On 13.06.02 23:11, Jim Balter Replied As Follows: --- Original Message ---
> On 6/13/02 6:15 PM, Steve Rudman wrote: > >> I'm not suggesting that mozilla.org should not provide useful >> documentation (sorry for the double negative, can't think fast enough to >> reword right now). I don't think mozilla.org is obligated to provide >> docs targeted towards end-users. > > What's an "end user"? A consumer that purchases a "computer in a box" at CompUSA or similar "end-user". Also, an end-user for purposes of definition insofar as Mozilla is concerned applies to any "user" that is not a "developer". A "developer" wears many hats, ie., programmer, tester, doc author, patch writer, etc. I wish people would stop throwing > this term around as if it were actually a defined category > of human beings. mozilla.org is obligated to provide > docs targeted toward dogfood consumers, just as it is > obligated to provide browser functionality usable at that level. No, they are not. > And to a large degree there is no distinction between a dogfood > consumer (i.e., a developer wearing a user hat) and any other > sophisticated "end user". Consider, for instance, Red Hat > customers who are users of a Red Hat distribution of *Mozilla* -- > not Netscape, not Beonex, but Mozilla. I think Red Hat would be > rather perturbed to hear that mozilla.org is not obligated to > provide docs targeted towards those users. That's quite different > from mozilla.org not being obligated to provide any sort of support > to those or any other users. Red Hat "is" obligated to provide documentation for *their* spin-off, not Mozilla who provides the foundation. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org ** Post To Group ONLY, do NOT email **
