I think I said that not Daniel. If you want bugs fixed more quickly then fix
some yourself. There is only a limited number of people that can be put on
each bug. They try the best they can.
"Mama Cass Elliot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
>
> --
> For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
