At 07:17 28/11/2000 -0500, John Welch wrote:
>On 11/28/00 4:20 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>Because 90% of the names on Mozilla bug reports are Netscape engineers. And
>I can right now point at 4 corporations that will be dropping Netscape
>because of LDAP, and 40 Colleges, and we are talking about well over a
>million users. Can Netscape afford this? No.
Turn it upside down. AOL is predominantly a broadcast organisation, its
target market, as a core business, is the individual consumer. Their
market over the next 5-10 years will be measured in the billions, not for a
browser particularly but for whatever content distributed/broadcast via
whatever means. It could well be that the corporate email product does
still remain attractive to a business unit within AOL but yes AOL can
afford not to have to deal with corporate users.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
>
>Oh crapola. In the same amount of time that AOL has been dinking around with
>Netscape, Microsoft managed to release 2 versions of Office on 2 different
>platforms, an entirely new email/calendar/scheduling app, 3 versions of a
>browser, and MS ain't THAT much bigger than AOL. In the same amount of time,
>Apple has damn near finished an OS and created new hardware. IBM also came
>out with more new stuff than you can shake a stick at. Don't expect anyone
>to buy the "It's too hard" statement.
MS as a software developer is considerably larger than AOL's application
development. I didn't say it was too hard. I replied in the terms that
you set.
> >
> >
> >>> 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.
>
>Great, the foundation is secure, but the implementation is buggy as hell,
>and since the IMPLEMENTATION is what people use, the foundation is not going
>to save it.
The implementation, from your point of view should be an LDAP and IMAP
client (solely going on what you have said), that's a very small part of
the overall. You can be irritated that your own requirements aren't
fulfilled, but then perhaps you need a different product. It could well be
that products that meet that requirement are produced on top of the current
framework, but SHOUTING here certainly won't help.
> >
> >> 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
>
>AOL bought Netscape, therefore AOL == Netscape just like IBM == Lotus.
>Netscape personnel are like 90% of Mozilla, so to all intents, Netscape ==
>Mozilla.
Then you really don't understand acquisitions and mergers. Netscape no
longer exists, and if you listen to some didn't for at least a year before
the acquisition. The Netscape business unit have given their current
strategy for their corporate users, which is to stick with 4.x
product. That seems a reasonable thing to do at the moment.
Oh and assertions such as Netscape = mozilla really won't help your case at
all.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
>
>Is or is not mozilla carrying Netscape?
It isn't carrying Netscape at all. Up to now Netscape has enabled
mozilla.org to exist, I think there's now sufficient impetus and
non-Netscape involvement that were they to pull out now it could survive,
though stalled for a while.
> >
> >
> >> 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?
>
>Sure, for a product we'll get in less than 4 years. There are other choices
>than Netscape/mozilla out there. Competition cuts as well as helps. And BTW,
>I am trying to work with Beonex in the ways that I can...
Being you're own Piper is sometimes the only way :-)
Simon
> >
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>"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)
