saw all the commotion in the news," Gallardo told a news conference. "It stunned me." Reyes told Marca that he had "felt a slight pinch." -- http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1129soccer29-ON.html
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel authored the following: > > > Bundy a dit : > >> Pascal Chevrel authored the following: >> >>> >>> >>> Bundy a dit : >>> grayrest authored the following: > Colin Blake wrote: > >> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, >> JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? >> > > a lot :] > > grayrest > Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! -- Kyle >>> >>> Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it >>> cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a >>> mail&news module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage >>> editor. >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>> >> >> BLOATWARE ALERT >> >> IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a >> horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's >> an option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download. > > > Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. Bullshit. I go to the Mozilla IRC server, maybe 40 people on it, half of them bots. Dalnet has 100,000 people. > >> >> Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in >> the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. > > > Same comment as the one for the IRC client. furthermore, your opinion > are purely based on prejudices and not on facts. If you want to be taken > for a reasonnable person and not an idiot, you should really base your > opinions on facts. Didn't they tell you at school that "this is a piece > of shit" is not The fact is, it should be the users choice to download. Do you have a problem with this? > >> >> Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. > > > I use it, I guess I am a geek then. Yes, you must be. Most people don't use it. > >> >> >> Opera does include a mail/news client. >> It's email client is pretty good. >> It's news client is horrible. > > > I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client > totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create > sub-folders or create HTML messages. The only feature really worth of > interest in opera mail is manual filtering. False statement about Opera email. You can create sub-folders. Email /Manage EMail/ Right click on a folder to create another. Nope, you can't do html unless its raw code. > Opera does not support the DOM and its javascript capabilities are > limited. Its CSS support, although very good, isn't as complete as > mozilla's. back/forward speed is indeed better in Opera but when you use > tabs you almost never use back/forward. but..but..but most users use the forward/back button. > > > Yeah, it's like 2 clicks for Opera and 3 clicks for Mozilla. False, a lot are one click or zero clicks (F12 key) > >> Faster loading pages > > > Wrong Correct. > >> WAY faster using the back/forward buttons > > > You already said it > >> Uses far, far less memory > > > True and this is why I advise it for older machines. But with every new > Opera release, the program gets bigger and memory-hungry. When opera has > all of Mozilla features it will use at least as much memory. But who wants IRC and a Composer? Most people don't. Again, users choice, not Mozilla's bloatware. > >> Can be run on slow computers like a 486 > > > Opera 6 is NOT usable on a 486. Opera4/5 was but that's history. Tell that to the 486 DX-2 66 I am running it now. Runs better than NS and IE 4 > >> Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) > > > XUL is far more powerful than the BMP skinning Opera uses. Ever heard of > cross-platform UI ? Tons more skins in Opera, 80+... Show me 80 skins for Mozilla. > >> A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at >> all cost attitude. > > > thus a browser is technically better than others because the support > staff share your opinion about Microsoft ? Thank you for this gem :-))) No, a browser that has less people means leaner with less code generally. Also means more expertise.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
CaT authored the following: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:19:17AM +, Bundy wrote: > *36 lines snipped. learn to cut back on your quoting people! fark...* > >>BLOATWARE ALERT >> >>IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a > > > a 103k xpi that you don't have to download if you don't want to. Ah, but people claim that is the Reason why Moz is so much larger than Opera. > > >>Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in > > > Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact that it's an > integral part of browser.xpi Gee, an integral part of the software... Gee, where have we heard this before (think MS and MS Explorer). Seems that Mozilla does what MS does and makes sure they bundle their bloatware so you can't remove it. >>Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. > > > I believe this is in venkman.xpi which is 153k. So remove the chat and Javascript profiler and Mozilla is still over 10+meg Bloatware > > Now, personally, I wish mozilla had taken the path of building a > kickarse browser and then built the rest. Amen. Four years and still nothing to brag about. Four years ago, windows 95 was the leading OS. That is what OPera is doing, building a great browser first, then getting the email and usenet part corrected. > This was not taken. It's a > shame but fsck it. It's done. It's been four years and all they have done is lost nearly all it's marketshare. When Moz started 4 years ago, NS and MS were neck and neck in the browser market. While MS kept on putting out newer versions, NS had 4.x in 98,99,2000,2001 and dropping market share while working on Open Source Moz.. The 6.x was such a horrible release, it doomed NS. > What they did do though that I commend is > made a highly modular browser. One that allows people to build add-ons > (like the pref bar for example - it's cool :) and all sorts of doohikies > for it. > > This lends me to a rather nice theory (IMO). As mozilla is not for the > end-user as it stands but rather for developers to make use of and > create their own browsers out of, things like chatzilla and the js > profiler and other such things all serve a very important service (other > then their primary function), and that is that they are examples of just > what CAN be done with mozilla. This sort of thing is most useful to the > future of mozilla due to the fact that it allows future developers of > addons to get more familiar with the varied APIs involved and write even > more fun things that you'll probably find useful but whose existance > you'll take for granted. Afterall, they ARE just worthless fscking geeks > now aren't they? > You know what I would like to see. All the Netscape Champions resign and non-AOL employed Mozilla work to put out an a end user Mozilla product. What do these people owe AOL/Time Warner anyhow? Allow NS to slip to just a few percent of the browser market? I'm sorry but since Netscape is owned by mega-giant, AOl, they are not an underdog at all.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
On 3/24/2002 8:16 PM, Bundy wrote: >>>IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a >>>horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's >>>an option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download. >> >> >>Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. > > > > Bullshit. I go to the Mozilla IRC server, maybe 40 people on it, half of > them bots. Dalnet has 100,000 people. The point isn't how many people are logged onto irc.mozilla.org. The point is how many people use chatzilla. Do you mean top say that noone uses chatzilla to log onto dalnet? Conversely, I dont think everyone who logs onto irc.mozilla.org uses chatzilla. You're comparing apples and oranges. FWIW, I've tried out other chat client and have always come back to chatzilla. but thats me... >>>Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in >>>the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. >> >> >>Same comment as the one for the IRC client. furthermore, your opinion >>are purely based on prejudices and not on facts. If you want to be taken >>for a reasonnable person and not an idiot, you should really base your >>opinions on facts. Didn't they tell you at school that "this is a piece >>of shit" is not > > > > The fact is, it should be the users choice to download. > Do you have a problem with this? The problem is that the composer is also used for HTML message composition. From what I've heard adding the Composer GUI (the one you get when you press Ctrl-4) is not that much of bloatware but I dont have any numbers to back up. >>>Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. >> >> >>I use it, I guess I am a geek then. > > > Yes, you must be. Most people don't use it. Agreed. Which is why NS6.x will never have it. But people who use Mozilla, the geeks, find use for it. So I dont see any problem with shipping it with Mozilla. NS6.x, Beonex, Galeon, etc will get rid of it. >>> >>>Opera does include a mail/news client. >>>It's email client is pretty good. >>>It's news client is horrible. >> >> >>I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client >>totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create >>sub-folders or create HTML messages. The only feature really worth of >>interest in opera mail is manual filtering. > > > False statement about Opera email. You can create sub-folders. > > Email /Manage EMail/ Right click on a folder to create another. > > Nope, you can't do html unless its raw code. > > > >>Opera does not support the DOM and its javascript capabilities are >>limited. Its CSS support, although very good, isn't as complete as >>mozilla's. back/forward speed is indeed better in Opera but when you use >>tabs you almost never use back/forward. > > > but..but..but most users use the forward/back button. > > > >> >>Yeah, it's like 2 clicks for Opera and 3 clicks for Mozilla. > > > False, a lot are one click or zero clicks (F12 key) F12 = zero clicks Wow, what logic. By your logic Alt-E->e = zero clicks. agreed? >>>Faster loading pages >> >> >>Wrong > > > > Correct. Is that based on any concrete numbers or just on yoru perception? > >>>WAY faster using the back/forward buttons >> >> >>You already said it >> >> >>>Uses far, far less memory >> >> >>True and this is why I advise it for older machines. But with every new >>Opera release, the program gets bigger and memory-hungry. When opera has >>all of Mozilla features it will use at least as much memory. > > > But who wants IRC and a Composer? Most people don't. Again, users > choice, not Mozilla's bloatware. IRC is an install time option. I've already written about Composer. Also if you were to write up a patch that separated Composer into a separate install time option, I doubt if people would oppose it. >>>Can be run on slow computers like a 486 >> >> >>Opera 6 is NOT usable on a 486. Opera4/5 was but that's history. > > > Tell that to the 486 DX-2 66 I am running it now. Runs better than NS > and IE 4 Good. Then you should stick to Opera. >>>Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) >> >> >>XUL is far more powerful than the BMP skinning Opera uses. Ever heard of >>cross-platform UI ? > > > Tons more skins in Opera, 80+... > Show me 80 skins for Mozilla. I'm sure once 1.0 comes out, there'll be more skins for Mozilla. There's about 10 on xulplanet.com right now. Pratik.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:23:56AM +, Bundy wrote: > CaT authored the following: > >On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:19:17AM +, Bundy wrote: > >*36 lines snipped. learn to cut back on your quoting people! fark...* > > > >>BLOATWARE ALERT > >> > >>IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a > > > > > >a 103k xpi that you don't have to download if you don't want to. > > Ah, but people claim that is the Reason why Moz is so much larger than > Opera. So? I can claim that George Bush is a baboons intellectual superior. Doesn't mean that I'm right though now does it? Will it make it right if say 250mil people claim it? No. > >>Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in > > > >Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact that it's an > >integral part of browser.xpi > > Gee, an integral part of the software... Gee, where have we heard this > before (think MS and MS Explorer). Seems that Mozilla does what MS does > and makes sure they bundle their bloatware so you can't remove it. Do you actually have any inkling of understanding of why it may be an integral part of browser.xpi? I don't mean that you have to understand the codebase in full but rather, do you have any sort of idea of how it all fits together? A guess is as good as anything here. I'm just curious as to wether or not you've actually thought about this or are just mouthing off because the internet lets you do so easily. *snip* > You know what I would like to see. All the Netscape Champions resign and > non-AOL employed Mozilla work to put out an a end user Mozilla product. non-AOL employed Mozilla people can do just that I believe, and without anyone resigning or being crapped upon in public forums. (unless there's a clause in the licensing that I missed). Why aren't you doing it though? > What do these people owe AOL/Time Warner anyhow? Allow NS to slip to > just a few percent of the browser market? AOL is irrelevant. The codebase is out on the net and under license. If AOL choose to stop their support for mozilla (ie actually paying people an income to work on something that they cannot sell as such) the project can still live on when people such as yourselves, with these great and fantastic ideas about bloat, can make it go on a diet or something. So when are you either a. going to start producing patches to mozilla that slim it down or b. going to organise a group of people to start producing patches to mozilla that slim it down? > I'm sorry but since Netscape is owned by mega-giant, AOl, they are not > an underdog at all. Who the fsck cares? -- SOCCER PLAYER IN GENITAL-BITING SCANDAL --- "It was something between friends that I thought would have no importance until this morning when I got up and saw all the commotion in the news," Gallardo told a news conference. "It stunned me." Reyes told Marca that he had "felt a slight pinch." -- http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1129soccer29-ON.html
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
> > >> Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact that it's an >> integral part of browser.xpi > > > Gee, an integral part of the software... Gee, where have we heard this > before (think MS and MS Explorer). Seems that Mozilla does what MS > does and makes sure they bundle their bloatware so you can't remove it. I tend to agree with Bundy. After all, Moz was designed to be modular. It should have been possible to design Mozilla so that composer would be in a different module. >> Now, personally, I wish mozilla had taken the path of building a >> kickarse browser and then built the rest. > > > Amen. Four years and still nothing to brag about. Four years ago, > windows 95 was the leading OS. That is what OPera is doing, building a > great browser first, then getting the email and usenet part corrected. I disagree. If they had built a browser based on existing technologies then, the result would be separate programs for each platform. They'll have a finished browser, but nothing much to brag about. So Mozilla.org started by creating a new technology which is now called xpcom that allows you to write apps in any platform, and then built Mozilla on /that/. Being able to create a new platform that runs on top of all existing platforms is something to brag about, because it will have a direct effect on how apps will be written in the future. Imagine having a word processor, graphics tool, even an entire OS written in xpcom. They are now possible. Mozilla has become an example of what can be done in xpcom. > It's been four years and all they have done is lost nearly all it's > marketshare. When Moz started 4 years ago, NS and MS were neck and > neck in the browser market. While MS kept on putting out newer > versions, NS had 4.x in 98,99,2000,2001 and dropping market share > while working on Open Source Moz.. The 6.x was such a horrible > release, it doomed NS. Netscape 6 *is* horrible. They should have called it Netscape 6 Preview instead of Final. The upcoming Mozilla 1.0 should also be called a Preview Release'first to avoid any possible embarrasment. > You know what I would like to see. All the Netscape Champions resign > and non-AOL employed Mozilla work to put out an a end user Mozilla > product. > > What do these people owe AOL/Time Warner anyhow? Allow NS to slip to > just a few percent of the browser market? > > I'm sorry but since Netscape is owned by mega-giant, AOl, they are not > an underdog at all. Mozilla.org is open source, so anyone who wants to contribute can join. Even Netscape employees.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:13:55PM +0800, Bamm Gabriana wrote: > >>Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact that it's an > >>integral part of browser.xpi > > > >Gee, an integral part of the software... Gee, where have we heard this > >before (think MS and MS Explorer). Seems that Mozilla does what MS > >does and makes sure they bundle their bloatware so you can't remove it. > > I tend to agree with Bundy. After all, Moz was designed to > be modular. It should have been possible to design Mozilla > so that composer would be in a different module. It all depends. I can't really say what the thinking was wrt this but there's a SNOGLOAD of common functionality between composer and browser. Just look at the two and see what similarities you can pick up on. Then look at the differences and see if they are common with any other components. Then see what you have left and consider just how much there is and wether or not that's worth complaining about? As a quick list, for me it goes a bit like this (off the top of my head btw... I'm not doing an actual comparison right now): Display of parsed HTML and HTML source is pretty obvious. The HTML parsing stuff is used in everyday browsing and viewing html mail+news. The display of HTML source is used in view page source in the browser. That's a large chunk of the needed code for composer. Now... Editing of HTML: Creation of html mail+news and forms for the browser. The form part might take a bit of thought but think of how they are similar: When you get a page with a form on it and you fill it in you're not doing anything that is that much different from creating the form in the first place and selecting default values for things. So the only thing that is really left is the composer specific interface and I don't think that is very big (but I don't have figures on that). It's basically a sideeffect feature. The core functionality is already there. At least that's (more or less) my way of thinking about it. :) > Being able to create a new platform that runs on top > of all existing platforms is something to brag about, > because it will have a direct effect on how apps will > be written in the future. Fsck yeah. It means I can actually write something that is useful to me and spread it across the land and those who want it don't have to use my OS of choice. Such an act promotes freedom of choice in the computer industry. Something that is sadly lacking atm. -- SOCCER PLAYER IN GENITAL-BITING SCANDAL --- "It was something between friends that I thought would have no importance until this morning when I got up and saw all the commotion in the news," Gallardo told a news conference. "It stunned me." Reyes told Marca that he had "felt a slight pinch." -- http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1129soccer29-ON.html
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
And it came to pass that Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Now this one is a bit harder to quantify due to the fact
>>> that it's an integral part of browser.xpi
>>
>>
>> Gee, an integral part of the software... Gee, where have
>> we heard this before (think MS and MS Explorer). Seems
>> that Mozilla does what MS does and makes sure they bundle
>> their bloatware so you can't remove it.
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with Bundy. After all, Moz was designed to
> be modular. It should have been possible to design Mozilla
> so that composer would be in a different module.
>
I think you're chasing down a red herring: as Mozilla all ready
renders webpages, it's a very small step to the composer. I'm
willing to bet that removing the composer elements would
decrease Mozilla's footprint infinitesimally at best.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
As goatherd learns his trade by goat, so writer learns his trade
by wrote.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
That's true, and no one's denying that there is a lot of common functionality. That's why I understand why they decided to merge them then. > That's a large chunk of the needed code for composer. However, modularity does not mean duplication of code. It means separation of code. All the code that is needed by both navigator and composer should be in the browser module. Those needed only by composer can be in a separate module that makes function calls to the browser module when needed. The fact that there is common code does not diminish the need for modularity, it enforces it. > I don't think that is very big If the composer elements are small, then why did you use it as an argument to Bundy as to why browser.xpi is so large? Its either the composer elements are large (therefore should be separated) or small (which proves Bundy's point that navigator is bloatware.) IMHO. Bamm P.S. Unlike Bundy, I am not complaining about the size of Moz. I just agree that components should be on separate modules. This is good programming practice, isn't it?
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Martin Fritsche wrote: > Pascal Chevrel wrote: > >> Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. > > > I prefer Xchat. Chatzilla is too slow. > >> I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client >> totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create >> sub-folders or create HTML messages. > > > If an mail client cannot create HMTL messages it is a feature. A HTML > message is *never* usefull. > Depends on your background, I s'pose. HTML messages have their problems (largely due to how e-mail clients mark 'em up, from what I can see), and may not have any added utility over and above a plain-text message, but, damn!, they're generally more readable. Unless, of course, you like reading messages that wrap every 40 characters or so. . . . One of the things I /do/ look for in an e-mail client is the ability to have full justification, tho' that may just be my print background. When e-mail clients support, say, in place of a tab (and IE, say, decides to render it properly), I'll actually be happy. Just personal preference, I guess. Again, it's that damned print background coming out. And at least in Moz I can turn off JavaScript in e-mails, &c (an Outlook-using friend's major complaint with HTML mail). Brian -- Signs are taken for wonders. 'We would see a sign!' The word within a word, unable to speak a word, Swaddled in darkness. In the juvescence of the year Came Christ the tiger -- T. S. Eliot, 'Gerontion'
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
> > >I think you're chasing down a red herring: as Mozilla all ready >renders webpages, it's a very small step to the composer. > Exactly. Afaik, modular programming was invented precisely to allow programs to share code. The fact that navigator already renders webpages is not an argument against modularity, it is an argument for it. > I'm >willing to bet that removing the composer elements would >decrease Mozilla's footprint infinitesimally at best. > This comment is in sharp contrast to Pascal's comment to Bundy, which says, and I quote: > Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it > cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a mail&news > module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage editor. Which one of you is correct? If chatzilla, venkman and composer are all infinitesimal, then navigator is indeed oversized. If they are not infinitesimal, then mozilla is not modular enough. Btw, I am inclined to believe that if composer were in a separate module, then it would would be larger than the chatzilla and venkman modules.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel wrote: > Bundy a dit : > > A much better and leaner This is better? > support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at > > all cost attitude. You are wrong! I hang out in the Opera groups all the time. Most of the people in those groups really really really hate MS! I mean they *really* hate em. :) And yes, a lot of the support staff. Bundy is just a little man with a very small penis. Opera and Moz are both absolutely excellent browsers. It is rather stupid to flame one or the other.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
> Easier to change settings on the fly with Opera > Faster loading pages > WAY faster using the back/forward buttons > Uses far, far less memory > Can be run on slow computers like a 486 > Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) > A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at > all cost attitude. First of all, just go around and really explore the Opera website, you will find that they hate MS a lot more than Mozilla. At least Moz was kind enough not to use the mozilla.org website to attack MS. Opera is so blatant, it attacks MS in articles found in its own website. Secondly, Opera is all praise for Moz so I consider it unwise to consider them as competition. Moz and Opera have different niche markets.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
> Easier to change settings on the fly with Opera > Faster loading pages > WAY faster using the back/forward buttons > Uses far, far less memory > Can be run on slow computers like a 486 > Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) > A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at > all cost attitude. First of all, just go around and really explore the Opera website, you will find that they hate MS a lot more than Mozilla people do. At least Moz was kind enough not to use the mozilla.org website to attack MS. Opera is so blatant, it attacks MS in articles found in its own website. Secondly, Opera is all praise for Moz so I consider it unwise to consider them as competition. Moz and Opera have different niche markets.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >So remove the chat and Javascript profiler and Mozilla is still over 10+meg > >Bloatware This brings up the more interesting question of "how big is Gecko?" as, to me, that's the bit that makes Moz stand head and shoulders above other browsers. -- Rob...
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
As proof of this, I searched the opera website for the word "microsoft". Here were some pages from the results: http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011101.html http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011026.html http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/02/20020212.html http://www.opera.com/press/articles/english.html http://www.opera.com/press/manifesto.html
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Rob Allen wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bundy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> So remove the chat and Javascript profiler and Mozilla is still over >> 10+meg >> >> Bloatware > > > > This brings up the more interesting question of "how big is Gecko?" > as, to me, that's the bit that makes Moz stand head and shoulders > above other browsers. > > Interesting. How big /is/ it? :)
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Brian Heinrich wrote: > Depends on your background, I s'pose. HTML messages have their problems > (largely due to how e-mail clients mark 'em up, from what I can see), > and may not have any added utility over and above a plain-text message, > but, damn!, they're generally more readable. Unless, of course, you > like reading messages that wrap every 40 characters or so. . . . The length of a line has nothing to do with HTML or not. -- Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of 10 Euro.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Martin Fritsche wrote: > Brian Heinrich wrote: > >> Depends on your background, I s'pose. HTML messages have their >> problems (largely due to how e-mail clients mark 'em up, from what I >> can see), and may not have any added utility over and above a >> plain-text message, but, damn!, they're generally more readable. >> Unless, of course, you like reading messages that wrap every 40 >> characters or so. . . . > > > The length of a line has nothing to do with HTML or not. > I know that it has nothing to do with HTML; the problem seems limited to plain text messages, and seems to have to do with line wraps (soft returns) coming thro' as carriage returns. Never bothered to try to figure it out, or to see if there's a work-around for the issue, so I s'pose I shouldn't bitch about it, even tho' I /do/ find it annoying. If the line length is 100 to 150 characters long, it isn't too bad, but some clients seem to default to 72 characters or so, which starts to become annoying; one friend used to use Yahoo!, and her messages probably wrapped at 40 to 45 characters, which quite rapidly became annoying. More just personal preference than anything: I like HTML mail; others like plain text mail. I guess I just dislike being victimised by the formatting quirks of certain e-mail clients (web mail clients seem to be the worst or this, I must say). For what it's worth. . . . Brian -- Signs are taken for wonders. 'We would see a sign!' The word within a word, unable to speak a word, Swaddled in darkness. In the juvescence of the year Came Christ the tiger -- T. S. Eliot, 'Gerontion'
Can browser.xpi be split up into further modules? (was: Re: How big is Mozilla now?)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 03:22:41PM +0800, Bamm Gabriana wrote: > That's true, and no one's denying that there is a lot of common > functionality. That's why I understand why they decided to > merge them then. Then argue that point. Why not ask why the composer only bits are not seperated out into their own xpi then? Bloat and missed modularity are two different issues. > If the composer elements are small, then why did you use it > as an argument to Bundy as to why browser.xpi is so large? > > Its either the composer elements are large (therefore should > be separated) or small (which proves Bundy's point that > navigator is bloatware.) So it wouldn't be bloatware if both the browser and composer elements were large rather then a large browser element and a small composer element (which, according to the above paragraph, is bloat)? > Unlike Bundy, I am not complaining about the size of Moz. > I just agree that components should be on separate modules. > This is good programming practice, isn't it? Yup. So the big question really is, why not take the browser.xpi and split it up if it can be? If it can't be split up, how come? (general question to one and all rather then one directly at you :) -- SOCCER PLAYER IN GENITAL-BITING SCANDAL --- "It was something between friends that I thought would have no importance until this morning when I got up and saw all the commotion in the news," Gallardo told a news conference. "It stunned me." Reyes told Marca that he had "felt a slight pinch." -- http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1129soccer29-ON.html
Re: Can browser.xpi be split up into further modules? (was: Re: How big is Mozilla now?)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:31:32PM +0800, Bamm Gabriana wrote: > >So it wouldn't be bloatware if both the browser and composer elements > >were large rather then a large browser element and a small composer > >element (which, according to the above paragraph, is bloat)? > > If both navigator and composer were rather large and you > have to download both or nothing, then that would be still > be bloatware - because many megs were added without > giving you a choice. Right... > On the other hand, if composer /was/ small, then Navigator > may have been poorly designed for it to reach 10 megs on > its own. Still bloatware - so many unnecesary megs. 7meg and that's a poor assumption. > It would /not/ be bloatware if Nav were less than 5 megs, > and each of the other components, no matter how large, > were optional downloads. They are. So we're talking about a 2meg difference here. And you're attacking it from a point of ignorance (at least so it seems - if you HAVE looked into mozilla, the way it's structured, organised, the code involved etc then I apologise). > >Yup. So the big question really is, why not take the browser.xpi and > >split it up if it can be? If it can't be split up, how come? (general > >question to one and all rather then one directly at you :) > > Um, wasn't that exactly the point of my post and Bundy's post > also? It appears you now agree. :) No we don't. :) He's saying Mozilla IS bloat and I'm saying 'it'd be interesting to find out why the design decision that was made, was made and wether or not it is useful to change it, and if not wha noty'. I have a feeling he too is attacking it from a point of ignorance (same disclaimer and offer of apology applies here). > Let me add, no matter how small composer may be, it should > still be placed in a separate module. Maybe. It depends on wether or not it complicates things. Neither of us know enough about the layout of mozilla code (again, that disclaimer :) Hence the question. Now we have two options: 1. we can continue talking out of our arses or 2. see what it takes to get a possible answer to the question. I'm gonna see about #2. Dunno about anyone else. Oh. And if browser.xpi CAN be split up further without complicating things then I doubt it'll happen before 1.0 as it would entail making a fsckingly big change that could break things. -- SOCCER PLAYER IN GENITAL-BITING SCANDAL --- "It was something between friends that I thought would have no importance until this morning when I got up and saw all the commotion in the news," Gallardo told a news conference. "It stunned me." Reyes told Marca that he had "felt a slight pinch." -- http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1129soccer29-ON.html
Re: Can browser.xpi be split up into further modules? (was: Re: How big is Mozilla now?)
I agree with everything. :)
Re: Can browser.xpi be split up into further modules? (was: Re: How big is Mozilla now?)
> If both navigator and composer were rather large and you > have to download both or nothing, then that would be still > be bloatware - because many megs were added without > giving you a choice. > > Classic example is Windows with Internet Exploder bundled > in. Microsoft made the same argument you made - that IE > has many common functionalities with Windows. > > On the other hand, if composer /was/ small, then Navigator > may have been poorly designed for it to reach 10 megs on > its own. Still bloatware - so many unnecesary megs. > > It would /not/ be bloatware if Nav were less than 5 megs, > and each of the other components, no matter how large, > were optional downloads. How big is the Nav module without debug code? Once you strip out all the development stuff, and leave just the actual program? Mozilla is a big project, and I'm guessing there's a lot of labelling as to what everything does, what needs to be done, etc. inside of the codebase which would be removed or at least slimmed down a LOT in any commercial distribution (obviously a small number of people who know the code would need fewer instructions and lables than a large group of people from diverse backgrounds.) You can't really judge bloat until you see an optimized build. Personally, I think separating a composer xpi would be a good idea - it'd obviously need to be installed for HTML functionality in mail-news, but I wouldn't be horribly upset if I couldn't compose mail/news in HTML. It'd just mean that I'd never see the "do you want to send this in HTML" message again. Patrick
