Carlfish wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:23:37 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> somehow managed to type:
>
> >Well, could you then clarify what this place _is_ right for? Is it
> >maybe for postings *praising* such things as it taking over a year to
> >get a minimize button on the download dialog?
>
> This is, of course, one of the blatant displays of pig-ignorance that
> makes your posts so amusing.
"Pig-straight-talk", maybe. "Pig-asking-the-tough-questions", I'll
accept that.
But why don't you take a shot at answering my Pig-question: What is this
pig-newsgroup for? Embarrasing "Mozilla rulez" pig-drooling? Or
discussion of Mozilla, good, bad, and/or pig-ugly? Or perhaps something
completely pig-diffierent?
> It's not like there was someone sitting
> around for a year saying "I could be fixing the download dialog, but
> instead I'm going to twiddle my thumbs, and make interesting sculptures
> from paperclips."
>
No Mr. Fish, that's pretty much exactly what the deal was there: "I
could have made this a non-issue, but instead I'm gonna reinvent every
wheel I come across along the way, and 'solve' problems that others had
solved before I was even born."
> Fixing the bug was a non-trivial change,
That's not what I gathered from the discussion in Bugzilla. Several
pig-developers made pig-statements to the effect that this was in fact a
pig-simple fix and should be implemented posthaste. My naivete now
reduced, I realize that 'posthaste' in the Mozilla world means about a
year per bit flipped.
> because it involved the creation
> of a new class of window (transient, but minimizable) that did not exist.
Again, from what I gather, basically a new #define and a few lines of
code. But perhaps I didn't follow the discussion in Bugzilla closely
enough; can you expound on why this was so pig-difficult?
> Netscape decided that their resources were better spent elsewhere, because
> it was a lot of work to just prevent a minor inconvenience, and other
> things were more important.
Such as... what? Oh that's right, reinventing the tree control.
> Anybody _not_ on Netscape's payroll could have
> submitted a patch earlier than that, but it seems it wasn't that important
> to anyone else, either.
>
Or maybe they didn't want to work for AOL for free.
> In the end, when those more important things were out of the way, it was
> fixed.
>
There are many 'more important' things that are not yet out of the way,
completely blowing away your pig-scenario: Memory hoggage is as bad as
ever, still takes *way* too long to start, the email/newsreader is
nowhere near usable, etc etc etc etc.
> To put the three years of Mozilla development in perspective, look at the
> competition. Internet Explorer was released in August 1995. This means
> that current versions of IE are the product of six years of
> development.
Who's comparing Mozilla to anything current? Compare Mozilla at 3+ to
Nav/Communicator at 3. Who wins? Nav/Communicator. And don't even try
that with IE, it could be terminally embarrassing!
> In half that time (less if you take into consideration the
> fruitless attempt to maintain the original Netscape Communicator
> codebase), Mozilla has produced a browser that supports w3c standards
> better,
Slowly, when it's not crashing, and if you have the patience and memory
to use it in the first place.
> and runs on vastly more platforms.
>
Vastly more platforms? Windows hits 90%+ of the systems in service,
that's an undisputable fact. Newsflash folks: that means that 90%+ of
your potential market doesn't give a damn if you run on IRIX or the
Amiga or the C-64.
> Bravo.
>
Touche. But you forgot the most important part: it's "skinnable".
There are literally dozens of folks who demand that feature.
> Charles Miller
