JTK wrote:
> <snip2>
> [snip]
>
> > Moz's Mail/News
> > compares very favorably to Outlook Express, I think. Though, admittedly, I
> > rarely use Outlook Express (Netscape 4.7x at work, KMail at home). Can you
> > change your e-mail identity while composing a message in Outlook Express?
> > That's a feature of Moz that I think is great. I also like the layout of
> > the accounts and the account preferences dialogs. Yes, they need polish,
> > but a good framework is there.
>
> I don't use OE's email at all, so I can't comment much on that. I use
> its newsreader only rarely, and overall it is not as good as
> Comm4.7x's. And I agree, the "on-the-fly" identity switching is great.
> Now if the reinvented tree control could draw its lines straight....
>
> > I wish the developers would see the need for
> > Return Receipts handling, but I suspect that to become a 1.x feature if it
> > ever becomes a feature. Such is open source, I guess. Features that the
> > developers want get in first.
> >
>
> Are they "resisting" this? Why? What possible rationale would they
> have?
>
This return receipt bug has been around awhile:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16241
This is the one I submitted:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
It appears that these bugs are remaining largely ignored. Check this
link
to a thread I participated in (from the news archives on google)for a
half-assed explanation of why:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=receipts&hl=en&lr=&group=netscape.public.mozilla.mail-news&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=MBXr6.179040%24B6.39794283%40news1.rdc1.md.home.com
> > I've gotta say, though, that I've enjoyed reading your many posts recently.
>
> <blush> Well thanks; that makes one! ;-)
>
There are a lot of things I enjoy that can make other people vomit...
> > You make a lot of valid points, interspersed between the trollishness of
> > your posts. I think it does serve it's purpose. Indeed you are correct in
> > your squeeky wheel getting the greese. But, oftentimes, the damn wheel gets
> > discarded if it squeeks incessantly.
> >
>
> A not-invalid point. Here's another one though, one which I like
> better:
>
> "Weasel words from mollycoddles will never do when the day demands
> prophetic clarity from great hearts." -- Theodore Roosevelt
>
> I just don't think there's a "weasel-word" way to say, "you use twice
> the memory of your predecessor, yet you're only displaying a blank
> page", or "I've seen this same mistake a dozen times, why are you
> repeating it?"
>
> > You seem to have a very negative outlook on Moz that I don't share
> > (at least as it's protrayed in your posts -- are you REALLY as sour on Moz
> > as your posts indicate?).
>
> I do have a very negative... Outlook... (<@:^)) on Mozilla, for reasons
> I hope I've made clear: after three years of work, all that the masses
> can download is something that looks worse than Comm4.7x, uses ***way***
> more resources, and simply doesn't work as well.
>
I've only been following Moz for about a year and a half (or is it 2 --
when was M14,
anyway). It has made incredible strides towards usability from that
Milestone. Maybe you're following too close. Pull a nightly once a month
and you can really see progress.
> > While I am disappointed in the speed at which
> > they're progressing to 1.0 to say they're not making progress is simply
> > wrong.
>
> I have never meant to imply that "progress towards 1.0" is not
> happening. It is. "1.0" will be painted on the side at some future
> date, that's clear. My point is that underneath that "1.0" paint will
> be an unusable piece of software that nobody but the most religious will
> use in preference to Comm4.7x or IE. After three-plus years of work
> (and untold man-years), I think that's a shame.
>
> > Obviously, since you're following the project, and downloading
> > nightlies, you think it's progressing, too.
>
> Again, there's motion. It's wriggling. I don't consider it "progress",
> not toward the stated goal of a usable product, and not toward the
> stated goal of a "platform".
>
> > To judge it's impact on usage
> > statistics is short-sighted. Moz is nowhere near ready for general use
> > (yeah yeah -- three years SHOULD be plenty of time to build a browser...),
> > as either Mozilla or Netscape 6 (an abomination, AOL at it's best/worst).
> > But, I believe there are plenty of people waitng on Moz 1.0, and the next
> > Netscape release (6.1, 6.5, 7.0, whatever they'll call it). I think
> > Mozilla WILL have a real impact. (ah... maybeI 'm a religious fanatic,
> > too...).
> >
>
> Do you honestly think people will drop their Comm4.7x's and IE 6.0's for
> Mozilla, when that "1.0" paint finally arrives? I don't, because I
> cannot imagine Mozilla getting fixed enough to compete with either in
> any realistic timeframe.
>
Well... not if it's 1.0 "paint". But, the groups addition of 0.9.x
release points to the roadmap seems to indicate that 1.0 will actually
be a 1.0 release. That really happening (the 1.0 release being "real"
instead of "paint"ed), depends on how much influence AOL has on the
releases of Mozilla. I suspect that Moz has enough of a life of it's own
to hold back any AOL/Netscape pressure to release a 1.0 product when
it's not ready. So, it is my opinion that, when Moz releases 1.0, you
will see movement from NC4.7x to Moz and most probably from IE 6.0. If
not to Moz itself, then to Netscape, Beonex, NeoPlanet, AOL proper,
and others.
BTW, I consider a "real" impact to be at least 1/3 of the browser
market. There is no need for Moz-based browsers to get the majority of
the market share in order to make a real impact. Maybe it won't happen,
but I think it will. (I also think that Linux on the desktop will
happen, so there goes my credibility)
<snip2 too>
> > I suspect, though, that you'll pass me off as just another Moz evangelist
> > (maybe I am),
>
> Not at all! It seems to me that you've got a good, balanced view of the
> current state of Mozilla. If I'm going to "pass you off" at all, it
> would be for suffering from the same "well, it'll get better" wishful
> thinking that I suffered from for too long.
>
> > but I think it's progressing nicely and I'm looking forward
> > to it one day becoming a great product.
> >
>
> Friend, we both look forward to that day. I just see no evidence that
> that day will ever come.
I do.
Regards,
Tim
