On 11/28/00 4:30 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 14:23 27/11/2000 -0500, John Welch wrote:
>> On 11/27/00 11:27 AM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mark
>> Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> And as far as the sometimes - voice threat of "without XUL, it would have
>>>> been windows - only"...riiiggght. Suuuuuure. Netscape is stupid enough to
>>>> ignore the platforms where they still have customers and a market
>> share that
>>>> isn't a joke.
>>>
>>> We didn't say it. Mike Pinkerton, one of the head Mac weenies (his
>>> words, not mine) at Netscape, said it. No XUL, no Mac or Linux.
>>
>> Mozilla needs to really distance themselves from this crap then. And
>> Netscape as a group is majorly stupid if they think they could survive as a
>> windows-only product.
>>
>> john
>
> Its hard to make the case for supporting a platform commercially when it
> only adds 1% to your distribution worldwide. It would be nice if there
> were scads of open source developers (as opposed to users), interested in
> getting involved, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems the cost
> of entry into Mac development is too high. To fix that would need
> something more of a culture change than mozilla.org. None of that means
> that people welcome the situation.
It's hard to make a case for a platform that has some of the most blindly
loyal Netscape users on the planet? Like 20 million of them? Wow, Netscape's
Windows market must be huge for them to take such a crap on the MacOS...
>
> Simon
>
>
>> --
>> "If you're not gonna pull the trigger, don't point the gun."
>> - James Baker
>
>
>
--
"Elite of the Elite"
2nd Force Recon (USMC)
