On 11/28/00 10:53 AM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ben Bucksch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Welch wrote:
>
>> I'm yelling, complaining, bitching to Mozilla, because a) Netscape either
>> isn't listening, or doesn't wish to act as though they are, which is much
>> the same thing
>
> But you are wrong. If your neighbor doesn't listen to you, it's no help
> to whine at the president.
It is when your neighbor is making it hard for you to get to work
>
>>>> Note LDAP is not on the above list :-)
>>>
>> Supporting IMAP without LDAP is useless.
>
> Bullshit. I guess, you don't count me as valid user, then?
You have a better way than LDAP to support 500000+ users? (take a look at
the entry for Siemens in bug # 36557
>
>> Besides, at least for most corporate use, we'll trade total w3c
>> web standards compliance for email and LDAP.
>
> Unless you happen to be a webmaster or a company in the web business.
If you're a webmaster, you care about what most of your customers want. If
the people writing your checks want it to look good for IE, Communicator,
etc, you aren't going to tell them, "Screw you, I write for the W3C." Not
and pay the rent too. And if you are in the web business, again, unless your
customer base needs this, you aren't going to go with W3C over their wishes,
unless both of those dovetail. If they do, great, if not, W3C looses over
$$$.
Man, standards are not a substitution for functionality. They are a guide on
the preffered way to get there. If the internet had kowtowed to standards
they way Moz is, we would have not had packet swtiching or IP. It would have
been Circuit Switching and SNA, (the *standards* of the day.). Yes,
standards support is a good thing, but I LIKE TCP/IP, and I LIKE packet
switching, and I'm GLAD that Bell didn't get their way. I also like GUIs, so
I'm glad that 3M and Apple had some stones to flip the 'standards' the bird.
A standards-based straightjacket is still a straightjacket.
>
>> any product can announce
>> compliance, it's the implementation that matters and on at least 2
>> platforms, your implementation needs much work.
>
> The implementation of standards is the same on all platforms.
BWAAHAHAhHAHAHAHAHA....oh please...no it's not. IBM/Oracle/MS are ALL
jiggering with XML implementation, and it's a real pain too. That's
amusing...and I suppose TCP/IP is implemented the same on all platforms. And
of course, you will *guarantee* that Moz will, someday show me the same page
the exact same way on *every* platform it runs on. I got $20 that says it
never will, it's impossible. It may be *closer* than any other browser, but
it won't be the *same*.
>
>> At least 4.X is a *fast* IMAP client with LDAP support. NS6/Moz. Is a
>> crappy, (NS6) to mediocre(Moz) IMAP client with no LDAP.
>
> The IMAP implementation in Mozilla is faster than in 4.x, for me.
Communicator 4.7.5 from an iPlanet IMAP server on a Sun Ultra 2 on a t-1:
3000+ headers in under 3 minutes over a 33.6k modem line
Moz M18 from last night on a light traffic cable modem to the same server:
10 minutes
NS6: 50+ minutes
>
> Please understand that things will improve.
Oh of course they will. I don't doubt that. I would just like to see the
core pieces get the same loving care the XPFE has gotten. So far, it's the
core functionality that I'm bitching about.
>
>> Pretend you're a corporate IS type and read the Netscape 6 FAQs and info
>> pages. You'd be amazed at what the marketing for NS6 is saying to different
>> groups.
>
> Maybe *you* misunderstood something? I don't see thousands of IT
> managers yelling at us here.
LOL...most of them wrote you off a year ago, got tired of waiting...the rest
just don't care, there are other products that work *now*.
john
>
>
--
"De oppresso liber"
(To free the oppressed)
US Army Special Forces
