>many users do not change from the defaults.) This is merely a contained
>and sensible response to severely limit that threat.
That's not in dispute. I think it's a good feature. I just think
that the option to disable it should be included.
>stored in a directory called "Profiles" and not one called "Users50". Why
>does it offend your sense of aesthetics?
You might as well ask why I like the music I do, enjoy the food I
do, etc. <grin> You're correct when you say that the very point of
salting is what I object to on a personal level. I don't like
randomness. Or, more precisely, I don't having programs do something
I specifically instruct them not to do. I suppose that I've grown up
in a culture where the computer is the tool, the person the one who
wields it; I tell the computer to print "Hello world!" and it does so,
rather than adding it's own little homily to the statement. ("If I'd
wanted fries with that, I would have asked for them!" <grin>)
>Surely a small Perl script is your friend here?
Yes. I can already think of several ways around my percieved
"problem".
>> One sentiment expressed was that if I wanted things to change, I
>> could pay this person's company to do so.
>You are, of course, referring to Ben Bucksch, the owner of Beonex, whose
I never mentioned any names, you said it not me! <grin> I did not
realise that he owned the company - that makes many things much
clearer.
>in the mainline code. As well as paying the money, you also have to
>convince mozilla.org (or the relevant module owner) that the change is a
Aha! I knew that this had to be the case. I am relieved to hear
that there is this additional step and that the code IS in fact
governed by the consortium as a whole (or, as you say, each aspect by
it's respective owner). I was beginning to think I'd fallen into an
episode of the Twilight Zone - even more unlikely since both series
have long since been cancelled.
>good idea. But, if you are happy with a custom version then yes, that's
>all there is to it. Simple, huh? :-)
I'm used to having to come up with my own personalised solutions to
generic software. This is no "biggie". <grin>
>the behaviour you wanted. If this behaviour is useful to you, this does
>not seem unreasonable.
As much as I might like to see the software do exactly what *I*
want - I have a stronger belief in the "software for all" model. If
I'm in the minority here then I think that Mozilla's current behaviour
should stand. Discussions of capitalism aside, while I'm sure money
can be made on the project - and more power to anybody who takes the
opportunity to make such profit, I firmly believe that what "open
source" SHOULD be is one in which contributions and changes are made
because of personal belief, giving an end result that serves as many
people as possible. Rather than putting a product out there that is
the result of one company's, or one person's, wishes, it is instead
the culmination of everybody's. I find it to be a very healthy
democratic process.
>On the contrary. Mozilla's license was expressly designed so that
>companies such as Beonex, Netscape, Intel, Nokia, Eazel etc. could take
>the code and enhance it, and make money from that. Netscape adds the
>proprietary AOL Instant Messenger. Nokia are doing set-top boxes with
>Gecko. Beonex is concentrating on the corporate market.
Just a quick point (if I can ever claim to make anything like
that): What you're talking about are additions to the base code. What
was relayed to me was that the base code itself could be altered with
the simply application of money in somebody's pocket. Not a specific
instance of the browser, but something that all versions of the
browser would display. It was this, without any qualifications of the
kind you made earlier about having to convince people that it was also
a good thing to do, to which I took exception. (After all, I'd hate
to think that I could simply pay somebody enough money to change the
trademark - lizard, dinosaur? - logo to something less savoury.)
Thank you for your response.
Jason.
