On 11/28/00 11:23 AM, in article 900m6p$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Scott A.
Colcord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
Yep...damn shame too...can't WAIT to interview one of the AOL schnooks at MW
san francisco....heh....find out why they are half-assing this so badly.
john
--
"Squeaky wheel gets the kick"
Baldur's Gate
