Peter Trudelle wrote: > Mozilla.org is itself a distributor
No. It is a development platform. That's why the download page says "just for testing purposes". > and even other distributors are largely distributing mozilla > applications, relatively intact. I wish they'd instead use Beonex Communicator or run their own. Then we wouldn't have so many user questions on these newsgroups, for example. Having Debug menus in user apps is not exactly nice either and not good for spreading Mozilla(-derivates) far as possible. > If the goal were really just a platform, we would be spending a lot > more effort on test harnesses and a lot less on apps. The statement "Mozilla is for end-users" does *not* mean "Mozilla is just a platform" This is a misinterpretation often seen on .ui. If the latter were true, then .ui, . browser, and this very group (.mail-news) were misplaced at mozilla.org. What is meant with the statement is that Mozilla does not *deal* with end-users. It does not give stuff directly to users, rather is a source reprository for groups like Netscape, Beonex, Galeon etc.. One goal is to make the life of these groups as easy as possible, which does include creating good user apps, like Navigator and Mailnews. And this includes creating a user-friendly UI and documentation. It does not, however, include to answer user questions (esp. the 45th time). The following statements are perfectly in line with my statements above: > http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html , which says " We need > documentation for users...". http://www.mozilla.org/quality/ , which > says "...contribute to placing a fast, stable, and truly > standards-compliant browser and mail/news reader onto the hard disks > of tens of millions of Internet users..." > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/ , which says "This page provides > links to documentation for users of Mozilla and Mozilla-based browsers." > http://www.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface.html , wherein JWZ said "the > goal is to let the user accomplish what they want to accomplish: not > to produce the perfect implementation of a particular protocol." > http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html , which says "Now that that > groundwork has been laid more attention can be paid to other areas > where work is needed, like Mozilla testing by end users ..." > http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html , where Brendan says > '...the world needs a "1.0" from mozilla.org soon...' and " We think > the world will be a better place, with more hands helping to improve > Mozilla, and more people benefiting from distributions of Mozilla..." > http://www.mozilla.org/binaries.html , which shows several end user > products which either incorporate mozilla intact, or use it as the > basis for their products. > a key goal of mozilla1.0 must certainly be no less than to displace > non-mozilla browsers on every possible desktop. They might not all > have the red star ;-), but let's face it, they are all mozilla at heart. But when we say "Mozilla is not for end-users", we mean *only* the Mozilla produced at mozilla.org, i.e. the one with the red star. *Of course*, Netscape 6 (which is "mozilla at heart") is made for end-users. (BTW: I would like to replace MSIE desktops only. I have no intention to compete with Konqueror or Opera or iCab, and I don't think that would be healthy for the web.) Note: It would actually *like* mozilla.org to make binaries for end-users. But I see that this conflicts with Netscape and is thus not wanted by (some) mozilla.org staff. <plug>When I realized that this won't change, I created Beonex for this purpose. See <http://www.beonex.com/communicator/doc/vsmozilla.html>. </plug> Ben Crossposting to .ui (see above for why). Followup to .mail-news again.
