Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Norman wrote: I think the thing that discourages anyone from considering Beonex is that it appears that the site has been abandoned. I am entirely aware of that. If all goes well, there'll be a release based on Mozilla 1.0. I'm working on it at the moment. I downloaded 0.6 some months ago, and was impressed and pleased with the quality of work you had done. Thanks! :-)
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Is there a way to still get 0.6 some way? There is 0.7 build for Win32
available, and I'd like to see what Beonex looks / feels like :-)
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Ben Bucksch wrote: Norman wrote: I think the thing that discourages anyone from considering Beonex is that it appears that the site has been abandoned. I am entirely aware of that. If all goes well, there'll be a release based on Mozilla 1.0. I'm working on it at the moment. I downloaded 0.6 some months ago, and was impressed and pleased with the quality of work you had done. Thanks! :-) What are the advantages of Beonex over straight Moz at the moment, sir? Thx.
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Senator Dan Burton wrote: What are the advantages of Beonex over straight Moz at the moment, sir? Thx. http://www.beonex.com/communicator/doc/vsmozilla.html Also Higher level of security / privacy by default
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Sören Kuklau wrote: Is there a way to still get 0.6 some way? There is 0.7 build for Win32 available, and I'd like to see what Beonex looks / feels like :-) I might have some unreleased Win32 build lying around. However, don't use any current Beonex build for anything serious, because they are all too old (security bugs still in them).
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Maybe mirror the patchmaker homepage I'd appreciate it if people didn't do that :-) - see if you can make it even easier to use patchmaker with beonex than with mozilla[1]. Of He'll have a job, as I'm working hard at making it as easy to use as possible with Mozilla ;-) Gerv
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Ben Bucksch wrote: I wonder, if moving the site to beonex.org/communicator would attract more developers. Well, I can't say for sure (because my own time is probably too limited anyway to be able to help in any substantial way) but beonex.org would have made a better impression on *me* than .com. The following is my theory of the best way to make a better impression on potential contributors. It's just a suggestion, of course. From my perspective, presenting Beonex as a company indicates in some vague way that Beonex and Me are two different things. It also signifies that the person responsible for Beonex achieving its goals is, well, Beonex. Not all of that is to do with the .com domain, but the overall presentation of the site (last time I looked) suggests the same thing: we'd like you to be our customer, as opposed to we'd like you to be *part* of us. Mozilla.org is the opposite, and that has its downsides too: an end-user who found themselves at mozilla.org would be a bit lost if they wanted anything other than downloads. I think there's room for both beonex.com and beonex.org. Present beonex.org as the homepage when making release announcements, calls for volunteers, etc on mozilla newsgroups and the like. People on those groups are more likely to be developers than end-users. Mention both pages if you announce on freshmeat, because both classes of people might frequent that. If you talk to any mainstream press, mention the .com site. Structure beonex.org something like Mozilla.org, with the main links being to download (source and binary) tarballs, mailing lists, cvs access, etc. Maybe mirror the patchmaker homepage - see if you can make it even easier to use patchmaker with beonex than with mozilla[1]. Of course, have a prominent link to beonex.com near the top of beonex.org to indicate where users should go. Then remove the developer information from beonex.com and put just the user's documentation, mailing lists, binary-only tarballs and packages, screenshots, etc on beonex.com. One of the things that makes a big difference to *me* in whether I become involved in a project is the quality of the mailing lists and especially of the archives. If I can keep up with the mailing list by checking the web archive for a while, I can make a better judgement of the activity level of the project and decide whether my help is worth it. Since subscribing to a mailing list adds to the already substantial amount of stuff that I get by email, I'd rather make sure it's worth my while before I do that. It took me a long time to find the beonex developer mailing lists in the site (and now I've lost them and can't find them again, even with the help of the sitemap), and I still haven't found the archives. The mail-archive.com version of the users archive is nice - a mail-archive link for the developer lists prominently from the proposed beonex.org page would give me a much more positive impression about the community-orientedness of beonex. I hope that in the absence of actual *help*, these suggestions are still of some worth to you. I appreciate what Beonex does and I'd like to see it succeed. Stuart. [1] One way to do this would be to offer patchmaker-ready binary tarballs. These would come with the chrome directory pre-unjarred (with the jar files removed entirely) and patchmaker sitting in the same place as the beonex binary, all ready to go. -- Stuart Ballard, Programmer FASTNET - Internet Solutions 215.283.2300, ext. 126 www.fast.net
Re: beonex.com or beonex.org?
Stuart Ballard wrote: the overall presentation of the site (last time I looked) suggests the same thing: we'd like you to be our customer, as opposed to we'd like you to be *part* of us. Yes, that's intended. I recognize that normal end-users can and want to do almost nothing for us (=Beonex or Mozilla). They are not programmers, they have no time to devote, they just want a good browser. Beonex competes with Microsoft and Netscape. How many users even wonder how they could help Netscape or would do so, if asked? The only thing that I do want from users is: * If they are some of those few who are willing and capable of helping, point them to beonex.org and mozilla.org * For all others, donate some money to further fund development and servers. * Spread the word Basically, the main site should say: Here, we have a cake for you, take it, and if you're nice, leave some money. I think there's room for both beonex.com and beonex.org. Present beonex.org as the homepage when making release announcements, calls for volunteers, etc on mozilla newsgroups and the like. People on those groups are more likely to be developers than end-users. Mention both pages if you announce on freshmeat, because both classes of people might frequent that. If you talk to any mainstream press, mention the .com site. Structure beonex.org something like Mozilla.org, with the main links being to download (source and binary) tarballs, mailing lists, cvs access, etc. Maybe mirror the patchmaker homepage - see if you can make it even easier to use patchmaker with beonex than with mozilla[1]. Of course, have a prominent link to beonex.com near the top of beonex.org to indicate where users should go. Then remove the developer information from beonex.com and put just the user's documentation, mailing lists, binary-only tarballs and packages, screenshots, etc on beonex.com. That's basically what I'm doing today. beonex.org is for development, beonex.com the main site used for the press. Just that I want to have one main site only, where Beonex Communicator is described etc. (everything else would be redundant and probably confusing). Note that some users have said that they find a split between .com and .org confusing. (I haven't ever looked at PatchMaker, and probably won't have time to do so.) It took me a long time to find the beonex developer mailing lists in the site (and now I've lost them and can't find them again, even with the help of the sitemap), and I still haven't found the archives. Will check that. a mail-archive link for the developer lists prominently from the proposed beonex.org page would give me a much more positive impression about the community-orientedness of beonex. I see that the websites could need some improvement in their organization. Not sure, how exactly, though. I'm reluctant to add tons of links to the homepage. [1] One way to do this would be to offer patchmaker-ready binary tarballs. These would come with the chrome directory pre-unjarred (with the jar files removed entirely) and patchmaker sitting in the same place as the beonex binary, all ready to go. Yes, Simon P. Lucy expressed interest in non-jar builds, too. Ben Bucksch
