Now why can't more people respond like this. Damn, you want me to turn the
volume down, the best way is a reasoned response like this one.
On 11/28/00 11:05 AM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart
Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Welch wrote:
>>
>> On 11/27/00 5:28 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart
>> Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Persuade Netscape to let these Netscape engineers write it for
>>> Mozilla. Just because it's in Mozilla doesn't mean a Netscape person
>>> didn't write it - most of Mozilla was written by Netscape people,
>>> although this is gradually changing.
>>
>> To whom should I speak?
>
> Ah, that's the 64,000 dollar question. Certainly not people here - if we
> knew how to change NS marketting's minds, 6.0 would still be in beta.
> Your best bet is still Netscape's feedback forms - I know that it's like
> shouting into a black hole, but there is evidence that Netscape do pay a
> small amount of attention to this information.
True...actually, I figure that Mozilla has a better chance of getting
something done, and there's a part of me that would LOVE to be able to write
the "Screw netscape, run, NOW, get Mozilla!!!" for my outlets.
>
>>> 2) Persuade someone who is not a Netscape engineer to write it for
>>> Mozilla. This will be tough, because most of these people are volunteers
>>> who write for mozilla because they want to. NOTE: this *will not* work
>>> for people paid by Netscape. There are Netscape engineers who would love
>>> to write this, but Netscape pays their salaries, so Netscape says what
>>> they do. To change their minds, you have to persuade Netscape.
>>
>> This will be tough, face it LDAP ain't exactly cool. ;-)
>
> Well, neither is mail transfer as far as I'm concerned, and yet we have
> at least 3 major open source mail transfer agents. What's boring to you
> might be a fascinating problem for someone else. The trick is finding
> that person - ideally without pissing everyone else here off in the
> process.
LOL...I LIKE LDAP, and it's really boring. I'm more amazed that it got
dropped than anything else. Not basing Moz/NS6 off of the Communicator
codebase is one thing...that's TOTALLY understandable. But you mean there
was *nothing* that could be used to, if nothing else, be a head start? And
the *real* kicker is that at *least* PR3 did a onetime dump of my LDAP
address book. So even if it wasn't a live connection, I had *something*,
which is always better than nothing...HINT ;-)
>
>>> 3) Pay some money to Beonex, who are collecting a pool to fund someone
>>> to do it.
>>
>> I'm offering help to them, and we are talking, they seem to be the only real
>> solution.
>
> Awesome. You'd be amazed how many people have complained, but then
> refused to put their money where their mouths are.
Well, it ain't money, but I'm doing what I can.
>
>>> 4) Write it yourself.
>>
>> If I could, I would have done it months ago.
>
> I know, but I didn't want to leave that option out. There's also the
> option, since you seem to be in a fairly large company with an IT
> department, of actually hiring someone to write it.
Hee...AER ain't big, but I got friends at *huge* places....they let me do
the arguing, I like it ;-)
I'm also an IS/Networking columnist for MacTech/MacWeek.com, an associate
editor for MacFixIt, and I've done some stuff for MacKiDo.com as well.
>
>> Ah, but by bitching, the issue stays on the front burner, and can't be
>> easily ignored. Therefore, one of two things happens...It gets ignored
>> anyway, and Netscape/Mozilla demonstrates that Corporate and Higher ed
>> really don't matter to them, or it gets fixed just to shut us the hell up...
>
> Actually, the issue is definitely on the front-burner and has been for
> some time. Everyone here is *well* aware of the issue, and if they
> weren't a week ago (they were, btw) then they *certainly* are now, after
> your (understandable) tirade.
Well damn...that's really good to know.
>
> I have even seen posts from Netscape people in different groups which
> suggest that LDAP may be on the feature list for the next version. As
> others have commented, NS management and marketting is stuck in the
> closed mindset, so it's hard to get definite information, but you may
> find that Netscape is *already* working on this.
Which is also good to know, and maybe will tell them that you need *some*
communication...
>
> One or two posts on the issue would have been sufficient to keep
> everyone aware of it. While your distress with Netscape is
> understandable, you should be aware that Netscape's decisions are not
> made by people in these groups, and many people (my impression is that
> even many developers *inside* Netscape) disagree with some of them. But
> the people here are entirely unable to change Netscape's mind, so
> there's no use in bitching at these people. And there's certainly no
> need to run a week-long flamewar with a lot of people who agree with you
> in principle, but are powerless to make the change.
Oh it's not a flamewar. That would involve long, intricate references to
genetically - caused stupidity, and how peoples great - grandfathers
shouldn't have gotten frisky with the family mongoose. ;-) But I also have a
fine sense of what a brushoff is, and that is what I've been getting. *THAT*
is fuel on the fire. Your response is what Netscape should be giving, and is
not. Maybe Mozilla should hire you as a fireman ;-)
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)
