Joel Thorson wrote:
>
> Flame wars are BOOOORRRRING...
>
> cat "Re: Happy 3rd Birthday Mozilla :-)" > /dev/null
>
So are fake Unix shell cat's to /dev/null, but you don't see me bitching
about it.
Oh wait... ;-)
> "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.
> >
