On 11/28/00 8:04 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Then be honest about it. Issue a statement that says, "regardless of what
Mozilla decides to do, AOL is not a business - oriented company, therefore,
neither is Netscape. We will no longer target any customer base outside of
the traditional AOL home market." *THAT* at least tells business users to
deal with Mozilla exclusively, and could result in more cash and help. Right
now, most of us are pinging between the two, reluctant to devote resources
to either, because of vague maybes from Netscape. Had AOL done this when
they bought Netscape, we could have planned for it, implemented
replacements, and then evaluated Mozilla outside of AOLScape. But that
didn't happen, and AOL is seeing the results.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Again, AOL doesn't wish to hire the people and spend the money on the
resources. That's understandable. That's a business decision. I may disagree
with it, but that's how these things go. But won't and can't are not the
same. Mozilla *can't*, they don't have the resources yet. So it takes them
longer in some ways.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
No...I haven't said that. I have said that the current IMAP implementation
is way too slow. The lack of LDAP is a major problem. And right now, NS6/Moz
is one of maybe *three* IMAP clients that DON'T have LDAP, and the only one
from a major email player. Take a look at all the email reviews for NS6/Moz.
That is a big stick they are getting hit with. And guess what...if the
people that need it *don't* shout about it, I have serious doubts that
either side will devote much time to it.
>
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Sticking with 4.X is only reasonable if you don't need capabilities that it
has. And the last set of features added to a *business* client were things
like internet radio and fluff like that. That is not a sign that AOL wants
that market.
And yeah, I understand mergers, and regardless of who the parent corporation
is, until Netscape as a subsidiary ceases to exist, then it's still there.
And as far as Netscape == Mozilla not helping my cause, blowing off your
more (previously) loyal customer base isn't helping their cause either.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Then let's see some marketing from Netscape that doesn't say that. And right
now, if all the Netscape engineers were told to drop Mozilla, it would be
stalled for quite 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 :-)
Sometimes, but at this point, it's because I don't want to have to yank
Communicator. It's completely self serving, and I hope to hell that Beonex
makes Netscape pay through the frickin' nose for the LDAP code. It would
serve NS right.
john
--
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is
to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and
destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George S. Patton, Jr.
