On 11/28/00 4:18 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart
Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Welch wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> From what I was reading, this was more or less what other people were
> trying to tell you. The only difference, perhaps, is that other people
> were running out of patience, since you are at least the fifth person
> (that I remember) to address this issue in the last month or two.
Well, what was being said was, we know, shut up. That may not have been the
intent, but still. And this was the *first* response that indicated LDAP was
a priority other than a 'when we feel like it' kind of thing.
>
>> On 11/28/00 11:05 AM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart
>> Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Well, it's not exactly an either-or question. As you are well aware by
> now, anything Netscape writes (except for AOL branding stuff) goes into
> Mozilla, and anything Mozilla produces goes into the next release of
> Netscape (unless Netscape marketting decide to turn it off). So it may
> be that Mozilla gets LDAP first (in fact it is practically certain,
> because you can download a nightly build of Mozilla the very day LDAP is
> added), but as soon as that happens, you are also assured that the next
> Netscape version will get it. Similarly, if you are successful in
> persuading Netscape (through whatever means), the code will actually get
> written for Mozilla before it is incorporated into a Netscape release.
True, but what I was saying is that if I get a Mozilla version that has
these features, is stable, and functional, the desktops I have direct
control over will be using that, and not Netscape. I am exactly as loyal to
a tool as it is functional for me. I have *no* loyalty beyond ease of use
and functionality.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Not a lot. The new architecture is so radically different and the old
> code was so spaghettine (cool word huh?) that it really isn't providing
> much help to the people trying to write this. Any coder will tell you
> that the most difficult part of writing a feature is integrating it with
> it's surrounding code - for example, proxy autoconfig was working for a
> month or two for people who could manually download the pac file and
> store it in a particular location, but it took a lot of extra work to
> actually hook that up into the prefs UI and make it do what a *user*
> would call "working".
I spent three years writing HR benefits systems, and rebuilt one for a
rather large Hospital from the original spec after six months of trying to
fix some REALLY spaghettine (it IS a neat word) code, so I have a better
grip than most. It also convinced me that my original calling as a hardware
geek/cable monkey really was my true one. If nothing else, writing a
separate LDAP import module would have been a temp workaround, just
something that let us get LDIF dumps, and then use the address book import
function.
>
>> 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 ;-)
>
> Well, file a bug to request that this feature be turned on in the
> installer until LDAP is released... but I wouldn't really expect this to
> happen; I don't think there will be more than a couple of future
> releases (perhaps a 6.01 bugfix release with no new features) that don't
> have LDAP.
Because the *real* LDAP mozilla report has some seriously good commentary,
and this would have been redundant. And I didn't know it was gone until NS6
was released.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Good for you.
<sigh>, I just hate saying no....I occasionally sleep. Makes my girlfriend
nuts.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Cool. So now that you understand these issues, you'll perhaps be
> publicizing them a bit so that other people can learn them without
> having to come in here and bitch?
Mmm...what I *will* do is, when I get a good version, regardless of from
whom, write the review I WANT to write, not the ones I've had to write. But
I don't review promises, and I don't by them either, and neither does my
audience. I write a column that says...'oh, forgive NS, it'll all be fixed
RSN, I'll be flamb� en brochette.
>
>>> 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...
>
> Yes. There are a lot of people here who are a little upset with some of
> the decisions of Netscape, but we recognize that the hundreds of coders
> they employ to write code and *give it away* to the mozilla project
> tends to outweigh most of the bad decisions they have made.
To the geek community, yes. To the user community, not at all. That PITA
group wants results.
>
> (FWIW, my personal opinion is that the mailnews portion of NS6 should
> have had at least two more betas before being considered release
> quality. I don't think they should have shipped without LDAP, and I
> don't think they should have shipped with the huge bloat and performance
> issues currently present. I also take issue with certain aspects of
> Netscape's design priorities in the browser - I know of a number of bugs
> that *I* would have allowed the fixes for to be added prior to release,
> but that Netscape was not prepared to risk. But Netscape 6 is their
> browser, so they can include or exclude what they choose to.
Yep, and they should have handed out real release notes as well. That
marketing fluff they have doesn't qualify.
>
> On the other hand, I am *incredibly* glad that the *browser* portion was
> shipped, because it finally means that I as a web developer can write
> one version of my site which works the same in IE and Netscape (and just
> include some basic fallback code for other browsers: IE3, NS3, NS4,
> etc). It also means that writing good, valid code actually *means*
> something - it means that the code works right under the latest Netscape
> - and thus it's far easier to make standards-compliant a selling point
> to website owners).
But again, the user community doesn't *really* care. To them, standards in a
browser is like AC current support in a toaster. Of COURSE it's going to be
there, and why the hell should they need to know about it. All they want to
know is that bread goes in, toast comes out.
>
>> 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. ;-)
>
> True. But it is a very long thread where the same points have been made
> several times over.
And it also seemed like the people who should have been handing out the good
responses, like yours, were instead whining about being bitched at and that
this isn't the appropriate forum, etc. Oy vey.
>
>> 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 ;-)
>
> Well, as I said, I remember at least 4 people before you who have
> brought up this issue - all of them have purported to speak for large
> organizations, but have mysteriously disappeared as soon as anyone
> suggested that they actually help out in any way. You are the first, to
> my knowledge, to have done anything different.
I'm trying to help...don't know how successful I'll be, but I'm trying.
>
> Since these people are programmers, and it isn't their job to deal with
> customers (especially angry ones), you can perhaps understand why they
> have given you a brushoff. It's not as if they didn't tell you where to
> go - Netscape *are* the right people to ask, even though you aren't
> likely to get an actual answer because Netscape are a typical faceless
> corporation...
Yeah, but all of us ARE customers. They own cars? Refrigerators? Homes? They
*know* what it's like to have what is to them an honest complaint, and get
told, "oh shut up, you just don't understand the issues involved. " They
also know how much that SUCKS when it happens. They may not be as good with
weasel words, but empathy is a human condition, and so is an honest, direct
answer.
john
--
"Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea"
(Anything, Anytime, Anywhere)
7th Special Forces Group (Airborne)
