At 10:20 30/11/2000 -0500, Welch, John C. wrote:
>On 11/30/00 8:22 AM, "Simon P. Lucy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
>Um...it's still worse than any other client out there, and improved from
>unusable to really slow isn't anything to brag about. I expected the 18th
>version of Mozilla and the first release of a corporate product to have that
>already, remember my analogy about AC power. It didn't. It didn't have it
>after months of many, many publications saying that *not* having it is a bad
>thing. So now....give me any good reason to believe anything that isn't in a
>nightly drop or on Netscape's download page? Fool me once, shame on you, and
>don't whine that no one believes you afterwards.
And you still aren't listening. No one is disagreeing that LDAP belongs in
a full feature set release, no one practically disagrees that Netscape
releasing 6 was premature. I really don't remember any publications saying
you had to have Netscape 6, I remember a few wondering when it would ever
get released and whether it would be worth it when it was.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
>
>Really? Tell me something, look at the fortune 500, and tell me that. I can,
>without taking more than 10 minutes point to 5 companies with almost 1
>*million* users that rely on LDAP. And all the major colleges. If you are
>speaking about *strict* home use, you're correct. But how many people are
>strict home users? There is a huge chunk of people in the home who are also
>working *from* home for corporations, etc. They need LDAP too, and aren't
>going to see a need for 2-3 mail clients.
I can't say that, nor is it relevant. Its a non-provable statistic. It
might be true, it might not be. Is LDAP a Good Thing? Perhaps, more likely
I'd say its an Ok Thing. Distributing directories has its own problems,
often it penalises users for being up to date, if you're on a slow dialup
connection the last thing you want it doing is going off and maybe updating
the Address Book with people you neither know nor care about and if it
isn't automatically updated, what the point of it?
That doesn't stop me thinking that it should be a feature in a complete
release, but it doesn't convince me that not having it is a reason for not
releasing what is for most people a browser and not an email client.
> >
> >> 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.
>
>No one's given me a reason to yet, and if I were to do that, it would mean
>that I had given up on Moz. Or Netscape. Why waste energy bitching about
>something you don't care about?
Ranting to no purpose other than ego inflation?
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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?
>
>Because there is a major difference between management and control. I
>*manage* my network, and *help* my users. I'm not enough of an IS Nazi to
>*control* them. I work with adults, treat them as such, and 99% of the time,
>that works. I also let them occasionally make mistakes, because it makes
>them better users, and my job easier. I've worked at places with iron
>control, and it causes more trouble than it prevents. I use LDAP because
>it's easier for my *users* who are my *customers*. I personally can use any
>fool thing, but LDAP is better for them. It's also replacing NIS/NIS+ with
>Solaris, and since we run on that, we use 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.
>
>I have. They don't believe me. I mean in the "You must be lying. You have to
>be" kind of way. But since AOL hasn't done any meaningful work on their
>*preferred* corporate client, I, and too many other IS admins are being
>*forced* to slowly stop using Communicator. And as anyone else in my line of
>work will tell you, doing vendor changes, regardless of up front costs, is
>painful, and you really try to avoid it unless you don't have a choice. If I
>end up, while Mozilla and Netscape diddle around, having to replace
>Communicator with something else, and that is working when there is a decent
>corporate version of Netscape/Mozilla released, I'd be a fool to set myself
>up for that much work just because it's Netscape or Mozilla. But that would
>be the only reason, unless they *really* improve that product in every way
>by orders of magnitude.
Why would they not believe you, if you are such a caring and considerate
administrator? Its a fairly simple statement, don't change, if you do it
won't work. If you go ahead anyway, this is how you fix it. that's a
support problem that's fairly straightforward to manage.
> >> 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.
>
>Home users my friend. They own the hardware, it's their choice. These are
>the works/doesn't work crowd. Remote workers, who have to have that level of
>flexibility, because they are mobile constantly.
Getting into the specifics of any of this is futile. I can put up a
methodology for handling it and you can knock it down with another
'fact'. The only general point I have is this. LDAP wasn't on any feature
list that I'm aware of that was part of Netscape 6, if it was then, again,
you need to go hassle Netscape.
> >> 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.
>
>So do 'get' and 'bent'. But that's not important. The point is, Open Source
>has come out of it's adolescent stage, (emacs, bind, dns, linux, other
>science projects), and is now being looked at in a serious fashion as a way
>to get real work done, and give some of it back so that everyone benefits,
>(Mozilla, Darwin, Linux). But that has downsides too.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>
>I've had 2. Those folks have been very good at pointing things out that no
>one at Netscape or Mozilla had thought to. Customer relations are *so*
>important.
From what I remember, everything that was pointed out was pointed out long
ago why carry on?
> >> 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.
>
>Oh very true. Compared to other open source projects, with the exception of
>Eazel, and MAYBE Gnome, Mozilla is quite responsive. But again...what are
>you quoting...the UI *style*. Tell me, did anyone actually watch someone
>trying to use this? It doesn't feel like it. Engineering - wise, it's
>slicker than loon stuff on a wet rock. Conceptually, it's astounding. But so
>far, it doesn't work that well. There's too many UI holes, issues, etc.
>There's too little evidence of making the app fit the user or user
>environment, rather than the other way around. It's really bad if you're an
>experienced Netscape user. Then *nothing* works right.
Then raise some bugs, or vote for the ones you care more for. But if you
raise them make sure you raise the right ones, if they are Mozilla UI bugs
then raise them on Bugzilla, but if they are Netscape 6 bugs raise them on
that.
> > 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.
>
>Oh no fooling. But the problem here is the communication going out to the
>world is one of "This is a 1.0 product, standards compliance, it's hard, we
>had a hard time." Someone, anyone needs to say, (and since netscape and
>mozilla are such siamese twins, one statement would work for both. BTW-
>Mozilla would be well served to start getting more email addresses that
>aren't *@netscape.com), "We screwed up. This is not a stable product. This
>is not feature complete. We're sorry. And we are going to bust ass to fix
>it." That statement, in a press release, from Netscape would be the most
>amazing balm for everyone who is pissed off at Netscape and Mozilla.
And there are more and more moves to separate Netscape and mozilla.org, the
reorganisation of the newsgroups being only one of them. I think if I were
in a position to make such a statement I'd probably try and clarify that
Netscape 6 is a new start, and like all new starts sometimes not all the
buttons are done up properly but here's the direction we're moving in and
we believe its worth you making the journey with us, but if you need to do
x, y and z, then for right now Netscape 6 isn't for you.
But, again, no one here can do anything but nod about that. Its the wrong
forum.
>Why this would be cool would be because *then* Netscape and Mozilla could
>point to the latest build and say "Look, here is the latest verison: We
>fixed this bug, and that bug there, and over here, another bug fixed. This
>is what open source is allowing us to do. We're a few builds away from
>fixing these bugs. Download it and see". It would be a PR extravanganza, and
>it would *work* because it's HONEST.
I'm not sure about that. There is still considerable uncertainty about
stability on a fast changing product. I've wanted less feature adding for
a while and I'd have gone without LDAP as well at this point.
>Two examples: Originally, the iMac was only going to have a 33.6K modem.
>There were some technical reasons, mostly because of V.90 issues at the
>time. But people howled. They ranted. And instead of getting all "We know,
>now leave us alone", Apple did really an astounding thing. They said,
>"You're right. A 33.6k modem is not good enough. It gets a 56k modem." From
>an arrogant-assed company like Apple this was AMAZING. Same thing with
>AppleShareIP 6.3. They were going to charge for it. And we screamed bloody
>murder, and not nicely, and we didn't stop. And you know what? Phil Schiller
>gets on the ASIP list and *apologizes*, and says, If you already have 6.2,
>it's free. Heck, if you have 6.0, it's free. We were wrong."
Umm, I have no idea, but was a 56k modem shipped but without V90
drivers? That's the kind of manufacturing decision that gets made all the
time. I've always favoured being relatively honest with distributors
(relatively because sometimes the truth would just get the corporation into
trouble with third parties), its not a new thing. Again, its a Netscape
issue, not a mozilla.org one, I think mozilla.org has been brutally honest
with itself and anyone that cares to get involved.
> >> 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'.
>
>Well, it was a reasonable assumption to make. If it wasn't going to be
>there, then why even bother with a place holder in the second level of a
>hierarchal menu? And no, I didn't tell anyone to try it. And it wasn't until
>the PR3 level releases that it went away. And at least PR3 did a one -time
>suck of my LDAP entries. Now, neither version does that.
Well that's the nature of developing right out in public. If this was a
regular development cycle you wouldn't have seen much before PR3 at
all. If mozilla.org was into traditional release cycles (and its now
trying to), then we'd be at about Beta 1 now. Is a lesson from this that
you can't rely on Open Source releases to be consistent in marketing
terms? Probably so at the moment. I've had to make three or four rewrites
since February because of changes. Is that frustrating? Damn right. Is
it better now than it was? Damn right.
> >> 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.
> >
>
>Because the ones who deal with non-technical types aren't arguing standards.
>They know that non-techies don't care. So far, I've not seen a lot of
>evidence from Netscape or Mozilla, although Mozilla seems to have more of a
>clue, that this is a pertinent fact.
Ummm, I deal with all ends of the spectrum, I imagine many do. You have to
tune the message to the audience. mozilla.org doesn't have much of a face
for end users, that's not its raison d'etre . The various distributors of
mozilla.org's product are to all intents and purposes the face for end
users. There are some, I'd count myself one of them, that believe that
mozilla.org needs an end user face but it needs volunteers in exactly the
same way as the rest of the process.
Simon
