On 11/28/00 1:53 AM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"David Krause" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * John Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001127 21:04]:
>> Okay...you are *seriously* going to sit there and tell me that AOL can't
>> afford to do native UI FE's on more than one platform. That is *very* close
>> to insulting my intelligence. AOL is damn near bigger than Microsoft at this
>> point, heck they may BE bigger than MS, and MS has *zero* problems writing a
>> browser that runs natively on more than one platform...hell, they do it with
>> a browser, an email client, a PIM, an OFFICE SUITE, and games.
>
> And how many platforms does Microsoft do development. A whole whopping
> total of 2! Windows and MacOS. Also, Microsoft is a software company
> and AOL is a isp or something (i dunno but it's not a software company)
> so you can't really compare the sizes of the companies. Although both
> of them seem to have marketing departments bigger than the software dev.
> I wouldn't say that MS has *zero* problems. It seems to me they have a
> lot of problems developing even on the platform that they designed and
> implemented.
Well, they also do hardware dev, and some Unix dev, or at least they did.
And AOL is a lot more than an ISP, and dollar - wise, you can too compare
the companies. And I never said that the windows versions of MS stuff wasn't
crap, but they *get it done* on two platforms, which so far is beating *not*
getting it done on 15. Bird in the hand...
>
>> And oddly
>> enough, the Mac version of IE and OE are *better*, more compliant, and more
>> capable than their windows counterparts, and windows has nothing from MS
>> that can touch Entourage.
>
> And why is it that the Windows and Mac versions are different? Because
> they are not cross-platform and have to be designed and implemented
> separately. For Microsoft to add even one more platform they would
> would have to increase their dev staff by 50%. Each platform has to
> have a whole separate team.
Actually there's more cross platform than you think, they just make sure the
*implementation* is platform specific. And actually, the Mac Business Unit
is quite small for what they do, (I think under 200 programmers, maybe even
under 150), they just know their market, and pay attention to their
customers.
>
>> Please, you want to tell me AOL is having a tough time finding coders, that
>> I'll believe. But don't try to tell me AOL *can't afford* it. That's just
>> crap.
>
> I won't argue with you there. AOL makes tons of money off their
> low-quality service. The modem to user ratio was approximately 1/4 the
> ratio of a normal isp's in the last article I read. But I don't think it
> would be in the best interests of AOL's stockholders to put huge amounts
> of money into Netscape for multiple platforms though like you were
> wanting.
Then let them say that, but don't BS me about *can't*. Won't is one thing,
can't is another entirely.
>
>> And since Mozilla is theoretically paying none of the coders, then the only
>> limiting resource there is people.
>
> And the mozilla contributers only work on what they want to work on. It
> doesn't matter what other people want. The individual contributer makes
> the decision.
DINGDINGDING...and XPFE and XUL are cool, functionality isn't. Which is why
open source is good for specific use engineering tools, ie DNS, BIND,
SendMail, and not so good for general public use things...ie, why Linux is
only now getting a decent file manager...Eazel.
>
>>> "John Welch" 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.
>
> I can almost guarantee you that it would definitely only have been on one
> or two platforms. And I don't know if Mac would have been one of them.
> If Netscape had to pick they would be best going with Windows and some
> form of *nix. That would have enabled them to port to MacOSX easily
> when it came out. But I really doubt that they would have put much
> effort into the MacOS 9 and earlier platform. Luckily they chose to go
> cross-platform and we don't have to worry about any of this.
<snide>
Really? Somewhere there's a functional Mac version of NS6/Mozilla that isn't
crippled? Care to let the world in on *where*?
</snide>
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> David
John
>
--
We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem.
- Chesty Puller, USMC
