<delenda est> On 13/12/2001 at 22:08 Peter Trudelle wrote: <delenda est>
>Asa is entitled to his opinion, as are you; I'm keeping mine. I >interpret mozilla.org's position as being that the purpose they release >binaries for (i.e., their motivation) is testing, not that they restrict >usage to testing as you seem to imply. I think their disclaimer is made >simply to discourage naive users who might expect packaging, >distribution, support, etc., none of which Mozilla.org is currently in a >position to supply. This is all nit-picking on my main point though, >which is that 90% or more of what we build as mozilla is what end users >of most distributions experience, so we are building these apps for end >users. To the extent we ignore this, we make distribution more >difficult, and thus restrict mozilla's reach. IMO, we should be >building mozilla as the blindingly fast, small and stable core browser >anyone would want, not narrowly targetted at a tiny geek market, as some >mozillians would seem to prefer. As mozilla.org doesn't really have product management in the sense that AOL or any other software publisher has it isn't in any position to define a product. This has been a problem from day one. Some module owners try and put some product management in but as its just one module and not a product it has little impact. There is no overall vision, no sense of an actual goal only milestones on a road to perfection. The times that progress is manhandled into some semblance of order is when a Netscape distribution is due to be cut, in between its a confusing morass of opinion. Mozilla is not a product it is a research lab, sometimes interesting things happen but it will never be a product. Simon > >Peter
