Flame wars are BOOOORRRRING...
cat "Re: Happy 3rd Birthday Mozilla :-)" > /dev/null
"JTK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > PS I suppose you'll come up with some conspiracy theory like "Netscape
> > always wanted to make it skinnable, but they were deciding that in some
> > private discussions that they didn't publicise until later". But why
> > would they keep it hidden? They were perfectly capable of providing
> > skinnability as soon as the interpreted UI was in place, but they
> > didn't.
>
> So you're saying that there was at one point an interpreted GUI that
> *didn't* support skinnability?!?
>
> > They waited until beta 1 came out and everyone said "God this is
> > so ugly" (which everyone on the newsgroups here had been saying for 3
> > months already) to realize that skinnability had to be a design goal.
>
> Point I've been trying to make #1: Skinnability was indeed a design
> goal.
>
> > This sounds to me like management *incompetence*, not a conspiracy.
>
> Point I've been trying to make #2.
>
