At 12:54 09/12/2000 +0100, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>
>>is it a Good Thing to be tied to Netscape IS in this way still? Are
>>there no open alternatives?
>
>No, there aren't, too my knowledge.
>
>If you thought of Sourceforge: they are loosers IMO. The software is
>inferior (have you seen the bug database and other apps? A joke!) and the
>servers have such a bad network connection that it is hardly believable. I
>have seen people complaining that they were unable to download their own
>automated builds for over a week, since the connection always dropped.
>Mailinglist posts often are distributed only hours later. I don't know why
>all that many developer are willing to accept that. I'd rather pay a small
>fee to work in Mozilla than accept that.
I thought of them for about 10 seconds and discarded them for the same reasons
>The best solution IMO would be to make mozilla.org's IT independant from
>Netscape's, but still paid by Netscape. That doesn't necessarily have to
>cost more. Mozilla needs custom solutions anyway (see bug 58300 for an
>example).
Ummm I imagine whatever budget there is in IS for mozilla.org is tiny, if
it exists at all, and given the way departments like to have structure it
probably would cost more.
Simon
