DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Blake Ross wrote:
> >
> >>>Yeah, pretty much: "You work on the stuff we don't want to, we'll take
> >>>it and bundle it with a bunch of stuff that's proprietary, and you get
> >>>nada. So long, sucker!"
> >>>
> >>Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>
> >
> > I know all too well of what I speak.
>
> Not really. Actually, I'm quite amazed that you managed to double click
> an icon and write this message.
>
I use the single-click, "web-style" interface. A little more accessible
that way.
> >
> >
> >> Netscape is the largest
> >>contributor to Mozilla. "You work on the stuff we don't want to"
> >>doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No it doesn't, that's why it didn't really work out as Netscape had
> > planned, and why they're ending up having to do most of the work
> > themselves.
>
> O...k... I don't know where to start with this one.
There's a shock.
[snip]
> >>we generally try to keep Mozilla non-commercialized where
> >>possible.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Heheheyeah. What's commercial about hooking up to a web email service
> > any moreso than to a POP3 one?
>
> POP3 is not owned by any one person or company.
Neither is HTTP.
> POP3 servers are
> typically paid for by the user paying their ISP bill, or paying for the
> mailbox in some way. Web email, on the other hand, is paid for by
> banner ads, mostly.
Yep. Sure be nice if some "Open" mail/newsreader wouldn't be so afraid
to "innovate" and came up with a way to interface to these systems and
bypass all those godforsaken banner ads.
> Hotmail probably makes more on selling their user
> lists than banner ads, but they are an exception. If someone writes a
> client that can take someone's mail from a web service and bypass their
> revenue stream, they don't like or allow it.
>
How are they going to know, and if they even do, how are they going to
stop it?
> >>>Do you really think AOL is going
> >>>to give their official Politburo stamp of approval on such
> >>>anti-AOL's-bottom-line functionality?
> >>>
> >>It really doesn't matter, it'd be up to mozilla.org...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And who's running mozilla.org?
>
> It ain't Netscape corp or AOL
>
WHO'S RUNNING MOZILLA.ORG? DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION, ANSWER THE
QUESTION!
> >>>Yep. Because it ain't 100% "Open". It's
> >>>whatever-AOL-decides-to-let-the-suckers-work-on-% "Open".
> >>>
> >>That's not true at all; you're making broad statements without providing
> >>any support. Contributors to Mozilla can work on whatever they want.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps an AIM-compatible IM client? Yeah, didn't think so.
>
<apologist_mode>
> AIM uses a proprietary standard for communications. No one other than
> AOL is allowed to use it to connect with AIM users if AOL doesn't want
> them to. Not Mozilla's open source equivilant, not Microsoft, no one.
<\apologist_mode>
