JTK wrote:
> Wh...?!?!? Do you know what an MBA even *is*? It has nothing
> whatsoever to do with software.
I know. Neither does a Minor is business whatever (you didn't specify what
exactly your minor was). My point was to illustrate that your minor in business
had no bearing on your technical understanding of Mozilla, and that even someone
more learned in business than you would still have no more technical
understanding.
> If you don't make a profit, you only stay in operation so long as you
> can sucker idiots into investing in your operation. And that cannot be
> done indefinitely. Hence, asymptotically, no profit == no business.
Yes, but the length of time before that asymptote actually achieves zero (and
thus, the business closes it's doors) varies greatly.
Furthermore, zero profit != no business in all cases. Amazon, while not yet
making a profit, is slowly approaching profitability, and they are currently
taking steps to speed up their time to profitability, having already achieved
their first goal of getting big and well known fast.
> > No, I said Redhat is not currently profitable.
> So I made no misstatements then. So in fact it is you that is the
> liar. Again.
Incorrect on two counts. One, in no way does YOU not saying something make ME a
liar. Two, you intimated that Redhat was indeed profitable by stating that they
have been in business for a long time. I refuted that by saying profit and
business operations are always interchangeable.
> > I do not know how they did in the
> > beginning, but since the IPO, they have yet to make a profit. Amazon.com has
> > never made a profit.
> Indeed. One wonders why their name is coming up in this conversation.
Further proof of the above statement I made.
> Can you find me complainig about Mathuzilla's download size? No? Then
> why are you claiming that I ever made any such complaints?
You complain of bloat. Filesize is one factor of bloat. Thus, you complained
about it's size.
> > K-M does not use everything in Mozilla except the UI. It's just the renderer
> > in another app.
> Right - it's Mozilla with a native UI.
No, it's Gecko with a new and native UI, OS communications layer, DDE
connections, networking layer, modified rendering pipeline, DOM interface,
scripting engine, plugin API, etc. That's a major set of differences. The only
way to truly measure how XUL affects the programs speed is to use debug modes
where you can track individual thread instruction execution. Stopwatches and
visual comparison is not good enough.
> > This does not constitute proof.
> The numbers I ran did. They were not well recieved by the Politburo.
Because they were flawed. Flawed data, no matter how detailed, is still flawed.
> Rabbi, you truly are the King of Kings of Bad Similies.
I have asked you before, please do not call me rabbi. The joke isn't funny, and
I don't appreciate it. I think you can at least manage to remain civil, correct?
> > Because the statement is neither correct, nor proven to be so.
> It is correct, I proved it, and caught nothing but flack for my
> yet-to-be-disproven numbers. In fact recently someone else has posted
> similar results, in a pretty embarrasing attempt to *disprove* them!
Your results are flawed. K-Meleon cannot be directly compared to Mozilla to
measure the impact of a Native versus integrated UI. Your control reference
boils down to only Gecko, which is not enough, since you'll need to have
identical backends, with only the UI being different. This is simple
experimental procedure.
> And those statements stand. Like I said, nitpicky crappola like "I use
> it! I'm one person! That means you lied!" need not apply.
You say they need not apply, I say they are not needed to prove you wrong. Even
the Gartner Group, with it's method of measure the number of boxes SHIPPED with
Linux pre-installed showed almost 8% penetration. When you add in units shipped
with no OS or another OS where Linux was added after, you get into the 24% range
as far as servers go. Embedded devices see Windows as a small minority, with
Linux beating MS embedded OSes 2 to 1. Desktop penetration is about 7 to 8
percent as well. That's more than the Mac, which hardly equates to "no one".
> > And please do not call be rabbi.
> Jesus was a rabbi, what's your beef? You know what the word means,
> don't you? I mean you've taken all those Hebrew classes in addition to
> the econ classes, right?
No. I'm Roman Catholic. I haven't spent ten seconds in any form of Hebrew study.
And while I know what rabbi means, I am still not one.
> But is it more childish for me to call you rabbi, or you to call
> yourself Jesus? Unless of course your name is actually Jesus....
I do not call my self Jesus, it's jesus X, for a number of reasons irrelevant to
my request.
> Of course it is. You don't know the first thing about economics, even
> after having lied about taking an econ class, so you can't possibly know
> what I'm talking about.
You COULD answer the question. What's YOUR definition of the terms variable and
static cost?
> > I have done so on many occasions, including in this and the previous post.
> Not yet you haven't, unless you're using Maozilla's "Invisible Ink"
> mode.
If you really don't know, then reread my last 3 posts in this thread to you.
They are filled with factual rebuttals to your assertions.
> > > Disregarding that, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and now lying
> > > about it. I think that if I indeed am 'registering your disagreement as
> > > ignorance', I am being rather magnanamous.
> >
> > So, because I disagree with you, I am now lying. Incredible.
> >
>
> No, you're disagreeing with me, and you're also lying that you took an
> econ class when you clearly know not the first thing about economics.
When I was in high school, I had a lab partner one year in Chemistry who knew
nothing about science. She was an air head. She didn't learn a thing that year,
but she still was in the class. I can't count to ten in Spanish, but I still
took 24 weeks of it in high school. I can't count to 6 in french, but I took 24
weeks of that too. Even if it were true that I do not know "the first thing"
about economics (which is untrue, BTW), it still does not mean I am lying about
taking a class.
> > How does disagreement with you make someone ignorant?
> Because I partake of the truth. I see with unclouded eyes, hear with
> unstopped ears. To deny me is to deny the truth, hence be ignorant of
> it.
But what you say is not the truth. And on matters of opinion, there is no truth,
hence it is impossible to be right or wrong, much less ignorant.
> > More than I could recall, and in a number of languages.
> Alright then, sounds like we're on pretty even technical footing as far
> as evaluating Maozilla. Again, assuming you're telling the truth.
I have no impetus to lie to you, much less about programming. When I was in 9th
grade, I was fortunate enough to work on an extracurricular computer programming
project called The Supercomputing Project. For this project, our goal was to
measure the heat loss for a statistically significant sample of our community,
collate this data, and write a program for a Cray Y90 to crunch the data to give
us a set of analytical results. The school district had a boatload of old Apple
II computers from it's recent overhaul of the computer labs in the district, so
we converted them into data collection terminals to be placed in 1,100 homes. We
in the project had to make 1,100 thermistors for the serial ports on the
machines. I had to learn Apple Basic to get the Apple II's to collect and record
the temperature data. We had to write a program on a 486 to collate the data
into a monolithic datafile, sorted by date and time. We chose C for this, as we
were all already familiar with it. Then we had to learn Fortran 79 because that
was the requirement for the program to be run on the Cray. We wrote about
100,000 lines of Fortran code, and 420MB of temperature data from a 4 month
period, which was all crunched by the Cray in 3/100 of a second. That was fun,
personally.
A couple friends and I rigged a toaster with a control PCB, some servos, a
temperature sensor, and a serial port. We then wrote the interface for the
toaster side of the serial port, and the PC side, and called it ToastTerm. We
made it a door program for a BBS so that users who were dialed in could make
toast, selecting the darkness of toast they desired. It was really fun until
some asshole found a bug that would override the safety time limit, and made the
toaster catch fire.
I've written in Basic, PowerBasic (back in the DOS days), C (creating both DOS
and Windows programs), C++ (I like using objects when creating hardware
drivers), Apple Basic, Fortran, Perl, a little Assembler (which is REALLY
freakin' hard, BTW), REXX, JavaScript, Java (which I still have yet to form a
solid opinion on, it's nice, but I don't love it yet), some database languages,
markup languages, etc...
[Mozilla not being Netscape]
> No, how about you tell me why I'm wrong. Should be easy if they're not
> actually hand-in-glove, right? A simple counterexample would suffice to
> blow my statement out of the water; perhaps some instance where AOL
> really squealed about some particular Maozilla feature impacting their
> bottom-line, but yet it got checked in anyway?
The biggest ones I see is the ability to filter ads and the enhanced Cookie UI.
Personally, as a user, it's a nice idea to be able to block ads and edit
cookies. From a webmaster's perspective it's anywhere from annoying (your cookie
data is being faked) to financially devastating. Imagine if your site were based
upon ad revenue, and no one is viewing your ads. Very bad.
You can block images and cookies on a per site basis (if the image-per-site
isn't checked in yet [which I think it is] it's due by 1.0). No cookies can mean
a significant decrease in demographic data, another soft underbelly of corporate
America.
The entire ability to unzip the Jars and edit the non-compiled components of
NS6.x is dangerous to AOL. It won't be too long before someone hacks it into
Mozilla. You can already check NS webmail through Mozilla if you do a little
editing and the installation if the Netscape Instant Messenger.
> > --
> > jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> > email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> > web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> > tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> > warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
