On Sat, 12 May 2001 02:25:11 -0400, jesus X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
somehow managed to type:
No, I'm not saying that. I'm telling you what is here, and in the pipe. Hard
fact. Java is always more folks will do stuff in the future when they see how
great it is! Mozilla is people are doing things
You mean Doom MXXXIV? No, I grew tired of fighting the exact same Seargents
with the exact same shotgun about thirty-six episodes into that series.
Um, ya see, there are no Seargents in Quake 3. It's an online game.
You kill other people. You need reflexes, skills and thinking to win.
JTK wrote:
So my posting is somehow preventing people from working on Maozilla's biggest
problems, i.e. crazy memory hoggage and slowness?
I'm going to say it again. IE 6 uses over 11,000k to display a blank
page. Keep in mind, large portions of IE are built into the operating
systems
Carlfish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
http://www.pixeldate.com/dev/comparison/index.shtml
Note the order. C++. Java. Several miles of daylight. Perl.
Tell me where Mozilla/XUL development fits in on the graphs, please.
Apples and oranges.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garth Wallace says...
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
And finally, I also choose to not
presume to implore others to leave, regardless of what nerves the truth
hits.
Saying the project is dead, go home is indirect, but it's still
telling
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], jesus X says...
JTK wrote:
Though you do have a point, albeit minor. Sombody could have decided
that a cross-platform web browser wasn't possible unless they wrote
their own device drivers (interpreted-from-ASCII of course, somehow) for
any hardware used by it.
Out of 20,000+ visitors this last week, IE gets 73%, Netscape 4+ gets
16% (steadily dropping) and Moz/N6 is about 0.1% (25 hits out of
20,000+). This is all flavors of Moz and N6. - benway.com,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've never even heard of that site before. And 20,000 visitors/week is
Petrus Lundqvist wrote:
Out of 20,000+ visitors this last week, IE gets 73%, Netscape 4+ gets
16% (steadily dropping) and Moz/N6 is about 0.1% (25 hits out of
20,000+). This is all flavors of Moz and N6. - benway.com,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've never even heard of that site before. And 20,000
MSIE totals also include AOL subscribers. AOL does have a *very* heavy
market impact, and since AOL will be using Mozilla/N6 as it's next
browser, I believe these numbers will jump very heavily in the other
direction
In the USA perhaps - not in the rest of the world.
There was just a study
Petrus Lundqvist wrote:
Out of 20,000+ visitors this last week, IE gets 73%, Netscape 4+ gets
16% (steadily dropping) and Moz/N6 is about 0.1% (25 hits out of
20,000+). This is all flavors of Moz and N6. - benway.com,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've never even heard of that site before. And 20,000
I'll tell you this, I have used I.E. for years - well, as long as it has
been out; however, I have been using Mozilla for the past month and I
have no desire to ever go back to I.E. Not now nor for the newer
version being made available in XP. Now, I am not a Microsoft hater.
I'm not a
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
Then leave.
Leave? What happened to Open?
Just as you're free to contribute, you're free to go elsewhere.
Ok, then I choose to contribute, by pointing out obvious design flaws,
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
And finally, I also choose to not
presume to implore others to leave, regardless of what nerves the truth
hits.
Saying the project is dead, go home is indirect, but it's still
telling people to leave.
I suppose it could be considered
JTK wrote:
Though you do have a point, albeit minor. Sombody could have decided
that a cross-platform web browser wasn't possible unless they wrote
their own device drivers (interpreted-from-ASCII of course, somehow) for
any hardware used by it. That would be more complex, granted.
Look,
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
There's
nothing left to give up on; Mozilla died three years ago, and all anyone
who points out that it's starting to stink gets is a blank stare at
best, strident I like the stink!'s at worst.
Then leave.
Joel Thorson wrote:
Flame wars are BING...
cat Re: Happy 3rd Birthday Mozilla :-) /dev/null
So are fake Unix shell cat's to /dev/null, but you don't see me bitching
about it.
Oh wait... ;-)
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL P
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
Then leave.
Leave? What happened to Open?
Just as you're free to contribute, you're free to go elsewhere.
Ok, then I choose to contribute, by pointing out obvious design flaws,
and possible ways in which they
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
jesus X wrote:
Maybe he thinks Mozilla is actually an exercise in masochism, as opposed
to
building a great browser.
You said it, not me. Three years and nothing even
Christian Mattar wrote:
Hi!
JTK wrote:
[snip]
But the API to get a file name from the user is *not* significantly more
complex than Get me a filename, and doesn't differ significantly
between platforms? Hell, the very filenames they're getting differ
significantly between
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PoweredPC::Applications::Nescape%20Contact.
There are a series of charcters you are not allowed to put in file names
because they are reserved by the system among them are
:%12345...{numbers} and other.
Sorry but this is not quite right.
"JTK" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Might as well burn up as much RAM and CPU time as we can, is that what
you're saying here? How about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's?
Um...that biblical quote refers to paying religious taxes
to the Roman
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
[snip]
But the API to get a file name from the user is *not* significantly more
complex than "Get me a filename", and doesn't differ significantly
between platforms? Hell, the very filenames they're getting differ
Unlike Unix or Windoze Mac allows for use of Space in Names.
Actually, that's been allowed in Windows since Win95.
And I think *nix to some degree allows it, but not quite as elegantly.
I've never actually tried using spaces in a directory or filename on my
Linux partition.
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
[snip]
But the API to get a file name from the user is *not* significantly more
complex than "Get me a filename", and doesn't differ significantly
between platforms? Hell, the very filenames they're getting differ
significantly between platforms!
jesus X wrote:
JTK wrote:
Because, as someone else explained, the API for a file dialog is "Get
me a filename, please". That for a tree control is somewhat more
complex,
Not much more. "Display this tree of items, please". "Tell me the
current selection".
In english, you are
Hi!
JTK wrote:
jesus X wrote:
JTK wrote:
Because, as someone else explained, the API for a file dialog is "Get
me a filename, please". That for a tree control is somewhat more
complex,
Not much more. "Display this tree of items, please". "Tell me the
current
Mark Anderson wrote:
JTK wrote:
"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
[snip]
I disagree with the assertion that Mac Platform is irrelevant. Currently
because of the G4, iBook, Titanium G4 500 (remember because the G4
processor is pure RISC it almost twice as fast as Pentium)
JTK wrote:
jesus X wrote:
JTK wrote:
Because, as someone else explained, the API for a file dialog is "Get
me a filename, please". That for a tree control is somewhat more
complex,
Not much more. "Display this tree of items, please". "Tell me the
current selection".
In english,
Christian Mattar wrote:
I simply don't see why you are arguing over this. Do you want to say
that mozilla.org has been lieing (sp?) about the platform disparity
between the widgets? Do you think that the Mozilla developers could have
developed a browser-suite for the three main platforms with
JTK wrote:
But the API to get a file name from the user is *not* significantly more
complex than "Get me a filename", and doesn't differ significantly
between platforms? Hell, the very filenames they're getting differ
significantly between platforms!
No one is talking about getting ANYTHING
JTK wrote:
When's the last time you went into Best Buy and saw "Requirements:
xxxMHz Compaq Computer" on a software box?
I've never seen "Requirements: xxxMHz Compaq Computer" on a software
box! This probably is the fact, since I live in Germany and the only
vendor specific requirement I
jesus X wrote:
Christian Mattar wrote:
I simply don't see why you are arguing over this. Do you want to say
that mozilla.org has been lieing (sp?) about the platform disparity
between the widgets? Do you think that the Mozilla developers could have
developed a browser-suite for the
JTK wrote:
Just to clarify, you mean 'look and feel' when you're saying 'interface'
here (so we don't get it confused with 'API').
The word is overloaded, but in this case I mean both. For Mozilla to
efficiently support cross-platform code, the API needs to be uniform so
that writers of XP
JTK wrote:
Mark Anderson wrote:
JTK wrote:
But I do have to give Netscape credit for finally dropping the "Jazilla"
concept. God, can you imagine?
Actually, yeah. Java's a whole lot easier to design good renderers in
than C++.
Right, which is why they (and you)
Christian Mattar wrote:
Hi!
JTK wrote:
jesus X wrote:
JTK wrote:
Because, as someone else explained, the API for a file dialog is Get
me a filename, please. That for a tree control is somewhat more
complex,
Not much more. Display this tree of items, please.
Bradley Robinson wrote:
"JTK" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Gervase Markham
say
these wise words:
JTK wrote:
Stuart Ballard wrote:
The chain of decision did not go "How can we make
a browser that's skinnable - I know, let's use XML for our user
interface". It went "Ooh - since we're using XML for our user interface,
we can make it skinnable!".
I don't believe either of those
JTK wrote:
So let me get this straight: You're saying it's simply a matter of
degree? That a file save dialog is so 'semantically' similar across
platforms that wrapping the native one makes sense, but that a *text
box* is so wildly different that it doesn't? Or a ***scroll bar***?!?!
Gervase Markham wrote:
Developer newsgroups? I don't see '.developers.only' anywhere in the
title. I do see '.public',
This is another artefact of that quick newsgroup setup we mentioned. I
refer you again to the proposal to change the names. In the new news
hierarchy, there will be
JTK wrote:
Because, as someone else explained, the API for a file dialog is "Get
me a filename, please". That for a tree control is somewhat more
complex,
Not much more. "Display this tree of items, please". "Tell me the
current selection".
In english, you are correct. But, since my
JTK wrote:
And anyway, isn't *Linux* the fastest growing platform currently? I
have to admit it's awfully hard to keep up with the meaningless
statistics these days.
Well, it depends on if you're talking about a hardware platform, software
platform, or the combination of the two, which USED
JTK wrote:
And am I mistaken, or has nobody yet come up with a passable explanation
as to why the file save dialogs have been singled out as 'native is OK',
while virtually nothing else is, eg tree controls?
The cross-platform widget set is used when an identical interface is
required across
JTK wrote:
But I do have to give Netscape credit for finally dropping the "Jazilla"
concept. God, can you imagine?
Actually, yeah. Java's a whole lot easier to design good renderers in
than C++.
I say that as one of the former developers of Jazilla. Netscape
abandoned it long (read:
JTK wrote:
"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
[snip]
I disagree with the assertion that Mac Platform is irrelevant. Currently
because of the G4, iBook, Titanium G4 500 (remember because the G4
processor is pure RISC it almost twice as fast as Pentium) Notebook, and
iMac, its the
So in three years, nobody at Netscape* has had the time to correct
this? You don't have a bridge in Brooklyn you could sell me, do you?
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
Gerv
Ian Davey wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Why does Mozilla not need such control over the open/save dialog?
Why is this not skinnable like literally everything else is? Doesn't
that violate the whole design concept of "skinnability"?
On Linux it is
Bradley Robinson wrote:
"JTK" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
Don't you have anything to
do with your time? Go read a book, or go to the park, or something.
Nah, I'll just find a wheel to reinvent...
If it weren't for the
JTK wrote:
Ian Davey wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Why does Mozilla not need such control over the open/save dialog?
Why is this not skinnable like literally everything else is? Doesn't
that violate the whole design concept of "skinnability"?
The open/save dialog is skinnable on Linux because several window
managers support themes. So the dialog is skinnable, but not through
Mozilla's skins. That's why he added the winking smiley.
Ah, ok.
Perhaps I might politely suggest that, if you wish to slag Mozilla off in
these
JTK wrote:
Skinnability was not the "design goal".
Sure it was.
Nope.
It certainly didn't happen accidentally.
In a way it was indeed a happy accident.
A conscious decision was made to implement the UI, which on virtually all
other apps is native, by interpreting ASCII (or UTF-8 or
Alex wrote:
That is a completely understandable argument, since I hate it when
programs preload. However, there is noticeable number of people are in
support of it, and I personally would not mind a browser bring preloaded
since I use it so much throughout the day that it would be nice to see
Hi!
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
and attempting to explain why people are reinventing every UI
wheel in sight.
Blame the W3C and CSS 2 :-)
For making the Mozilla project not use Windows' perfectly good tree
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Gervase Markham say
these wise words:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
so it's taken
jesus X wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
Mozilla already works better than MSIE on my machine. And I prefer
Mozilla's mail/news interface to Outlook...and the fact that I don't
have to load individual messages in order to mark them read (when you're
trying to avoid porn spam at work, the
JTK wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
JTK wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
and attempting to explain why people are reinventing every UI
wheel in sight.
Blame the W3C and CSS 2 :-)
For making the Mozilla project not use Windows' perfectly good tree
"Justin H." wrote:
JTK wrote:
[snip]
No, the fact that we're not just targeting Windows forced us to do that.
Can't use Windows tree control on Mac, or UNIX, or BeOS, or Amiga, or...
Ok, so why didn't this force you to not use Windows' file open/save
common dialog as well?
JTK wrote:
Well, that only brings up two more questions:
1. Why does Mozilla not need such control over the open/save dialog?
Why is this not skinnable like literally everything else is? Doesn't
that violate the whole design concept of "skinnability"?
Skinnability was not the "design
Stuart Ballard wrote:
JTK wrote:
Well, that only brings up two more questions:
1. Why does Mozilla not need such control over the open/save dialog?
Why is this not skinnable like literally everything else is? Doesn't
that violate the whole design concept of "skinnability"?
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Mike Koenecke say these
wise words:
no, No, NO, NO! Pre-loading is the cop-out method. Don't you DARE do that!
I always disable any and all pre-loading options on any and all
applications that want to put
Garth Wallace wrote:
I've already explained 100 times that skins are just a bonus that we get
for free due to a design decision that makes it easier to write the
browser for multiple platforms, but you'll just ignore me again, so I
won't bother this time.
Just ignore JTK. He's rapidly
Mike Koenecke wrote:
Just for the record, I *wish* Mozilla worked well enough that I could
use it full time. I keep trying new builds, but some stuff just flat
doesn't work. Example: http://www.xdrive.com . Their Java script
doesn't work in Mozilla
what problems do you mean? for me, at
On or about Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:26:46 +0200, Niko Pavlicek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
Mike Koenecke wrote:
Just for the record, I *wish* Mozilla worked well enough that I could
use it full time. I keep trying new builds, but some stuff just flat
doesn't work. Example:
[inline]
On or about 14 Apr 2001 21:53:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Jahn) allegedly wrote:
And it came to pass that Mike Koenecke wrote:
On or about Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:26:46 +0200, Niko Pavlicek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
Mike Koenecke wrote:
Just for the record, I *wish*
Mike Koenecke wrote:
I wonder if the developers
couldn't come up with something like Microsoft does with IE: load
essential rendering components on startup with Windows and keep them
loaded (ideally, in lieu of IE's) , thus allowing a quick perceived
startup.
there's something on the
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Gervase Markham say
these wise words:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
so it's taken three years so far for a whole group of
JTK wrote:
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Gervase Markham say
these wise words:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
so it's taken three years so far for a whole
JTK wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
and attempting to explain why people are reinventing every UI
wheel in sight.
Blame the W3C and CSS 2 :-)
For making the Mozilla project not use Windows' perfectly good tree
control and instead implement their own, for instance? Did the
On or about Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:51:13 -0700, Garth Wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
JTK wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
JTK wrote:
and attempting to explain why people are reinventing every UI
wheel in sight.
Blame the W3C and CSS 2 :-)
For making the Mozilla project not
On or about Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:42:30 -0700, Garth Wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
JTK wrote:
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Gervase Markham say
these wise words:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
Garth Wallace wrote:
Mozilla already works better than MSIE on my machine. And I prefer
Mozilla's mail/news interface to Outlook...and the fact that I don't
have to load individual messages in order to mark them read (when you're
trying to avoid porn spam at work, the last thing you want to
Gervase Markham wrote:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
So, who's writing "Mozilla at Three"? ;-)
Gerv
I will. Open "Mozilla at one", save as "Mozilla at three". Add a
section on the insane decision to
I will. Open "Mozilla at one", save as "Mozilla at three". Add a
section on the insane decision to release the completely unusable and
embarrassing Netscape 6.
Not the responsibility of mozilla.org.
Replace "Mozilla on small devices" section
with a "Mozilla in under 25MB and 10 seconds"
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
So, who's writing "Mozilla at Three"? ;-)
Gerv
Gervase Markham wrote:
Mozilla source code was released to the world three years ago today
(according to the dates in the source files.)
So, who's writing "Mozilla at Three"? ;-)
The children start to visit the kindergarden when they get three years
old here in Germany. Dunno if this also
74 matches
Mail list logo
