Ben Bucksch wrote: > 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".
I don't believe that disclaimer means that the apps are just there to test the platform; it is designed to let people know that there is no support for them. >> 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 wishes were horses... Distributors do relatively little to mozilla beyond removing the debug menus, and perhaps substituting their icons. Some may add or remove a few features, but what reaches the end user is largely Mozilla. If we start to treat the apps as just test harnesses for a platform, we make it harder for distributors to get Mozilla into wide use. > 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). It does distribute software in binary form to end users, that is why the releases are public. It just isn't prepared to support those users. The same, or very similar, binaries are also distributed by RedHat People often invoke the 'not for end users' as reasons to make UI targetted at techies. It sounds like we are more in agreement than I at first thought. > 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. There just isn't that much of a difference. If there were more divergence in the core UI, Netscape would be forced to fork the code, and both versions would greatly suffer. > (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.) Competition unhealthy? I think not! > 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> Good, thank you! I don't think there is a real conflict with Netscape, but it would be cool if some of these other mozilla-based browsers made us try harder.. Let a hundred browsers bloom... Peter
