Round One... ... Fight!
> What do they gain out of *any* of Mozilla? It's a complete and utter > failure after, what, five *years* of work, the laughingstock of the > computing world, and yet they still drag the dead carcass along. And > then to top it off they slap a commie star on it apparently as some sort > of sick joke. What do you gain out posting to Netscape.Public.Mozilla? I don't know what they gain out of it. I know what I gain out of it - a standards-compliant, fast, useable web-browser and email client. I must ask - what computer hardware and software are you using? Under [insert unix clone here], or Mac OS 9, or Windows 2000, I know that Mozilla works, and works well. I primarily use G4 450 PPC, and under OS 9 or X, it works. Fast. > In all seriousness, somebody answer me this: other than crash-wise, > which I'll grant you is much improved, is today's Mozilla *any* > different than it was at Netscape 6.0-time? Speed. N6 took ten, twenty seconds to even start. Mozilla 0.9.6 takes two. Maybe three. Standards compliance improved, blah, blah. Interface is a little better. A little. > I notice no significant difference. Then open your eyes. > The mail composer is still an unusable joke, without even > *NOTEPAD* quality editing features (PLEASE somebody "challenge" me on > that one). No. I don't even understand what you're saying there. Make a coherent statement if you want me to refute it. > The "cache" does nothing more than serve up week-old > "news". No-one else has seen this problem (or have they?). It could be your network cache, it which case it's beyond mozilla.org's power to fix your problem. > The XUL is just as slow. Computers only get faster. Making an application which only runs on today's high-end machines makes sense to me, because today's high-end machines are next year's quaint curiousities. And the XUL is much, much faster than in N6. > The 1.0 performance release criteria > that Hixie, Jesus X, myself, and even Gervase Markham worked on > (summary: 1.0 must be at least HALF AS SLOW as either IE OR Netscape, > whichever is SLOWER) have been thrown in the shitter Um. For me, Mozilla is already satisfying that for startup (I think), and everything else except new page open. > The... ah why the hell > do I bother, nobody here cares enough about this project to put it to > sleep, let alone make it good. Yet some people here do care about this project enough to download test binaries daily, file bugs, checkin code every day, post to a newsgroup on the subject of, of all things, a web browser.... you have an untenable position, there. The fact that you posted "nobody cares" on a newsgroup suggests you think some-one will respond, and why would someone respond, if they didn't care? > Makes me ill. What a shame that would be. In closing - if you don't like the way Mozilla works on your hardware configuraion, either upgrade, or use Opera, because Mozilla is into functionality, flexibitly, portabilty and all those other things that need a "high end" machine (not that my power mac G4 cube is a high end machine anymore. When I bought it, last year, it was. Today, it's a doorstop. But even so, it can run Mozilla fast). If you don't like functionality, flexibitly, or portabilty, then find another browser. Bye.
