Michael Tulloch wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Steve Rudman wrote: > >>But usable at the users's own risk. Lifeguard not on duty. > > > It's really not like this now. That's why we have milestone releases and > nightlies.
But such releases are relevant for developers. Developers want to make sure that the features they added work for users. I meant, in my comment about users using Moz at their own risk, that there is not the safety net of product support that proprietary versions of software have. How many times have you heard the following "I use Mozilla as > my daily browser..." and how could you do that if this were just a > developer's toy? Questions like, "Is Mozilla for end-users or for developers?" are obviously too simplistic. People are free to use Mozilla if they want as their daily browser. But just because they do so isn't a compelling reason to add end-user support. We're growing this product up into a mass-market > releasable product, a stable core so that the distro people can add their > skins and shortcuts and brand it. How much customization do you suppose > people do to IE when they redistribute it? I can't speak much about the IE situation, except to say that I think Microsoft probably doesn't want too much customization of IE. The IE Admin Kit is fairly limited in what one can do. The Netscape Client Customization Kit is, to my knowledge, much more flexible. One could, if one wanted, modify the help files. It is (or was, for NS 4+) easy to do, and the license permitted that. Some distributors did in fact alter the files. > > ~Mike > >
