Well, for a person who calls herself Mama Cass Elliot and risks all
credibility by doing so, you're pretty smart. What you say is absolutely
right and very insightful.
You have my respect, and I'm a hard marker.
seeya - wouldn't wanna be ya (that also kind of puts credibility into question, but
what the hell, smart is smart.)
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
> In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Daniel Veditz say these
> wise words:
>
>>>>> Window loading and startup. I recommend marking this WONTFIX.
>>>>
>
> Sheesh! If there's a bug, you should fix it! The only question is "When
> to fix?"
>
>
>>> A much bigger problem for me than sheer speed or size is the fact that
>>> if there is a bug crash in one window, all the other windows are lost as
>>> well. It would be a huge productivity saver to be able to run multiple
>>> mozilla windows as multiple independent programs.
>>
>> Not a good idea until we get our memory footprint down to something
>> reasonable. When that's solved it's worth thinking about, but there are a
>> lot of file contention issues that would have to be resolved.
>
>
> Then resolve them! Wouldn't that make Mozilla all the more reliable?
>
>
> The better idea is to FIX ALL THE BUGS so that Nothing in Mozilla itself
> will cause a crash. That, coupled with rock bottom memory usage and no
> leakage, will produce award winning/Micro$oft slaughtering software that
> people will prefer to use over all other.
>
> Some people call Mozilla a "platform." Well, a platform needs to be stable
> and secure before people will stand on it.
>
> After all, who hears complaints of, for example, Photoshop crashing? - you
> don't, because they release software that doesn't crash easily. In all the
> years of using Photoshop, I've only ever had it crash on me once - way back
> in early version 4. Likewise with Pro-tools and Cakewalk and Finale.
> Mozilla should be the same.
>
> Netscape on the other hand... I've had days, using 4.x when I'd be having
> to make one change and save, another change and save... because It simply
> couldn't be relied upon to stay working. :o( Thankfully 4.76 is a wee bit
> more reliable than that!
>
>
> IMHO, The attitude for Mozilla needs to be... "we design and release bug
> free software."
>
> All the above seems to be pure common sense to me, and I'd expect that,
> once M1.0 is reached, the focus, IMHO, should be on the elimination of all
> remaining bugs - big and small - before adding new features. Anything less
> than this goal and Mozilla'd be no different from Micro$oft.
>
>
> seeya - wouldn't wanna be ya.
>
> Mama Cass
>
