"John Welch" wrote:
> "Scott A. Colcord" wrote:
>
> > What would you have them do, then? Netscape indicated that they didn't
have
> > the resources to do native UI on more than one platform; their only
options
> > were to do XPFE, go Win-only, or declare the browser a lost cause and
drop
> > it completely. Unless you've got a few tens of millions of dollars to
throw
> > their way to give them more options, try to recognize that deploying a
> > product on a limited budget means that not everyone is going to get
> > everything they want on the first try.
>
> 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.
No, I'm saying that /Netscape/ can't afford it. Your argument assumes that
AOL is willing to fully commit itself to pushing Netscape, and I honestly
haven't gotten that feeling so far. Rather, it seems like AOL is funding
Netscape as a way to keep IE from cornering the browser market, and is
willing to commit some (limited) resources toward that end. If they manage
to get a replacement for IE that they can use for their client, that's an
added bonus. You may think that AOL should do more (and you might be
right), but this newsgroup is so far removed from the ears of anyone
involved in that decision that it's really not the appropriate forum for
such complaints. If AOL decides to move its client to a Mozilla base,
perhaps things will change, but for now, MS has far more developers
available to work full-time on their browser than does Netscape.
Scott A. Colcord
Software Engineer
