In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because they're public groups. Mozilla is open source...anyone who wants > to can participate in the project. Still, it is misleading to call them public if you don't want non-developers to post. (The php.*, gnu.* etc. newsgroups don't seem to need "public" to indicate that they are accessible by anyone.) > http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt > > Once this change goes through, thw whole debate will be irrelevant > because the purpose of each group (developer, web-developer, end-user, > etc.) will be obvious, and these current groups will go away. > Unfortunately, we're still waiting for this to happen--it's taking an > inordinately long time. Indeed. But the failure to implement the reorg is still the problem and it is not the fault of the well-intentioned end users who typed "*mozilla*" in Googles group search field and got back netscape.public.mozilla.general as the only relevant group. > What does their ISP have to do with anything? If you check the headers of this message, you'll notice that I'm posting using a Finnish server (whose address was in the my ISP's docs). For me the access speed is much better than with news.mozilla.org. > The Mozilla project's product is the Mozilla codebase, which is provided > for distributors to customize and repackage for end-users. The binaries > that Mozilla provides are made available for the purpose of testing and > development (yes, even the 1.0 milestone build). But it's quite counter-productive to fragment the end user discussion by insisting that Netscape users go to one place, Beonex users to another, Debian users to a third, Red Hat users to a fourth, etc. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
