(ops, that laid still in my Drafts folder.)
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben
>Bucksch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> mozilla.org policy has always been "developers only".
>
> I don't particularly like "If you aren't a devoloper, don't use our
> software." attitude. However, I do understand the policy that
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> doesn't want to offer end user support.
>
> Telling end users to not use Mozilla and not giving end user support are
> two different things. In the latter case providing a forum for
> user-to-user support doesn't mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would
>have to act as
> support persons.
As I pointed out, just dropping builds on a server and announcing them
on the homepage is enough, even if you ignore the direct tech support.
Website, defaults (which aren't all in the prefs panel), packaging (my
Linux builds are only 7.7 MB incl. PSM) etc. all have to be adjusted to
users.
IMO, the current situation doesn't help anybody. I know, I am biased at
this topic. But the current situation, as it represents itself to me, is
as following (in addition to the above):
* Users get a poor service (see also above)
* Builds targetted at developers
* Useless (for them) website
* We get poor bug reports
And I don't think, this will improve, if we give them more current
builds - they are just too lazy (which is completely OK) to read
release notes, try something out, search for bugs etc..
* Users asking questions on the dev newsgroups
They annoy developers and then either they
* are ignored
* are redirected
* get an answer, which again annoys other developers
You are trying to fix the the third problem only.
The first one is just as important (IMO even more important), and you
won't be able to fix it without a complete change at mozilla.org.
As for the second problem, I guess, UNCONFIRMED helped a lot, but what
do you do with comments? I don't think, you will be able to fix that at
all, unless you restrict commenting, which will, as you pointed out
correctly, also keep out clueful users. I think, in this case, a social
solution works best - just discourage users from using Mozilla, and they
won't end up at our newsgroups or in bugzilla. (Unless they think
Mozilla = Netscape, of course.) Clueful users that also care will end up
at mozilla.org anyway (at least, because I redirect them there).
If mozilla.org went towards end-users, it could create "two worlds" - a
*complete* newsgroup hierarchy (includind .mail-news etc., so the
"searchers" end up there)
>> We need to stick to one policy - either Mozilla is for users, and we
>> adjust the website and the binaries etc. accordingly, or it isn't,
>> and then, the hierarchy is wrong here.
>
> Mozilla is already being developed with end users in mind.
Why does the tarball then contain 3 MB of test binaries? Why is the
"homepage" of mozilla0.6 the same as the release notes? Why do we have
[insert some feature only Netscape needs] enabled in Mozilla builds? I
am sure, I could go on, if I gathered more data.
> For example,
> localizations are inherently for end users and not for developers.
No, localizations are code, just like any other code is. They are not
more or less for developer or user then the rest of Mozilla is.
> Do people localize Mozilla only because they want to make it easier for
> others to repackage Mozilla or do people localize Mozilla in order to
> help English-challenged *Mozilla* end users in their own language with
> facilitating repackaging only being a side effect?
I don't know about their intensions. I can only speak about myself. I
did work on Mozilla, because
* it has a garanteed distribution (by Netscape) to a very wide
audience. It is just cool to visit your friend and see your
software running or see your product on TV.
*and*
* it is open-source, so there will be an open-source version for
users, which will most likely "do things right", so I am helping a
good cause.
However, I did know about mozilla.org's policy re end-users, so I hoped
that somebody would fill this gap (the second reason).
To answer your question: If I were a localizer, the first case you
mentioned were true, because I *know* that Mozilla is not for users.
I.e. the second one would only make sense, if you believed that
mozilla.org's policy were bogus.
