At 08:06 27/11/2000 -0500, John Welch wrote:
>On 11/27/00 7:05 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you want to go Netscape bashing, a process slightly easier than stealing
> > sweets from babies, I suggest you go to a netscape newsgroup to do
> > it. XPFE is here and will provide a lot more than simply different front
> > ends as time goes on.
>
>Don't misunderstand *why* I'm angry/frustrated about NS6/Moz. It's not
>because I hate Netscape. It's because the product, as is, is not at a final
>release level of quality. And since Netscape is, from AOL's own statements
>and all the info I cann find, nothing more than an inferior version of a
>Mozilla build, then both catch some of the blame here.
Umm ok, I'm not sure why mozilla catches flak for a Netscape build. AOL's
needs are different to mozilla's their marketeers decided that they needed
_a_ browser regardless of the shortfalls in features. Not all corporates
will want LDAP, if they did Ben Bucksch or similar would have funding, or
they'd go out and do their own. That might seem peverse as LDAP is a need
you have, but its just true.
>I *want* NS6/Moz to rock. I want it to continue being the fastest IMAP
>client on the planet, and a really excellent business alternative for
>cross-platform web and messaging use.
>
>But from reading Bugzilla reports on the items that *really* count to much
>of the world, it is easy to see that those items just don't matter to AOL
>much, if at all. The other part is that it's been *three* years for this.
>Two if you drop the abortive attempt at upgrading the 4.X codebase. In two
>years, the people at Netscape and the OS community couldn't come up with a
>web browser/email client that is reasonably free of bugs?
Yes they could have done that if it were a single line, single platform,
single OS implementation of rendering that attempted nothing more than
possible parity with 4.x.
> >From a corporate POV, and admittedly, that has it's own unique limits, as do
>all POVs, it *looks* like NS6/Moz has gone from being a useful piece of
>software to a laboratory for hackers to experiment with. Which is cool, and
>needed, but could we get the foundation done?
The foundation isn't a browser, nor yet an email client. And by and large
the foundation is fairly secure. Delays happen, some of those delays I
think were avoidable (an inability to not leave things alone at times, and
gut wrenching cosmetic changes to basic components). Things have tightened
up considerably with the improvements in check in procedures, though there
is still the odd hiatus.
>IMAP performance is *still* cruddy, compared to 4.X, the email filters were
>improved not at all, LDAP is gone, (and I'll believe it's coming back when I
>see it. Yes, I know it's a promise. Crap in one hand, promise in the other,
>which one weighs more?), the interface is ridiculously slow and buggy, the
>keystroke commands for certain mail functions are ludicrous...('M', 'A'?!?).
>The LDAP bug reports show that Netscape/Mozilla stands to literally lose
>*millions* of users, and yet the best response from Netscape seems to be one
>of "Well, when Mozilla gets around to it."
AOL != Netscape != mozilla where Netscape is the old corporation. AOL's
requirements are entirely different to the original Netscape
Corporation. There will be other OEM distributions which have their own
target markets, if AOL doesn't target your needs its likely another will,
as in Beonex http:\\www.beonex.com
>Which is crap. Mozilla should not be carrying the load for Netscape. AOL has
>the money, they can by god hire some damn coders. I despise Netscape for
>blaming anyone else but themselves for the NS6 Debacle. I understand that
>Mozilla will take a while to happen, it's the one big disadvantage of open
>source. Mozilla I have patience for, NS not at all, and I would really like
>to see NS release a damn timetable that isn't Mozilla's with a different
>name.
That makes no sense.
>It's just pissing me off to have to drop NS for someone else because a group
>of Nimrods at AOL haven't a clue.
Can your corporation afford a small amount of money on a subscription basis
to get the features it needs/wants?
Simon
>john
>
>--
>"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I
>intend to go in harm's way."
>- John Paul Jones (later adopted by the US Navy's Special Boat Units)
