At 07:30 30/11/2000 -0500, John Welch wrote:
>On 11/30/00 4:18 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 21:33 29/11/2000 -0500, John Welch wrote:
> >
> >> Well, maybe someone who isn't so busy dissing customers as unknowing
> morons
> >> will realize that's a *bad* thing.
> >
> > This has gone on long enough. You are ranting at the wrong people, though
> > given your methods you're unlikely to get any different mileage from
> > ranting at the right people. LDAP will or won't happen regardless pretty
> > much of anything you have said, since nothing you've contributed so far
> > would encourage anyone that LDAP would be a good thing for them (in their
> > own terms) to do.
>
><sigh> Let me ask you something here. Because only about two of you have
>gotten it. What do you think is going to happen, rant-wise, if Mozilla 1.0
>comes out, is heralded as the one of the crowning glories of the open source
>movement, and no LDAP, slow IMAP,etc?
Mozilla is at 0.6. If 1.0 is meant to be a 'complete' feature release then
I'd expect it to include an LDAP client. The speed of IMAP is a relative
thing, by your own figures its improved already over NS6.
>Do you really think that anyone is going to say, "Oh it's open source, they
>don't understand what customers are, much less need, so we'll let them
>off.'?
>
>Nope. Only it's going to be much worse.
Well it might be worse, LDAP isn't as ubiquitous as you seem to think though.
>Secondly, the level of my *rant* is related to the response I get. When I
>get a reasonable response, I can be amazingly calm. Tell me to shut up and
>go away, and pull back a bloody stump.
You've had, I think, perfectly reasonable responses, on the other hand you
persist in not listening to them. And no, no one has a bloody stump, nor
even a nibbled finger.
> >
> > Patience seems the easiest course, the world hasn't fallen apart in the
> > past two weeks and its unlikely it will in the next few months. If you
> > don't want to hear claims of Real Soon Now (and no one has actually said
> > that, just that its likely to be developed), then don't get involved until
> > there is an LDAP client.
>
>Real Soon Now would be a better response. I don't have a choice. I can
>explain to my users that, "no, right now Mozilla *and* Netscape 6 are
>nothing more than interesting experiments in incorrectly managed projects,
>and if you blow out your NS 4.7.5 install for it, you won't be able to get
>work done." But that's not going to stop them. I also have a real problem
>with the "DON'T TOUCH" school of IT management, so I don't have a real
>problem with the users installing software.
Then you should and the trend is for centralised control in largish scale
sets of users, ummm why else would you be interested in LDAP?
You can tell your users the truth. Right now there is no LDAP client for
mozilla.org based product until there is, installing it will remove their
ability to use the directory. I also wouldn't recommend the current mail
client as a replacement for any user. But you can also say that you have
been told that it is likely there will be an LDAP client and that the
advantage of projects like mozilla.org is that changes that users want do
get implemented and that it tends to be quicker than the more traditional
closed proprietary development.
>But when I am, regularly spending a great deal of time dealing with fixing
>the damage that Mozilla and NS6 cause to windows installations, (Thank GOD
>that 70% of our desktops are Solaris), then it becomes my problems. When I
>get emails that should be tear-stained from readers who ignored my warnings,
>and have had Netscape or Mozilla take down their machines, it becomes my
>problem.
If that actually is the case then I would blame those administering the
users rather than the users themselves, giving users carte blanche over
installing their own system software (and for all intent and purposes an
email client is system software), is just asking for trouble.
>And If I am catching crap based on a product, then it's going to get shared.
>Open Source is no longer the isolated geek lab it once was. The common folk
>have heard of you, and are starting to use your work. Get over it. I for one
>cannot *wait* for the day when the Stallman gets *reamed* by an 80 year-old
>granny...hee.
Umm the words 'Grow' and 'Up' come to mind.
> >
> > I think those that have responded here have shown patience with you, you
> > might at least reciprocate.
>
>When I get responses that are better than "shut up and go away" in more
>words, then I respond to those.
You've had them, you just don't listen or if you do you redefine them in
your own terms.
>You guys are classic open source. You can't understand that standards
>compliance doesn't matter to the *vast* majority of people. They expect
>that. It's like AC power support in a toaster. It had *better* be there.
>They also could honestly care less about XPFE/XUL/etc. They want a browser
>that browses, email that emails, and a fast, pleasant experience. You've got
>a fantastic rendering engine, but the package it's wrapped up in is just
>awful. It's *been* awful. People have been trying to tell you calmly and
>reasonably it's awful. Well now Netscape has released an awful product, and
>in the eyes of the world, Netscape *is* Mozilla *is* Netscape. And y'all are
>reacting like a deer in the headlights.
Ummm no. I'm entirely not classic open source anything, I'm more than
aware that its the relevant application of standards that matter. If
anything there is very little navel gazing involved in mozilla.org compared
to other open source developments. I don't know if you took notice at the
time but the UI style has been modified considerably from the original
simply out of cogent screaming taking place in the relevant newsgroups.
AOL/Netscape marketing put a stake in the sand and constrained a release to
meet it. This is normal product marketing and there is always blood on the
carpet and there is probably far more blood spilt and vituperation
internally in Netscape then you will ever be aware of.
>There are a LOT more problems than LDAP, but that one is so astoundingly bad
>that none of my peers and associates can comprehend how it got the low
>priority it did.
Perhaps because you and your peers have a different checklist. It sounds
like you saw a version a while ago that had a placeholder and made an
assumption based upon it and haven't bothered checking back since (the LDAP
feature discussion has been going about 3 months on and off at least),
perhaps you even said to a few users 'go ahead and try it'.
>I got news for you...I'm the nice one...
I'm intrigued as to why you think you are different to myself or others? A
lot of people that comment here deal with users and clients.
Simon
>john
>
>
>--
>"There is no 'I' in TEAM."
>US Navy SEALs
